holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:For the record I said, you cant JUST look at the raw data. I didnt say ignore it. Folks reading comprehension needs work as well.

And for the record, I said their STATS are comparable...

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:Oy vey holfresh ... FT's are part of efficiency.

Harden in year 3 had an FG of 49+, shot > 57% from 2, shot about 85 pct from the line. He also shoots lots of 3's that bring down his FG% but who cares, they are worth more points so of course nobody is dumb enough to look at FG anymore.

well ... they are both guards so they are kinda similar SMH

Not that you care because I have disputed all the stats you live by...TS% gives an unfair advantage to free throw shooters because it doesn't take into account shot attempts as one would with FG attempts...It not magic, it's within the formula...So a guy who scored two point at the free throw line will invariably have a higher TS% than a guy who hit a lay up..It's dumb...But for some reason you guys think it magically signifies some one is efficient..Run with it...

Taking a shot and missing becomes efficient if he is rewarding unguarded shots worth the same total points. Jarden doesnt sit around jacking up mid range jumpers, he shoots threes and attacks the rack. Beal is half way there, in no way were they comparable though.

What does that even mean???...The entire concept to me is silly that people advocate you should take threes or attack the rim...U are playing to satisfy a statiostical part of the game and not playing to the rhythm of the action...So I should pass up an open shot after a nice pass where my feet are planted and set in good rhythm to run behind the three to jack up a three because statistically it makes sense to do it that way...Classic..

This is common sense. The simple fact that being a good midrange shooter is rare should already tell you something.

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:Even looking at raw data is deceiving. A player takes 10 free throws. If you didnt watch the game you wouldnt know where throws free throws came from by looking at the box score because raw data might not even show a single field goal taken if they missed all five of them, yet got fouled in the act of shooting.

Boxscores will not show 0-5 from the field...10 points

Is this a joke???...That is exactly what TS% does...

Lol, it's derived from an NBA rule thats been there like forever.

You are totally missing the point...You will see 10-10 free throw attempt in the boxscore..So u know it's from shot attempts and not necessarily 2 pt shots, you could get fouled on a three...In TS%, U get credit for 10 pts on zero shot attempt versus a guy who hits 5 layups...Free throw guy is more efficient...So if you hit more ft, you are more efficient bcause the shot attempt doesn't count against you as a normal shot attempt....

A guy who takes 3 ft will always be more efficient than a guy who hits a 3 pointer...

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:Even looking at raw data is deceiving. A player takes 10 free throws. If you didnt watch the game you wouldnt know where throws free throws came from by looking at the box score because raw data might not even show a single field goal taken if they missed all five of them, yet got fouled in the act of shooting.

Boxscores will not show 0-5 from the field...10 points

Is this a joke???...That is exactly what TS% does...

Lol, it's derived from an NBA rule thats been there like forever.

You are totally missing the point...You will see 10-10 free throw attempt in the boxscore..So u know it's from shot attempts and not necessarily 2 pt shots, you could get fouled on a three...In TS%, U get credit for 10 pts on zero shot attempt versus a guy who hits 5 layups...Free throw guy is more efficient...

So you're saying a player who is 5-5 from the field is less efficient than a player who hits 10 free throws? TS% does not support that, so stop trying.

My old man used to tell me...U can lead a horse to water but u can't make him drink it...

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:Even looking at raw data is deceiving. A player takes 10 free throws. If you didnt watch the game you wouldnt know where throws free throws came from by looking at the box score because raw data might not even show a single field goal taken if they missed all five of them, yet got fouled in the act of shooting.

Boxscores will not show 0-5 from the field...10 points

Is this a joke???...That is exactly what TS% does...

Lol, it's derived from an NBA rule thats been there like forever.

You are totally missing the point...You will see 10-10 free throw attempt in the boxscore..So u know it's from shot attempts and not necessarily 2 pt shots, you could get fouled on a three...In TS%, U get credit for 10 pts on zero shot attempt versus a guy who hits 5 layups...Free throw guy is more efficient...

So you're saying a player who is 5-5 from the field is less efficient than a player who hits 10 free throws? TS% does not support that, so stop trying.

My old man used to tell me...U can lead a horse to water but u can't make him drink it...

Mine told not to argue with a fool because on-lookers eventually wont know the difference. Enjoy your day.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:i am hopeful that the team will be doing so well that a trade of Melo is not a consideration.

I like the way the team is built. I am hoping Afflalo can return to form scoring and defending. I am hopeful that Rolo, Quinn and Seraphin give the D presence the team needs. I am hopeful that Grant is a player. I am hopeful that DWill shows why he was a #2 overall pick.

Most importantly the culture has been changed and that will contribute to wins.

+1
And I am also hopeful that our quality first round Zinger is going to show signs of the great things to come, even as a rook. With zero bozos in the locker room to detract from that growth. And no season ending injuries for anyone on the squad. Except maybe Jose. Bound to happen. We have to have on PG who blows out a knee.

Or maybe even that doesn't happen this year. The basketball 'gods' owe us that much after last seasons tank job.

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:Even looking at raw data is deceiving. A player takes 10 free throws. If you didnt watch the game you wouldnt know where throws free throws came from by looking at the box score because raw data might not even show a single field goal taken if they missed all five of them, yet got fouled in the act of shooting.

Boxscores will not show 0-5 from the field...10 points

Is this a joke???...That is exactly what TS% does...

Lol, it's derived from an NBA rule thats been there like forever.

You are totally missing the point...You will see 10-10 free throw attempt in the boxscore..So u know it's from shot attempts and not necessarily 2 pt shots, you could get fouled on a three...In TS%, U get credit for 10 pts on zero shot attempt versus a guy who hits 5 layups...Free throw guy is more efficient...

So you're saying a player who is 5-5 from the field is less efficient than a player who hits 10 free throws? TS% does not support that, so stop trying.

TS actually does reward a player who goes 10-10 from the FT line more than 10 points on 5 for 5.

FT's are given a bit of a higher value. Its a very very tiny part of TS and can be argued either way though Holfresh chooses to pound his chest with this one since he has very little else to hang his hat on.

A 3 should not have more value than a 2? C'mon ... even holfresh cant say that with a straight face. Beal and Harden are night and day in their stats though if you are from the 1800's than everyone looks the same CAUSE IT WAS SO DAMN DARK!

The TS% of a player that shoots 10/10 from the ft line with no fg is 114..The TS% of player who goes 5-5 from the field two point shots and no ft is 100..The TS% of a player who goes 9/10 ft and no field goals is 102..So a guy shooting 90% form the ft line has a higher TS% than a guy shooting 100%(5-5) from the field on two pt fg..

TS% is 100XPTS/(2*FGA)+.44*FTA is the formula...There are even more issues using .44 as the fg substitution for ft which is not really exact but I don't want to waste my time on this...

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:Even looking at raw data is deceiving. A player takes 10 free throws. If you didnt watch the game you wouldnt know where throws free throws came from by looking at the box score because raw data might not even show a single field goal taken if they missed all five of them, yet got fouled in the act of shooting.

Boxscores will not show 0-5 from the field...10 points

Is this a joke???...That is exactly what TS% does...

Lol, it's derived from an NBA rule thats been there like forever.

You are totally missing the point...You will see 10-10 free throw attempt in the boxscore..So u know it's from shot attempts and not necessarily 2 pt shots, you could get fouled on a three...In TS%, U get credit for 10 pts on zero shot attempt versus a guy who hits 5 layups...Free throw guy is more efficient...

So you're saying a player who is 5-5 from the field is less efficient than a player who hits 10 free throws? TS% does not support that, so stop trying.

TS actually does reward a player who goes 10-10 from the FT line more than 10 points on 5 for 5.

FT's are given a bit of a higher value. Its a very very tiny part of TS and can be argued either way though Holfresh chooses to pound his chest with this one since he has very little else to hang his hat on.

A 3 should not have more value than a 2? C'mon ... even holfresh cant say that with a straight face. Beal and Harden are night and day in their stats though if you are from the 1800's than everyone looks the same CAUSE IT WAS SO DAMN DARK!

The TS% of a player that shoots 10/10 from the ft line with no fg is 114..The TS% of player who goes 5-5 from the field two point shots and no ft is 100..The TS% of a player who goes 9/10 ft and no field goals is 102..So a guy shooting 90% form the ft line has a higher TS% than a guy shooting 100%(5-5) from the field on two pt fg..

TS% is 100XPTS/(2*FGA)+.44*FTA is the formula...There are even more issues using .44 as the fg substitution for ft which is not really exact but I don't want to waste my time on this...

people are gonna argue with any metric.

You however are comfortable with giving equal values to 2's and 3's!! At least there are valid arguments to giving FT's a higher weight but there is no argument to giving 2's and 3's equal weight and certainly no argument to discounting FT's all together.

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:Even looking at raw data is deceiving. A player takes 10 free throws. If you didnt watch the game you wouldnt know where throws free throws came from by looking at the box score because raw data might not even show a single field goal taken if they missed all five of them, yet got fouled in the act of shooting.

Boxscores will not show 0-5 from the field...10 points

Is this a joke???...That is exactly what TS% does...

Lol, it's derived from an NBA rule thats been there like forever.

You are totally missing the point...You will see 10-10 free throw attempt in the boxscore..So u know it's from shot attempts and not necessarily 2 pt shots, you could get fouled on a three...In TS%, U get credit for 10 pts on zero shot attempt versus a guy who hits 5 layups...Free throw guy is more efficient...

So you're saying a player who is 5-5 from the field is less efficient than a player who hits 10 free throws? TS% does not support that, so stop trying.

TS actually does reward a player who goes 10-10 from the FT line more than 10 points on 5 for 5.

FT's are given a bit of a higher value. Its a very very tiny part of TS and can be argued either way though Holfresh chooses to pound his chest with this one since he has very little else to hang his hat on.

A 3 should not have more value than a 2? C'mon ... even holfresh cant say that with a straight face. Beal and Harden are night and day in their stats though if you are from the 1800's than everyone looks the same CAUSE IT WAS SO DAMN DARK!

The TS% of a player that shoots 10/10 from the ft line with no fg is 114..The TS% of player who goes 5-5 from the field two point shots and no ft is 100..The TS% of a player who goes 9/10 ft and no field goals is 102..So a guy shooting 90% form the ft line has a higher TS% than a guy shooting 100%(5-5) from the field on two pt fg..

TS% is 100XPTS/(2*FGA)+.44*FTA is the formula...There are even more issues using .44 as the fg substitution for ft which is not really exact but I don't want to waste my time on this...

people are gonna argue with any metric.

You however are comfortable with giving equal values to 2's and 3's!! At least there are valid arguments to giving FT's a higher weight but there is no argument to giving 2's and 3's equal weight and certainly no argument to discounting FT's all together.

What's this about 3s and 2s??..What are u talking about?..When did I say they should be equal?
And I'm not sure ft is more valuable in every situation because the equations behaves different with fg..I didn't try testing these scenario..I just saw that flaw and think that any flaw renders it useless..

comparing two players FG's? You don't do that?

You found an article that suggests a flaw in TS .... whoopy! Now you feel that you have an argument to render it useless? Of course that can't be true!

There are many good arguments that Beal and Hardens numbers are equal?

I have an idea ... so that you can start moving into the new millennium a bit more slowly, how about starting with eFg?