dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:Can we just acknowledge that there's more to the game than pure efficiency? There are some players who look great cuz they don't initiate or create offense and they aren't the focus of opposing defenses. Teams do need players who can make something out of nothing and still score even against the best defenders in the league.

Melo may force a few shots which lowers his efficiency but that doesn't mean he's not an elite player. We really need to get over this obsession with nitpicking on Melo. We all want to see Melo limit his bad shots but in truth we don't lose because of him taking a few tough shots. There are a ton of other areas we need to improve on this team before we get to Melo.

efficiency is an important part of the modern game. so is defense. he falls short in both categories. and i am sorry but basketball is a game of momentum and bad shots are momentum killers, not to mention deflating to team spirit. his misses are more significant than you claim, and in the playoffs bad shots are basically turnovers. that is a big reason why he has a hard time in the playoffs: he never tightens up his game, his shot selection. and then there's his defense, or lack therein.

when you take a few forced shots in the playoffs you will lose more often than not, especially since games are often decided by fewer than 7 points.

look you can call him an elite player in this league if you want to, but he has not been a winner and that can be laid at his feet with no excuses.

I'm fully aware of efficiency and it's importance but there is more to being able to win games than just having great efficiency stats. At the highest levels defense is tougher and some players aren't able to score agains great D while elite players can score.

Melo is one of those players in the league who can score against tough D. However our problems are deeper than one player. This is why we're getting ready to upgrade the talen on the team and trying to build a team that complements each other better. IMO fixing those issues will decrease the forced shots Melo takes. This is what happened in Denver when he made the WCF's.

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.

too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.

again, whaddaya got?

Why would you ask him for a percentage if you rely on the 'eye test'?

come on man if you're not going to actually read other peoples' posts then you have no business chiming in.

Didn't you write this?

that depends on what you consider efficient when it comes to true shooting percentage-- we already know he is a below average shooter in terms of plain old fg%. what percentage is the beginning of efficiency for TS% in your opinion? mine starts at 57%. that's an efficient level. not 56.5 or less, but 57%. anything at +58% you reach proficiency.

and please don't say that i'm quibbling when speaking of tenths of a percentage point-- those tenths of a point represent significant differences the larger the sample size.

whaddaya got, yellowboy?

he claimed melo was efficient: he isn't.

i asked him for a number: he said it didn't matter and that the nba has a standard-- which he did not provide-- and then claimed that my numbers are not like the nba but just an emotion-charged aggregate to suit my agenda.

i said that according to the eye test he is not efficient and explained why: he hasn't responded.

and now you're caught up, but to summarize: he is not efficient... he falls short by around two percentage points over his entire career, and by a point to 1.5 points as a knick.

since yellowboy did not want to engage in a talk on numbers and resorted to personal insult, i switched the measure to the eye test, pointing out that he takes 4-5 ill-advised/dumb/damaging shots per game and if he took 17 well-chosen shots his efficiency would become borderline elite or in fact elite. he has not responded.

feel free to chime in with the other members of the melo blackshirts... as always i await enlightenment.

I claimed he was efficient because he is by nba standards. League avg efficiency changes from year to year and position to position but for the most part it hovers around 54%. So going by numbers set by players in the NBA he is deemed to be an efficient player for his career. He is deemed to be an efficient player for his Knicks tenure. Out of his 13 seasons he has only had 5 below 54%. So, I am not creating a level of efficiency on my own. There is no use for that when the nba does it for me.

DO you want to argue if he is highly efficient or that for the money he is getting paid he should be more efficient. Go head. However, more often than not, as a Knick, Melo is giving you efficient scoring at an incredibly high usage.

BY the way people do step away from the computer/thread/board. Sorry for the late response.

just provide the links where this figure of 54% is the "league average." average for whom? all players including those who only shoot 2s and fts? what is the point if that? or do i need to explain this to you?

can't believe i am being accused of watching too much after being accused of not watching enough.

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.

too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.

again, whaddaya got?

Why would you ask him for a percentage if you rely on the 'eye test'?

come on man if you're not going to actually read other peoples' posts then you have no business chiming in.

Didn't you write this?

that depends on what you consider efficient when it comes to true shooting percentage-- we already know he is a below average shooter in terms of plain old fg%. what percentage is the beginning of efficiency for TS% in your opinion? mine starts at 57%. that's an efficient level. not 56.5 or less, but 57%. anything at +58% you reach proficiency.

and please don't say that i'm quibbling when speaking of tenths of a percentage point-- those tenths of a point represent significant differences the larger the sample size.

whaddaya got, yellowboy?

he claimed melo was efficient: he isn't.

i asked him for a number: he said it didn't matter and that the nba has a standard-- which he did not provide-- and then claimed that my numbers are not like the nba but just an emotion-charged aggregate to suit my agenda.

i said that according to the eye test he is not efficient and explained why: he hasn't responded.

and now you're caught up, but to summarize: he is not efficient... he falls short by around two percentage points over his entire career, and by a point to 1.5 points as a knick.

since yellowboy did not want to engage in a talk on numbers and resorted to personal insult, i switched the measure to the eye test, pointing out that he takes 4-5 ill-advised/dumb/damaging shots per game and if he took 17 well-chosen shots his efficiency would become borderline elite or in fact elite. he has not responded.

feel free to chime in with the other members of the melo blackshirts... as always i await enlightenment.

I claimed he was efficient because he is by nba standards. League avg efficiency changes from year to year and position to position but for the most part it hovers around 54%. So going by numbers set by players in the NBA he is deemed to be an efficient player for his career. He is deemed to be an efficient player for his Knicks tenure. Out of his 13 seasons he has only had 5 below 54%. So, I am not creating a level of efficiency on my own. There is no use for that when the nba does it for me.

DO you want to argue if he is highly efficient or that for the money he is getting paid he should be more efficient. Go head. However, more often than not, as a Knick, Melo is giving you efficient scoring at an incredibly high usage.

BY the way people do step away from the computer/thread/board. Sorry for the late response.

just provide the links where this figure of 54% is the "league average." average for whom? all players including those who only shoot 2s and fts? what is the point if that? or do i need to explain this to you?

can't believe i am being accused of watching too much after being accused of not watching enough.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/28/the-real-and-fake-shooters-of-the-nba/

What makes a basketball player a “shooter”?

I’d argue that, to qualify as a “shooter”, a basketball player has meet the following criteria:

they have to be good (ie: accurate on the shots that they take)
they have to like to shoot (ie: they shoot a lot)

Given that definition, it should be easy to find the NBA’s shooters, as well as the NBA’s “wannabe shooters”. To identify the shooters, all we have to do is find the players who both shoot and score at an above average rate. Similarly, we can identify the wannabe shooters by finding the players who take a lot of shots despite scoring inefficiently.

This season, the average NBA player has a True Shooting percentage (TS%) somewhere around 53.5%, given the following positional averages:

PG: 53.2%
SG: 53.5%
SF: 53.9%
PF: 53.1%
C: 54.4%
Average: 53.6%

That is two years ago but gives you an idea. Enjoy.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/player-true-shooting-percent-leaders/2014/

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/team-true-shooting-percentages/2014/

http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/350333

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.

too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.

again, whaddaya got?

Why would you ask him for a percentage if you rely on the 'eye test'?

come on man if you're not going to actually read other peoples' posts then you have no business chiming in.

Didn't you write this?

that depends on what you consider efficient when it comes to true shooting percentage-- we already know he is a below average shooter in terms of plain old fg%. what percentage is the beginning of efficiency for TS% in your opinion? mine starts at 57%. that's an efficient level. not 56.5 or less, but 57%. anything at +58% you reach proficiency.

and please don't say that i'm quibbling when speaking of tenths of a percentage point-- those tenths of a point represent significant differences the larger the sample size.

whaddaya got, yellowboy?

he claimed melo was efficient: he isn't.

i asked him for a number: he said it didn't matter and that the nba has a standard-- which he did not provide-- and then claimed that my numbers are not like the nba but just an emotion-charged aggregate to suit my agenda.

i said that according to the eye test he is not efficient and explained why: he hasn't responded.

and now you're caught up, but to summarize: he is not efficient... he falls short by around two percentage points over his entire career, and by a point to 1.5 points as a knick.

since yellowboy did not want to engage in a talk on numbers and resorted to personal insult, i switched the measure to the eye test, pointing out that he takes 4-5 ill-advised/dumb/damaging shots per game and if he took 17 well-chosen shots his efficiency would become borderline elite or in fact elite. he has not responded.

feel free to chime in with the other members of the melo blackshirts... as always i await enlightenment.

I claimed he was efficient because he is by nba standards. League avg efficiency changes from year to year and position to position but for the most part it hovers around 54%. So going by numbers set by players in the NBA he is deemed to be an efficient player for his career. He is deemed to be an efficient player for his Knicks tenure. Out of his 13 seasons he has only had 5 below 54%. So, I am not creating a level of efficiency on my own. There is no use for that when the nba does it for me.

DO you want to argue if he is highly efficient or that for the money he is getting paid he should be more efficient. Go head. However, more often than not, as a Knick, Melo is giving you efficient scoring at an incredibly high usage.

BY the way people do step away from the computer/thread/board. Sorry for the late response.

just provide the links where this figure of 54% is the "league average." average for whom? all players including those who only shoot 2s and fts? what is the point if that? or do i need to explain this to you?

can't believe i am being accused of watching too much after being accused of not watching enough.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/28/the-real-and-fake-shooters-of-the-nba/

What makes a basketball player a “shooter”?

I’d argue that, to qualify as a “shooter”, a basketball player has meet the following criteria:

they have to be good (ie: accurate on the shots that they take)
they have to like to shoot (ie: they shoot a lot)

Given that definition, it should be easy to find the NBA’s shooters, as well as the NBA’s “wannabe shooters”. To identify the shooters, all we have to do is find the players who both shoot and score at an above average rate. Similarly, we can identify the wannabe shooters by finding the players who take a lot of shots despite scoring inefficiently.

This season, the average NBA player has a True Shooting percentage (TS%) somewhere around 53.5%, given the following positional averages:

PG: 53.2%
SG: 53.5%
SF: 53.9%
PF: 53.1%
C: 54.4%
Average: 53.6%

That is two years ago but gives you an idea. Enjoy.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/player-true-shooting-percent-leaders/2014/

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/team-true-shooting-percentages/2014/

http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/350333

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.

too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.

again, whaddaya got?

Why would you ask him for a percentage if you rely on the 'eye test'?

come on man if you're not going to actually read other peoples' posts then you have no business chiming in.

Didn't you write this?

that depends on what you consider efficient when it comes to true shooting percentage-- we already know he is a below average shooter in terms of plain old fg%. what percentage is the beginning of efficiency for TS% in your opinion? mine starts at 57%. that's an efficient level. not 56.5 or less, but 57%. anything at +58% you reach proficiency.

and please don't say that i'm quibbling when speaking of tenths of a percentage point-- those tenths of a point represent significant differences the larger the sample size.

whaddaya got, yellowboy?

he claimed melo was efficient: he isn't.

i asked him for a number: he said it didn't matter and that the nba has a standard-- which he did not provide-- and then claimed that my numbers are not like the nba but just an emotion-charged aggregate to suit my agenda.

i said that according to the eye test he is not efficient and explained why: he hasn't responded.

and now you're caught up, but to summarize: he is not efficient... he falls short by around two percentage points over his entire career, and by a point to 1.5 points as a knick.

since yellowboy did not want to engage in a talk on numbers and resorted to personal insult, i switched the measure to the eye test, pointing out that he takes 4-5 ill-advised/dumb/damaging shots per game and if he took 17 well-chosen shots his efficiency would become borderline elite or in fact elite. he has not responded.

feel free to chime in with the other members of the melo blackshirts... as always i await enlightenment.

I claimed he was efficient because he is by nba standards. League avg efficiency changes from year to year and position to position but for the most part it hovers around 54%. So going by numbers set by players in the NBA he is deemed to be an efficient player for his career. He is deemed to be an efficient player for his Knicks tenure. Out of his 13 seasons he has only had 5 below 54%. So, I am not creating a level of efficiency on my own. There is no use for that when the nba does it for me.

DO you want to argue if he is highly efficient or that for the money he is getting paid he should be more efficient. Go head. However, more often than not, as a Knick, Melo is giving you efficient scoring at an incredibly high usage.

BY the way people do step away from the computer/thread/board. Sorry for the late response.

just provide the links where this figure of 54% is the "league average." average for whom? all players including those who only shoot 2s and fts? what is the point if that? or do i need to explain this to you?

can't believe i am being accused of watching too much after being accused of not watching enough.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/28/the-real-and-fake-shooters-of-the-nba/

What makes a basketball player a “shooter”?

I’d argue that, to qualify as a “shooter”, a basketball player has meet the following criteria:

they have to be good (ie: accurate on the shots that they take)
they have to like to shoot (ie: they shoot a lot)

Given that definition, it should be easy to find the NBA’s shooters, as well as the NBA’s “wannabe shooters”. To identify the shooters, all we have to do is find the players who both shoot and score at an above average rate. Similarly, we can identify the wannabe shooters by finding the players who take a lot of shots despite scoring inefficiently.

This season, the average NBA player has a True Shooting percentage (TS%) somewhere around 53.5%, given the following positional averages:

PG: 53.2%
SG: 53.5%
SF: 53.9%
PF: 53.1%
C: 54.4%
Average: 53.6%

That is two years ago but gives you an idea. Enjoy.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/player-true-shooting-percent-leaders/2014/

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/team-true-shooting-percentages/2014/

http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/350333

Your first link has him barely in the top 200 this year!
You're still using a binary model? Would you call him inefficient this year? He was at .531 and the average is .536.
What point are you trying to make? .570 might be arbitrary but I agree with DK's point that you have to be meaningfully above average to be called efficient. Otherwise, the term loses any meaning. If there are almost 400 players in the league and you're going to put 200 as efficient and 200 as inefficient, that really isn't telling you much. Usually when someone says a player is efficient, they don't mean he's one of the top 200 in the league. .570 might be arbitrary but I think DK is using the term in a more sensible way.

some posters just don't have the math skills to cope with these subjects, and worse they don't know that they don't possess them. at some point i hope the light bulb goes off.

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.

too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.

again, whaddaya got?

Why would you ask him for a percentage if you rely on the 'eye test'?

come on man if you're not going to actually read other peoples' posts then you have no business chiming in.

Didn't you write this?

that depends on what you consider efficient when it comes to true shooting percentage-- we already know he is a below average shooter in terms of plain old fg%. what percentage is the beginning of efficiency for TS% in your opinion? mine starts at 57%. that's an efficient level. not 56.5 or less, but 57%. anything at +58% you reach proficiency.

and please don't say that i'm quibbling when speaking of tenths of a percentage point-- those tenths of a point represent significant differences the larger the sample size.

whaddaya got, yellowboy?

he claimed melo was efficient: he isn't.

i asked him for a number: he said it didn't matter and that the nba has a standard-- which he did not provide-- and then claimed that my numbers are not like the nba but just an emotion-charged aggregate to suit my agenda.

i said that according to the eye test he is not efficient and explained why: he hasn't responded.

and now you're caught up, but to summarize: he is not efficient... he falls short by around two percentage points over his entire career, and by a point to 1.5 points as a knick.

since yellowboy did not want to engage in a talk on numbers and resorted to personal insult, i switched the measure to the eye test, pointing out that he takes 4-5 ill-advised/dumb/damaging shots per game and if he took 17 well-chosen shots his efficiency would become borderline elite or in fact elite. he has not responded.

feel free to chime in with the other members of the melo blackshirts... as always i await enlightenment.

I claimed he was efficient because he is by nba standards. League avg efficiency changes from year to year and position to position but for the most part it hovers around 54%. So going by numbers set by players in the NBA he is deemed to be an efficient player for his career. He is deemed to be an efficient player for his Knicks tenure. Out of his 13 seasons he has only had 5 below 54%. So, I am not creating a level of efficiency on my own. There is no use for that when the nba does it for me.

DO you want to argue if he is highly efficient or that for the money he is getting paid he should be more efficient. Go head. However, more often than not, as a Knick, Melo is giving you efficient scoring at an incredibly high usage.

BY the way people do step away from the computer/thread/board. Sorry for the late response.

just provide the links where this figure of 54% is the "league average." average for whom? all players including those who only shoot 2s and fts? what is the point if that? or do i need to explain this to you?

can't believe i am being accused of watching too much after being accused of not watching enough.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/02/28/the-real-and-fake-shooters-of-the-nba/

What makes a basketball player a “shooter”?

I’d argue that, to qualify as a “shooter”, a basketball player has meet the following criteria:

they have to be good (ie: accurate on the shots that they take)
they have to like to shoot (ie: they shoot a lot)

Given that definition, it should be easy to find the NBA’s shooters, as well as the NBA’s “wannabe shooters”. To identify the shooters, all we have to do is find the players who both shoot and score at an above average rate. Similarly, we can identify the wannabe shooters by finding the players who take a lot of shots despite scoring inefficiently.

This season, the average NBA player has a True Shooting percentage (TS%) somewhere around 53.5%, given the following positional averages:

PG: 53.2%
SG: 53.5%
SF: 53.9%
PF: 53.1%
C: 54.4%
Average: 53.6%

That is two years ago but gives you an idea. Enjoy.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/player-true-shooting-percent-leaders/2014/

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nba/stats/team-true-shooting-percentages/2014/

http://www.thescore.com/nba/news/350333

Your first link has him barely in the top 200 this year!
You're still using a binary model? Would you call him inefficient this year? He was at .531 and the average is .536.
What point are you trying to make? .570 might be arbitrary but I agree with DK's point that you have to be meaningfully above average to be called efficient. Otherwise, the term loses any meaning. If there are almost 400 players in the league and you're going to put 200 as efficient and 200 as inefficient, that really isn't telling you much. Usually when someone says a player is efficient, they don't mean he's one of the top 200 in the league. .570 might be arbitrary but I think DK is using the term in a more sensible way.

some posters just don't have the math skills to cope with these subjects, and worse they don't know that they don't possess them. at some point i hope the light bulb goes off.

Man, you couldn't just leave it where we agreed?
I don't think Yellow has poor math skills. I think he's just trying to hard to flatter Melo here though.

which is worse: being dumb or being smart and avoiding the truth?

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:TS% is a stupid stat..17 of the top 20 guys who leads the league in this category aren't even considered the best offensive players on their teams..I challenge the people who holds these stats so dear to their hearts to list at least 15 of the top 20 players on this list as someone you want taking the last shot on their current teams..If you can't then what is this stat really telling you??..Nothing..

I'll go one further, they aren't even the top 2/3 options on their current teams..

Just because a player is efficient doesnt mean they are clutch at the end of games. The stat is fine, but like an stats perspective and situations have to be taken into account. Big men should have a high ts% considering their work is primary near the rim. That doesnt mean Tyson Chandler is a better shooter and more efficient than Dirk. But trying to dismiss the stat as nothing is something I'd hope the Knicks front office doesnt do. Glad fans dont make GM decisions.

So what is the point of the stat??..What conclusions do you draw from such stats when making basketball decisions???

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:Jose had a TS% of 61.6 in 2012-13, 59.6 in 2013-14. This year was his worst in recent times at 51.9 but let's say he was healthy and at his normal levels. Would that make him superior to Melo? Of course not. A primary scoring option has a totally different set of expectations on him. The stamina both physically and mentally to be the man every night is a rare thing. I could post a ton of players who are highly efficient but wouldn't be sought after like Melo was last year in free agency. Teams understand the difference.

Straw man argument

Why did GM's even make an attempt to get Melo?

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:Jose had a TS% of 61.6 in 2012-13, 59.6 in 2013-14. This year was his worst in recent times at 51.9 but let's say he was healthy and at his normal levels. Would that make him superior to Melo? Of course not. A primary scoring option has a totally different set of expectations on him. The stamina both physically and mentally to be the man every night is a rare thing. I could post a ton of players who are highly efficient but wouldn't be sought after like Melo was last year in free agency. Teams understand the difference.

Straw man argument

Why did GM's even make an attempt to get Melo?

Straw man means you're arguing against a claim that no one is making. No one here is claiming TS% is the only important stat or that Calderon is better than Melo.

Again. Why did GM's even attempt to get Melo last summer? Many of whom are well versed in Metrics.

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knickscity wrote:

holfresh wrote:TS% is a stupid stat..17 of the top 20 guys who leads the league in this category aren't even considered the best offensive players on their teams..I challenge the people who holds these stats so dear to their hearts to list at least 15 of the top 20 players on this list as someone you want taking the last shot on their current teams..If you can't then what is this stat really telling you??..Nothing..

I'll go one further, they aren't even the top 2/3 options on their current teams..

Just because a player is efficient doesnt mean they are clutch at the end of games. The stat is fine, but like an stats perspective and situations have to be taken into account. Big men should have a high ts% considering their work is primary near the rim. That doesnt mean Tyson Chandler is a better shooter and more efficient than Dirk. But trying to dismiss the stat as nothing is something I'd hope the Knicks front office doesnt do. Glad fans dont make GM decisions.

So what is the point of the stat??..What conclusions do you draw from such stats when making basketball decisions???

You draw conclusions about who, over the course of the entire game, is using possessions efficiently. You also can use it as one of many clues to figure out why some players who look gifted offensively actually aren't scoring as efficiently as they could be. When you see high volume players with average or lower TS%, it's a warning sign that you have to figure out what situations are they taking bad shots in and how could that be changed. It also tells you how efficiently the player scores *when taking the kind of shots he normally takes.* So to answer your earlier question, if it was a last second situation and I was asked would I like to have D Jordan or Tyson dunking the ball? I would say, absolutely yes. If it's something other than dunking, than that's not what those player's TS% is comprised of and the TS% is the wrong stat in that situation to look at.

I'd add that scoring effectiveness is really about both volume and efficiency, and if you look at either one alone, you're going to make bad decisions. And then offensive effectiveness is a broader category that would have to include assists and turnovers.

My point is that these stats aren't shedding new light on the game...You can tell if a volume scorer is efficient by looking at his FG%..You can see how many threes and FT he take per game...If anything, TS% clouds the issue because it doesn't tell you how the player is scoring his baskets or where the player is doing his scoring..

Also, please explain how looking at TS% tells you why a player isn't scoring efficiently as they could be???

I never said TS% alone tells you why a player isn't scoring as efficiently as they could be. I said combining the TS% with what you see does (note bold above)

I'm not opposed to looking at 3 separate stats (FT%, 2 pt FG%, 3 pt FG%) in addition to the TS% stat. If you do that, you will note that Harden's imperfect game could use improvement from 2 point percentage even though he is the best in the game at the line and good at 3s. That's a separate, more detailed analysis analysis than the TS% is intended to provide though.