Hi Rocket fans, I know I am new here and its frowned upon for newbies to make threads unless it's really important but I think sharing this would be worthwhile. I just watched this video and this guy (Bruce Blitzed) basically invented a new metric called True Precision Rating that basically measures whether a basketball player is efficient with his possessions or not. It's not really that complicated and I thought it would be a good share. I think it is a better measure than FG% and TS% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ha1NFMReuw To put it in perspective here is the TPA for a couple Rocket players and other NBA players that I calculated. Kobe: -53 Harden: -77.5 Carmelo: -192.5 Westbrook: -140.5 Lin: -70.5 Howard: +127.5 But remember it shouldn't be the only metric considering it still doesn't account for free throws which is a big part of scoring. Hope you all are having a good offseason
I have couple questions... 1) he differentiates between 2pointers and 3pointers made but he just counts a miss as a miss.. why doesnt he do 3pointer miss and 2 pointer miss 2) even though he is so adament the free throws wreck TS% i think he should include FT% in the formula for eg free throw made = .5 and a miss =.5 or something along those lines Thoughts?
The guy takes away FTs. I don't see the point. You have to earn the FT,mostly. It is a part of offense.
it makes no sense to ignore free throws. This is his formula in practice though. Shoot 6 2 pointers, hit 3, miss 3, get 0 Shoot 6 3 pointers, hit 2, miss 4, get -1 Do you see the problem?
I see no added value versus effective field goal percentage. I guess it's basically like eFG% x shot volume, but I'm fully capable of contextualizing volume myself without needing it to invade the efficiency metric.
That makes no sense. eFG%(or TRP, it's the same) is flawed in the sense that it doesn't accurately tell you how efficient a player is. Ft's count as possessions. Obviously it makes no attempt to do so, so it is not flawed if used in the proper context; however, I'm not really sure why anyone ever would want to use a context for scoring where you aren't trying to determine how efficient the player is in the totality of their scoring. Judging how efficient a player is by EFG% is kind of like the reverse of judging how efficient a player is based on their ft%. Obviously EFG% is going to be closer to the truth as players tend to take more fga's than fta's. However both ft% and efg% omit a big portion of game.
This guy is an idiot. Getting to the freethrow line is the most efficient way to score for the majority of NBA players. This metric is simply this guys feeling that free throws earned by players just as Harden, Kobe, and KD (he is efficient either way) are somehow less useful than players who score efficiently purely from field goals. TS% is the most effective stat for measuring how efficient a player is in the NBA as it considers ALL aspects of scoring and gives weight based on the amount of points the shot makes. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=242379
durvasa hits it on the head. He uses FG% and TS% as scapegoats to argue in favor of his brand new metric, but ignores the one metric which already exists that does exactly what he is looking for: eFG%. BTW, his new "advanced metric" makes absolutely no sense when you look at how it is actually calculated. It makes no sense to treat all misses as the same while still attempting to normalize for the point value of a 2-pointer vs. a 3-pointer. If all you did was perform a straight point differential (a 2-pointer is worth 2 points, a 3-pointer is worth 3 points, a missed 2-pointer is -2 points, a missed 3-pointer is -3 points), that would give you a more accurate picture of the aggregate offensive output of a given player than his weird new formula. In fact, he talks about doing something like this in the beginning and then glosses over it as "not good enough" for some reason. It looks like he is trying to not penalize a missed 3-pointer as much as a missed 2-pointer, probably under the idea that a missed shot attempt is missed possession, regardless of whether it was a 2-point attempt or a 3-point attempt. In other words, -3 points for a missed 3-pointer isn't "fair" because the guy could've went for a 2-pointer but tried to go for more points, and shouldn't be penalized for that. But if you're going to do that, then you should do what tallanvor points out - look at points per possession. Clearly he has thought some about this, but I think what he is pointing to is a typical layperson's uneasiness with the normal basketball stats in general. They clearly do not tell the whole picture. Unfortunately, if he did more investigating, he would realize that other people have been long onto this problem, and there already exist a good number of "basic advanced" stats that get to exactly what he is looking for. There is no such thing as a "perfect statistic". If you try to encompass everything, you will sacrifice accuracy, and if you try to be as specific as possible, you will sacrifice applicability (across a broad range of contexts). The real question you should ask yourself when looking at any new metric is, "What is this number trying to tell me?" Then figure out if it's doing a good job of that. If True Precision Rating is supposed to tell you how good a shooter a player is in terms of his efficiency from a point-value perspective, then that's what eFG% does already. If it is trying to tell you the aggregate point value a given player provides over the course of a season (or several games), then it is way, way off the mark.
it makes sense cuz it counts possessions but now that I look at it it doesn't really look good anymore lol. i actually forgot about eFG%
This metric measures whether a player is an effecient SHOOTER only. Being an efficient shooter from the floor does not equate to possession efficiency. He's showing Wilt as this highly efficient shooter. The truth about Wilt was he was inefficient with his possessions. He consumed a huge amount of possessions and he turned the ball over a TON and he missed a TON of free throws. Those turnovers and missed free throws SUNK his possession efficiency and in reality it cost his team a lot of championships. Bill Russell was wise enough to understand this. The Celtic defensive team concept was built upon letting the ball funnel into Wilt being defended by Russell and Celtic players simply attacking Wilt from the blindside and forcing turnovers or chopping Wilt and sending him to the free throw line. So....shooting efficiency in and of itself does not mean much in the bigger scheme of winning. You have to look at overall possession efficiency which includes factors such as .44 x FTA added to possessions used, turnovers added to possessions used, and assists added to possessions used and the points scored from the assists the player created and the free throws the player shot going into a composite metric that shows their offensive possession efficiency. Somebody mentioned earler PPP is a much better metric to measure scoring efficiency. However true offensive possession efficiency would have to include all points scored or created and all possessions used. Now for a team.....points per possession (with possessions properly defined as FGAs + FTA's * 0.44 + turnovers) would be the same thing as True Offensive Possession Efficiency. But for individual players you would have shooting efficiency which is what the OP is describing and then you would have scoring efficiency which would be shooting efficiency plus free throw shooting efficiency and then you would have offensive possessions efficiency which would take into field shooting efficiency plus free throw shooting efficiency plus assist/turnover ratio.
