In your example, both players really have the same true shooting percentage -- 50%. The commonly used formula for TS% is really an estimate for true shooting percentage and it would yield 53% in this case. The .44 multiplier in TS% is accounting for the fact that some portion of FTAs aren't of the "2 foul shots on a shooting foul" variety. So for single games like your example its not totally accurate. But if you look at TS% over a sample of several games it becomes accurate enough. Definitely a more useful measure than, say, FG%.
Okay, so how exactly does the 0.44 come into play? Maybe I'm focusing too much on one variable, but I have a huge problem with arbitrary measures in statistics. Was that actually calculated using data taken from games to represent that actual frequency that FTA come in the "two shot variety?" In other words, is that the adjusted frequency when taking into account 1-shot FTA and 3-shot FTA? And if that is the case, why would it really matter to account for those differences?
So I simply googled true shooting percentage and alas, I found a pretty good explanation... http://www.respectkobe.com/articles/true-shooting-statistics-in-context/ It makes perfect sense now, and I actually forgot about "and-1" baskets. I was thinking more along the lines of technical foul shots and three point fouls as an example of deviating from the typically 2-shot foul. Anyway, it does seem to be a much more effective measure than FG%. I am still somewhat skeptical about the way they calculated that a free throw is worth 0.44 possessions, but I guess that explanation will have to do.
The point is to figure out how many times a player attempted to score with his free throws using up one of his team's possessions. If a player shoots 2-4 from the field and 4-4 from the free throw line, with 2 of those free throws being and-1s and the other 2 being technicals, then he really only attempted to score 4 times total. On the other hand, if those 4 free throw attempts were due to two shooting fouls, then he attempted to score 6 times. There's no way to disambiguate those two scenarios simply by looking at the boxscore. Empirical studies found that over time 0.44 gives the best estimate for actual scoring attempts. Its not arbitrary. Its based on studies (done by guys like Hollinger and Dean Oliver) which found that on average for every 100 free throws a player takes there were 44 shooting fouls (or, I guess, in-the-bonus fouls). Its not perfect, but its about as good as we can do with the limited information available in the box score.
Out of the 2-8 FG/FGA and 10-12 FT/FTA, several or all of the 12 FTA could have resulted from the 6 missed FGA. In other words, most or all of the 12 FTA did not come from additional possessions, but rather as a direct consequence from the missed FGAs. Most of the fouls occurred when a player tries to stop the opposing player from scoring. Imagine a player running to the hoop for a dunk or an easy layup. If you are the defender, what would you do? Allow him to score an easy 2 or foul him and make him earn his points from the line? If the attacking player is fouled, his missed shot counts as a FGA. But he draws a foul plus he could score some points from FT. If he is fouled and still make the shot, that would result in an AND-1 & the shot would still count as a FGA plus 1 FT. In any case, those FTs are earned through the FGAs, not via any additional possessions. So in your example, the 14pts are scored essentially on 8 shots, and not 14 shots as you suggested. And scoring from the FT line is efficient because it can potentially put the opposing team in foul trouble.
This is absolutely 100% false. Missed shots that result in FTA NEVER count as FGA. WTH are you talking about?
Thanks for the explanation, but read my post after that, I did some research and figured it out. And yes it isn't arbitrary, although I take this basketball research with a bit of a grain of salt. There is probably no real way to determine exactly how many possessions a FTA is worth (this could change game to game, season to season, decade to decade, etc) but I suppose it doesn't matter that much if 0.44 is relatively close to the actual value.
"if those 4 free throw attempts were due to two shooting fouls, then he attempted to score 6 times." I disagree that the 4 FTA resulting from shooting fouls in your example take up additional 2 team possessions. When the foul was called, the clock stops running so the FTs did not take away any of the team's possession. Just think about it, the 2 AND-1s in your example could be a result from 2 shooting fouls as well. So how could the FTs due to shooting foul takes up additional team possession in 1 case & not the other? In my opinion, the shooting efficiency should be about a player's ability to score points given a number of shots he made. Those technical FTs & end of game FTs are the ones that should be excluded from calculating the player's shooting efficiency because these are the points that are essentially given to the player, and not earned by them via the shots they attempted.
Consider two cases where a player shoots 2-2 from the field and 2-2 from the free throw line. Case 1: Player was fouled on each made field goal, and hit both and-1s. So he scored 6 total points while using only two of his team possessions. Its the equivalent of hitting two 3-point field goals. Case 2: Player made two field goals, and then on a third possession he was fouled in the act of shooting (while missing the field goal). He hits both free throws. So, he scored 6 total points while using three of his team possessions. Its the equivalent of hitting three 2-point field goals. Does it make sense?
That poster just tried to explain to me that a missed shot resulting in FT's would count as a FGA, so you might want to take "mothman" with a grain of salt.
Okay, so this is the general thought process behind it... Although FTA's do not result in the clock running, it essentially ends the current possession that the team is on. Nobody else could score on that possession, so the FT's basically count as the possession. This is not a bad thing, but you have to look at it this way or we could have TS% greater than 100%.
This is technically true, although the point of TS% as I have recently found out is to assess the combination of FG%, 3P%, and FT%. So if a player missed those FT's that were given to him, then it should count against that. durvasa, you seem to be the master of this subject, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
