1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Steve Novak's 2008 Preseason

Discussion in 'NBA Dish' started by cjstukenholtz, Oct 23, 2008.

  1. MrButtocks

    MrButtocks Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,228
    Likes Received:
    5,112
    I was at the clipper game last night. Novak doesn't hit as well in warmups as I thought he would. Hit less than half his shots, though it looked like he was just messin around. Once he got his garbage minutes, though, his shot went down even with a defender in his face. 3-4 all from downtown, and he could have had two more if his teammates had seen him open trailing on the break.

    On the defensive end he got torched by Outlaw. He got caught up once on a screen that allowed a wide shot from the corner, which Outlaw swished. Three other times Outlaw took him off the dribble and just pulled up over him. Steve got a hand up each time, but I guess he's just never going stop someone defensively.
     
  2. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    huh? without free throws, it's just effective field goal percentage and not as all-inclusive and accurate as true shooting percentage. true shooting % accounts for free throws b/c free throws are very efficient for most players not named shaq and the ability to get free throws should be included in your efficiency. if wade and lebron can get to the line 10 times a game and hit 75%, those 5 possessions (or 4.4 possessions on average) were still better than another guy taking 5 2's and hitting 60% of them. as for multiplying by 50, it's just to make it a percentage, so that you get 55.0 instead of .55, it's just for aesthetics.
     
  3. Hayesfan

    Hayesfan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    360
    ah i knew I had done something wrong. I had multiplied when I should have added.

    That sounds closer to the number I had suspected his TS% would be.

    The problem with Novak has always been his ability to shoot vs the liability of having him on the court defensively.
     
  4. francis 4 prez

    francis 4 prez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Messages:
    22,025
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    and i don't quite understand what you mean when you say the number of 3's and 2's you take won't change the percentage. assuming you don't shoot 3's at exactly 2/3 of your true (or effective) shooting percentage, then any change in the percentage of your shots that are 3's will affect the number.

    same with 2's and ft's, again assuming your 2 point and ft% don't exactly equal your TS%.
     
  5. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,496
    Likes Received:
    56,074
    durvasa...

    I said, for *most all players* TS% will increase with more FTs, but decrease with more 2s or 3s. that's completely true. You refuted that by picking essentially one of only 8 players who didn't last year....Shaq, Dampier, Chandler, Josh Boone, David Hamilton, Michael Ruffin, Renaldo Balkman, and Jason Collins

    the TS% value for a 60% FT% shooter is 68%. No player in the NBA had a TS% higher than that.

    Other than those 8 players above who are atrocious FT shooters, find me one player who doesn't increase their TS% by shooting more FTs. Conversely, find my one player who doesn't decrease their TS% by shooting more 3s and 2s and their same rate.
     
  6. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,908
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    Ok, I think understand that.

    But can you explain why it doesn't make sense to you that a player's efficiency should increase if they increase attempts of efficient shots (FTs), and why it shouldn't decrease if they increase attempts of relatively less efficient shots (2s and 3s)? You seem to be saying that's a problem with TS%, but for me that validates it. Getting to the free throw line is a good thing for most players, mainly because it makes them (and their team) more efficient. If a greater proportion of their shots coming from FGAs versus trips to the line, then they'll tend to be less efficient.
     
  7. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,496
    Likes Received:
    56,074
    exactly. which is a True Shooting %, not counting FTs.

    imo, true shooting % and ability to get to the line are two different things.

    TS% = "True Shooting Percentage calculates what a player’s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers."

    Look, the fact is that TS% skews numbers to players who have the ability to get to the line more. That's just a fact. imo, that doesn't have anything to do with "shooting percentage."

    If he wants to call that scoring efficiency, then fine. But why not just use PPS? then? You know why? Because ESPN wants Hollinger to invent his own stats.
     
  8. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,496
    Likes Received:
    56,074
    what I clarified in my second post is that eliminating FTs, the formula gives the same answer independent of volume of shots. The FT part of it injects a measure of volume, whereby the more 3s and 2s you shoot to lower your TS% is and the more FTs you shoot, the higher.

    example, if I make 50 of 100 3s, while making 75 out of 100 fts, my TS% is higher than someone who made 500 of 1000 3s and the exact same FTs. That is flawed. Explain to me why that isn't flawed.
     
  9. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,908
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    PPS is equivalent to TS%, and "scoring efficiency" is effectively what it is describing. Actually, Hollinger used PPS (he called it PSA, if I recall) in his initial Forecast books. He switched to TS%, and it was before joining ESPN. And I don't think he's the one that originated the 0.5 factor either.

    See this thread for more details on origins. I think it was Dan Rosenbaum who initially used a metric he called "True field goal percentage", which Hollinger adopted in favor of PSA. It's describing the same thing, just in a different way.

    Here's the rationale behind TS% (or True FG%) as I see it: If the rules of basketball are simplified so you're only dealing with 2-point field goals and nothing else, than TS% is equivalent to FG%. But the addition of 3-point shots and FTs adjusts it from that FG% baseline into True FG% or TS%.
     
  10. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,718
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    I MISS NOVAK!
     
  11. denniscd

    denniscd Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    26
    bottom line novak is just not good enough
     
  12. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,908
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    TS% is measuring efficiency. The first player is, in fact, more efficient than the second player. He just happens to be using far, far less possessions.

    Efficiency and possession usage are independent concepts. Increasing or decreasing possession usage should not have any impact on efficiency if the shot distribution and conversion rates remain the same.

    Do you understand why a player who makes 50 out of 100 3s has the same TS% as a player who makes 500 out of 1000 3s? Or does that seem flawed as well?
     
  13. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    35,048
    Likes Received:
    23,934
    The real TS% should be:

    total points * .5 / (fga + (Rfta/2))

    *Rfta = fta - and-1 fta

    Too bad, the box score does not have a record on how many of the free throws are and-1's.

    For Novak, since his Rfta is negligible, his TS% should be about 72%, which is, as Hayesfan said, through the roof. But of course, offensive efficiency is not just TS%. You should account for numbers of assists, TO, etc. and I think shots per possession should also be factored in.
     
    #33 Easy, Oct 23, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2008
  14. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,908
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    That's what "Offensive Rating" (ORtg) gives you, essentially. It's kind of complicated to calculate, but basketball-reference.com shows it (not preseason, though).
     
  15. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    35,048
    Likes Received:
    23,934
    I know about ORtg. The complication of calculating those numbers kind of strengthens the complaint of some posters here. The assignment of weight to each category is subjective to some extent, thereby kind of defeats the very purpose of statistical analysis, which is to eliminate subjectivity.

    I said "kind of" because I like statistical analysis. Unless some posters here, I don't dismiss "stats" as totally pointless.

    Back to TS%, I do think they should add a and-1 stat column. I think Hollinger's .44 factor is not totally meaningful because it comes from the average of all players of all time. But the whole point of statistical analysis is to see how a single player's performance measures against the average of all others. Being able to get lots of and-1 opportunities should boost a player's shooting efficiency.
     
  16. batkins

    batkins Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,039
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Well, I miss him...

    [​IMG]
     
  17. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,908
    Likes Received:
    15,377
    The refinements you suggest would certainly be nice. But, most of these metrics are dealing with summarizing performance based on available stats in the box score. So, because there's stuff the NBA doesn't officially track (possessions, in my opinion, being most important), people have devised formulas to approximate it.

    The 0.44 factor is an approximation, but it works fairly well over a significant stretch of games. I'm not sure, over the course of a season, if your refinement using "and-1s" would make much of a difference. Consider also that the less and-1s you get, the more likely you're a 3-point specialist or technical free throw shooter. That could cancel out the disparity, to an extent.
     
  18. Easy

    Easy Boban Only Fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Messages:
    35,048
    Likes Received:
    23,934
    At least subjectively, we notice some players are much better at getting and-1 than other players. Getting and-1 is clearly a more efficient way of scoring than just hitting a 2pt shot, or making 2 fts.

    Making a 2pt shot counts as a fga, but making 2 fts does not. That skews the traditional fg%. The .44 tries to account for that. But like I said, that does not account for individual's ability to "beat the odds" (in this case, getting more and-1's than others.
     
  19. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,496
    Likes Received:
    56,074
    francis 4 prez and durvasa,

    sorry, sounds like I got us into a semantic argument. I was going by the belief people viewed TS% as a fancy, effective FG% rather than a scoring efficiency like PPS.

    durvasa,

    The .5 factor is merely dividing TP by the point value of a FG (ie, two points); if you double the point values of shots, you divide by 4 (=multiplying by .25). You get the same result.
     
  20. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,496
    Likes Received:
    56,074
    I want to add that the .5 factor in TS% is completely unnecessary. It just makes the number look prettier; that is, more like an effective FG%. Changing that number will not change the leaderboard for TS%.

    My problem was with the .44 factor. Changing that number does change the leaderboard. That seems too subjective. It tries to use a league average on what you did above. That is, it factors in that some FTs are from AND 1s, so it tries to give them more value, such that you can increase your TS% more by increasing your FT% than you can by increasing your 2pt FG%. If the factor is .50 instead of .44, a made 2pt increases your TS% the same as two made FTs.

    bottomline: TS% is trying to give added value to FTs since some are extra freebies from AND 1s. In doing so, it gives more value to *all* FTs, whether from AND 1s or not. I just don't like arbitrary numbers like that.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now