http://pragstats.blogspot.com/2007/0...won-title.htmlThere's a glaring difference between superstars who led their teams to titles and those that didn't, and it all revolves around the number 1.10.Look at the following list of recent NBA "superstars" above and below the line, and tell me what the difference is.Shaquille O'NealKobe BryantDwyane WadeTim DuncanDirk Nowitzki------------------Tracy McGradyVince CarterAllen IversonChris WebberKevin GarnettIt's true. Everyone above the line led their teams to the NBA Finals, and all but Dirk won it. Below the line, only Iverson got to the Finals, where he lost in 5 games.But have you ever considered why some superstars get there and others don't?It's not just supporting cast. Vince Carter has played with Kidd and Jefferson for several years now... the same Kidd and Jefferson who got to the Finals twice in '02 and '03. Webber played on a Kings team that was a contender for five years running.It's not talent. McGrady and Iverson both led the league in scoring. Vince Carter is one of the most athletic players in history. And Kevin Garnett might very well be the most talented basketball player ever.It's not even clutch scoring. Nearly all those players have excelled in the playoffs, while above-the-liner Tim Duncan had his fair share of playoff hiccups.So what is it then? Here's the answer...Hi there. Meet TS%. He's a good man.True Shooting % is a stat created by John Hollinger, and it's the most accurate NBA statistic I know of for determining carrying-a-team capabilities. Basically, it determines how many points you score per offensive attempt (includes both field goal attempts and free throw pairs). It works like this...Take a player's free throws and multiply by .44. Why .44? Well, it's awfully close to .5: the number of free throw pairs attempted if players only shot two-shot fouls. But sometimes they get there on and-1's or technicals. As a result, it's drops down to .44.Then, add that to the number of field goal attempts. That's the total number of offensive attempts a player has made.To find True Shooting %, divide total points scored by the number of offensive attempts. (Note: Hollinger then divides this number by two. Don't do that, it's a waste of a step.)Here's me finding TS% for Steve Nash this year:Field Goal Attempts per game: 13.4Free Throw Attempts per game: 3.0Points per game: 19.619.6 / (13.4+(.44*3.0)) = 1.33 points per offensive attempt. Every time Steve goes to score, he's averaging 1.33 points. Pretty darn good.In fact, it's so darn good that it trumps just about every other player in basketball. Thankfully, you don't have to be a 1.33 TS% shooter to win an NBA title. But you do need to get over 1.10...Here's the list of players from earlier, this time with their career TS% and # of years over 1.10 added in...The difference staggers even me.Shaquille O'Neal - 1.17, 14 times in 14 years.Kobe Bryant - 1.10, 5 times in 10 years.Dwyane Wade - 1.12, 2 times in 3 years.Tim Duncan - 1.10, 4 times in 9 years.Dirk Nowitzki - 1.16, 7 times in 8 years------------------Tracy McGrady - 1.05, 1 time in 9 years.Vince Carter - 1.06, 2 times in 8 years.Allen Iverson - 1.02, 0 times in 10 years.Chris Webber - 1.02, 2 times in 13 years.Kevin Garnett - 1.08, 1 time in 11 years.These 10 players have all scored over 20ppg in their careers (Garnett has the lowest PPG on the list, and he is 12th among active players). Yet their careers have taken vastly different turns, and TS% might just explain why.In fact, going back to 1988, all but one championship team had a leading scorer or 2nd option with a 1.10+ TS% during the regular season (98 Chicago Bulls). Several teams had twf course, there's exceptions to every rule. Ray Allen (1.14, 8/10) and Paul Pierce (1.11, 5/8) have shot the ball well, yet haven't been to the Finals. Tim Duncan just missed 1.10 in 2005 and won the title anyway (Ginobili was at a ridiculous 1.20).My big finish.Perhaps then, just as a rule of thumb and not a definite rule (there are none in sports anyway), teams should start looking primarily at TS% before giving big money to a leading scorer.Golden State overlooked that with Baron Davis (1.00, 0/7) and Jason Richardson (1.02, 0/5) and have been mired in mediocrity ever since.The Blazers have many things wrong with them, but signing Zach Randolph long-term (1.02, 1/5) didn't help.Isiah Thomas has been ridiculed enough, but his signings of Marbury (1.05, 1/10), Francis (1.06, 1/7), and Crawford (1.02, 1/6) defy all rationale.Even Indiana, who built a mammoth roster around Jermaine O'Neal (1.03, 0/10) got surprisingly few returns out of its investment - just one 50+ win season and 0 finals berths - even though they went to the finals the year before acquiring him.So next time your favorite team makes a push to acquire a new player, check his TS%. If it's below 1.10, send your GM hate mail, start a quiet riot, find the number for Billy King, whatever it takes... cause it likely spells bad news for your team's future.
You are dodging the real reason for why ts% causes players to be champions.A) Teams contending for rings tend to have lots of scorers. If you have twelve players on your team who can score 20 ppg on 40% shooting, the players with higher percentages will shoot more as anybody can score, it's just a question of how muchB) Teams contending for championships tend to supply better backups than bad teams, thus players like Duncan and Nash are able to play far less minutes and therefore are less fatigued, which makes it easier to shoot a higher %C) Teams contending for a ring generally have more options, meaning that good players can take less attempts than they would on another team. There is much evidence suggesting that usage rate has an inverse correlation to efficiencyD) Teams contending for a ring generally have better offensive generals, whether coaches or point guards, getting good players open with their superior coaching and play making. This can also lead to easier attemptsE) Contenders regularly have multiple stars, preventing double teaming without punishment, making it easier for stars on good teams.It is nothing new that efficiency has a high correlation to offensive level of play, but the real question is whether the high efficiency is the cause or effect of the strong team.
Yeah I agree with both points but I think there is some truth to being a good shooter while scoring 20+ vs. just a volume shooter with 20+. Being able to easily create for yourself vs. easily creating a shot and having a good percentage is where I think this article is leading to. Unless you have Nash on your team I don't think your numbers are exaggerated that much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Feb 1 2007, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah I agree with both points but I think there is some truth to being a good shooter while scoring 20+ vs. just a volume shooter with 20+. Being able to easily create for yourself vs. easily creating a shot and having a good percentage is where I think this article is leading to. Unless you have Nash on your team I don't think your numbers are exaggerated that much.</div>Yes, but as an example, prior to magic johnson joining the team Kareem had a 55% fg% (I'm not going to convert that into ts% because it's all a measure of how efficient you are). He had a 60% fg% the year Magic joined the team. And he won a championship. Your model would say that the reason they won it all is because Kareem and Jamal Wilkes finally got it and learned how to shoot high % shots when in reality it was Magic, Jim Chones, and Spencer Haywood joining the team that made his fg% higher and made them go over the top. When Oscar Robertson joined the Bucks, Kareem's FG% rose from 51.8% to 57.7%. That has to be the reason that they won it all! It was obviously because the big O came to ease Kareem's burden. What I'm trying to say is that a correlation doesn't necessarily indicate what causes what. There's an old story that in India there was a plague throughout the land. Eventually, the king realized that the places with the most illness were the places with the most doctors so he ordered all the doctors to be killed.
