I get that it’s weighted, but it makes no fuckin sense. he shot SIGNIFICANTLY better than bron at the line, SIGNIFICANTLY better than bron from 3, his overall fg% is better, and yet somehow his “ts %” is worse? LOL. I don’t think so bro.

even if bron shot slightly better from 2 (which is what it says on b-ref), one would assume the HUGE advantages bird had from 3 and the line would ATLEAST keep them even, if not give him a shooting advantage.

NO ONE thinks bron is a more efficient scorer over his career than Bird. NO ONE.

common sense dictates A LOT of things. james being more efficient over his career than bird is retarded to the 10th degree. ts % seems to reward guys for actually taking more shots and getting to the line a lot.

it should be really simple, the points should be weighted as such:

1 three point field goal = 1.5 two point field goals

1 two point field goal = 1.0 two pointer

1 free throw = 0.5 two pointers

OR

1 three point field goal = 1.0 three pointer

1 two point field goal = .67 three pointer

1 free throw = .33 three pointer

OR

1 three point field goal = 3.0 free throws

1 two point field goal = 2.0 free throws

1 free throw = 1.0 free throw

just depends how you create the formula.

don’t even get me started with “win shares”. win shares is the worst thing to happen to basketball stat geeks ever. not only is it inaccurate, people put faith in a BASEBALL-related stat that crossed over, and it’s quite simply the MOST complex, befuddling, otherworldly formula I’ve seen in my life.

It makes astrophysics look simple.

]]>scoring equivalence per 2pt shot is what this is measuring … subtracting .5 per each missed FT weights your maximum scoring/shot efficiency equivalent to # of 2s on the same make/miss per shot basis as adding .5 per m3FG

eFG = .5mFT+ mFG + 1.5m3 / FTA + FGA + 3FGA

Fouled in the act of missing you are given 2/3 attempts to make the full scoring value of that shot

Fouled in the act of making you also get the one pt ‘bonus’ attempt, which can also be awarded other ways to include team-accumulated triggers + make one of those to get another

Now your points per shot efficiency stat includes FTs but why?

I think you still want to consider FTs a separate category of shooting per se apart from FGs as far as for making raw overall/particular player skill level comparisons/decisions

current eFG still allows combined FG shooting% to be meaningful instead of a corrupt no-information nonsense stat (w/o the adjustment for points value) which is useful for nothing at all

Why would box scores even provide a single combined FG column/stat anyway? Separate 2 & 3 columns should be mandatory for 2 obviously incompatible values for FGs

Also lumping FTs unweighted into one big master column with 2s & 3s would be just as ‘logically’ consistent

]]>I KNOW a .400 eFG% tells me that if a player took 100 FGA, he’d score 80 points from those FGA. I KNOW a .400 TS% tells me that if a player took 100 FGA and 20 FTA, he’d score about 87 points.

Even if eFG% or TS% is above 1, it just means that the player is so efficient from that he scores more than 2 points per FGA or TSA. What I don’t understand is the arbitrary weighting of 3/9 and 6/9 (and it could be simplified to 1/3 and 2/3) when you seem to attack TSA because it uses a weighting of .44 which is for the most part widely accepted in the APBR community.

Finally, we would expect good shooters, that is players with high TS% and eFG% to be at the top of most shooting percentage lists, so the fact it passes the common sense test doesn’t mean anything.

]]>1. You fail to understand TS% differentiates between a made two and a made three simply by not differentiating between a two point attempt and a three point attempt. Which is also what eFG% does. eFG% does it by putting a multiplier on three-pointers made; TS% does it by using points scored instead of a multiplier on makes.

2. As another person who left a comment tried to explain, eFG% and TS% are not literally shooting accuracy percentages. I’d probably describe it as a percentage/ratio that uses a player that only shoots twos as a baseline measure. For example, when JJ Redick shoots an eFG% of 115 on ten shots, it merely means he was 15% more efficient than a player who took 10 two-pointers and hit all of them. It’s not even that abstract a concept; JJ Redick shot more efficiently that night than Dwight Howard ever could.

]]>It’s not a measure of what percentage of his shots he made or anything like that, it’s a measure of the effect of those shots – and the effect of taking shots when you include threes can be greater than the effect of shooting 100% on twos.

TS% is the same thing only (rightly) factoring in free throws and using (an estimate of) possessions as the denominator.

Again, basketball is a game of 1) maximizing the number of possessions you have relative to your opponent, 2) maximizing points scored given the possessions you have, 3) minimizing the points your opponents score given the possessions they have. If this isn’t obvious, really stop and think about it for a little bit, because it’s completely key. Those are the three aspects of the game, and that’s the approach you should take when thinking about the game.

FG% is a measure of what percentage of your shots from the field go in, and gives us a first-pass proxy for how efficiently someone scores (where efficiency is scoring more points per possession).

eFG% improves on it by factoring in threes to reflect the fact that not all shots are worth the same amount of points, and thus gives a better measure of efficiency.

TS% improves on it again by factoring in that there are other ways to score than from the field (ie FTs), and that they can use up possessions without counting as a FGA, and adjusts the denominator accordingly, again giving an even better measure of efficiency.

The natural improvement from there is to accurately measure possessions used, rather than estimating using the .44 formula – so if you want to work on that then that’s fine, but points per possession already exists.

What does WFG% improve upon? How does it give us a better understanding of a player’s contribution to efficient scoring, ie to the points they’re scoring relative to the possessions they’re using to do it? That is, after all, what we should care about.

It seems it’s motivated purely out of the desire to prevent percentages greater than 100%, rather than out of a desire to give us a better understanding of scoring efficiency. It succeeds in doing that, sure, but at the cost of being a worse indicator of what we actually want to know.

An easier solution is to realize that there’s no fundamental problem with eFG% and TS% being greater than 100% (because sometimes players have scoring games that are more efficient than shooting 100% on twos), and then that’s the end of it.

]]>However, it has yet to be shown that such a penalty is *wrong.* I’ll admit that the *reason* it exists (for us) is to make the numbers reflect a percentage that cannot exceed 100%. But, like you said, if you factor in rebounding, fouling, opportunity cost on possessions, etc, then you may be able to justify the penalty. We obviously can’t make that argument definitively yet, but the possibility is there.

Your comment is very helpful, and I guess my question in return would be: how would you fix WFG? Presumably what is needed is a different weight for 3pt attempts as opposed to 3pt makes. The problem is, if you simply count a 3pt attempt as a 2pt attempt, you will get the “Derrick Rose Effect” again (see here https://escobarmag.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/weighted-field-goal-percentage-part-2/).

We think this metric (WFG) has the potential to be quite useful and welcome any revisions.

–Chris

]]>An example to show the most immediate problem with your formula:

Player A is 1-3 FG including 0-1 3FG, for a WFG% of 28.57%.

Player B is 1-3 FG including 0-2 3FG, for a WFG% of 25.00%.

Why should Player B be penalized for the fact that he missed an extra 3, rather than an extra 2? Why is missing a 3 more costly to the team than missing a 2? If you’re factoring in offensive rebounding percentages and foul rates and quality of the 2 and everything else then maybe, but you aren’t factoring those things in.

A second example with the same issue at its core:

Player C is 5-10 FG, 2-4 3FG, 6-7FT, for a WFG% of 58.06%.

Player D is 5-10 FG, 3-6 3FG, 6-7FT, for a WFG% of 57.58%.

Player E is 5-10 FG, 4-8 3FG, 6-7FT, for a WFG% of 57.14%.

So by WFG%, C > D > E, at least in these performances.

Yet on the exact same number of shots, Player C scored 18, D scored 19, and E scored 20.

Again, it’s punishing the guys who shot more threes by counting their missed threes more heavily than their missed twos – and theirs no reason for that.

The key is that what you should be trying to measure is the number of points scored relative to the number of possessions used up trying to score them. That’s not done entirely satisfactorily in eFG (no FTs) or TS% (the .44 thing instead of measure possessions explicitly), so there’s room to improve, but WFG% as proposed is a step in the wrong direction. You’ve taken issue with the incorrect use of the term ‘percentage’ – the solution is renaming those terms (because you’re right, they aren’t percentages), not adjusting them until they are percentages at the cost of informational value.

]]>