Posted by marl_karx on 5/23/2020 6:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/21/2020 10:05:00 PM (view original):
i probably shouldn't have posted that 1 yr conference thing, i did that for my own curiosity once, pac10-7 is 8 on 5yr and 10 on 10yr. so basically between an avg #1 conf in a world and an avg #2 conf in a world - solid but not beastly.

anyway, i agree the slasher guards can be pretty good. i actually value FT pretty well for them, they take so many FTs. if a guy is taking 100 fg and 66 FTs over some number of games, at a 52% fg and 70% ft (the numbers don't matter, but i struggle to leap to the conclusion without an example), that's 150.2 points. 5% increase in FT would be 3.3 more points, equivalent to 1.65% increase in FG %, so you get about a third of the value from FT % increase as you get from FG % increase - which is meaningfully higher than most players.

anyway, whatever units you use, it takes a pretty decent amount of ratings like ath/lp or bh/spd/per to get a few points of fg increase. it feels to me when you look at a guard like the one in the example, who is doing really well - it would be relatively challenging to increase that guy's fg% by say 3.33%. lot of key ratings that just make that player

It is a bit difficult to convert your example into more commonly used statistics, but let me try as this is very relevant to me what with a star slasher with D+ (capped) FT.

(very) Roughly speaking, 100 FGA and 66 FTA is 100+29 (66*.44 rounded) Possessions. His points are 150.2 at 52/-/70 shooting for a "true shooting" % of ~58.2%. At 52/-/75 its +3.3 (=153.5) and TS% of 59.5. For comparison my player is 55.2/-/55.8 which is ~149.208 and 57.8 TS%

However, you have assumed almost exactly a 60/40 FGA/FTA split. My player is actually only 55% FGA which makes the result tricky to report as a comparison because you have to decide whether to preserve the FGA/FTA split or balance them out in terms of possessions (which is a "derived" stat).

My player ends up shooting on 5% more of his possessions used if you do that calculation (82.5 to 77.5). For simplicity, if you plug your percentages (52/-/70) into my players actual attempts you get a TS% of 59.3 compared to my player's 58.3 %.

With your distribution (100 FG 66 FT) +1 FG% = ~3 FT% to keep points scored equal whereas mine would look more like 91 FG 75 FT and 1 FG% ~= 2.3 FT%

The end result is that your player with your hypothetical distribution and my player with his real stats have eerily similar efficiency (~58.2-58.3)

This is all assuming I crunched all the numbers correctly lol.

yeah, im not 100% sure where i was going with that example either. the point was like, a point of FT increase is not negligible compared to a point of 2pt increase, for these slashers - where as for like a 3pt shooting guard, FT tends to be fairly useless. you'd *much* rather gain a point of fg% than ft% because you take so few, i sort of ignore ft in 3pt shooters, its just so barely used.

also, guards tend to take more FTs when slashing than bigs, i think in part due to ath/spd but in part due to their position. as a result slasher guards have the highest value on FT of anyone. that's really all im getting at. probably could have done without the example, i just wasn't sure offhand what a normal ratio is (of fg% increase to ft% increase value) so i made up some reasonable-feeling numbers so i'd put out a reasonable-seeming figure.

to your guy - so his value on FT is slightly less than my guy (i think, based on him taking fewer - not awake enough to see how you got 1 fg% ~= 2.3 ft% which would mean FT shooting is worth more, right?) - but i think the point is the same - ft% is an important part of his efficiency, so FT rating is pretty useful.

in my example, FG% is more valuable because if it went up by 1 point you could have a corresponding drop of 2.3 FT% and stay even.

Posted by marl_karx on 5/23/2020 3:36:00 PM (view original):
in my example, FG% is more valuable because if it went up by 1 point you could have a corresponding drop of 2.3 FT% and stay even.

im struggling a bit, but two things before i jump into the math from your post. first, if 1% of FG is worth 2.3% of FT in your case, and 3% of FT in mine, then FG is worth less in your example. if 1% of FG was equivalent to 100% of FT, it would be massively valuable. if 1% of FG was equivalent to 1% of FT, its incredibly not-valuable. so i think you are just mixing up the positive/negative correlation here and going backwards, which is pretty easy in these cases.

second, i'm a bit lost by the movement from fundamental stats (fg%, ft%) to derived stats (possessions/TSP) and back down to fg% and ft%. i don't generally see why you would covert through complex stats on your way back to the fundamentals we started with - so i think i am perhaps missing your intent there?

anyway, i am following your math through the first four paragraphs, but then i get lost in the 5th. 91 FG and 75 FT, 1% of FG is 1.82 points, 1% of FT is .75, which comes out to ~2.4%, so i think i can see sort of where the 2.3% comes from. but where does the 91 FG and 75FT come from? that is a *way* higher ratio of FT to FG than in my example - and in the beginning - your guy had only about 55% FTA/FGA to my guys 60%. this other 91/75 guy is is a legendary 82%. so i'm thinking wherever the leap to the 91/75 numbers is, is where the breakdown was? also note, this guy who takes so many FTs - clearly FG % is less important relative to FT % than regular players - hence his 2.3% number, which is lower than the 3% number on my theoretical guy - kinda shows the lower the fg%:ft% ratio, the less fg% matters relative to ft%. for a guy who barely takes FTA, you'd see the opposite - a high %, and a high value on FG% compared to FT%.

still - all this to say - my point is really that FT is pretty important for these types of players :) i am definitely thinking there's a good possibility i'm not following your point though, and there's something i left unresolved/unanswered. so please, feel free to respond here or in sitemail and i'll be happy to discuss further! have a good one.

wait a second... who is your guy? i was thinking mlitney's guy was your guy, with him being 55% fta/fga and you referencing 55%.

His stats have changed a bit since my analysis because he has one more Tournament run left in his career but here he is:

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4476238

The 55% is not FGA/FTA its FGA/(FGA+FTA) because I was trying to make my guy's FGA/FTA split add up to your 166. Your breakdown would be 100/66 and my player's would be 91/75. Because there are so many different ways to report the same thing -- and each of them is more or less useful for various purposes -- I think I confused things more than clarified sorry, lol

He was 181 FGA/148 FTA and now he is 182 FGA/151 FTA so he really is a legendary ~82-83% by that way of accounting.

Also, when I say 1 FG% = 2.3 FT% neither of those is relative. Perhaps I should have written 1% FG = 2.3% FT. As an example say FG% went from 54 to 55. Then True Shooting would stay the same if FT% went from 70 to 67.7 ASSUMING that the FGA/FTA ratio stayed constant.

My purpose was to try and provide some hard data to help quantify effectiveness and especially MARGINAL effectiveness. That is why I introduced True Shooting Percentage because it is one of the easiest metrics that puts Fgs and Fts into the same currency so-to-speak (ie possessions).

Posted by marl_karx on 5/24/2020 3:31:00 PM (view original):
His stats have changed a bit since my analysis because he has one more Tournament run left in his career but here he is:

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4476238

The 55% is not FGA/FTA its FGA/(FGA+FTA) because I was trying to make my guy's FGA/FTA split add up to your 166. Your breakdown would be 100/66 and my player's would be 91/75. Because there are so many different ways to report the same thing -- and each of them is more or less useful for various purposes -- I think I confused things more than clarified sorry, lol

He was 181 FGA/148 FTA and now he is 182 FGA/151 FTA so he really is a legendary ~82-83% by that way of accounting.

Also, when I say 1 FG% = 2.3 FT% neither of those is relative. Perhaps I should have written 1% FG = 2.3% FT. As an example say FG% went from 54 to 55. Then True Shooting would stay the same if FT% went from 70 to 67.7 ASSUMING that the FGA/FTA ratio stayed constant.

My purpose was to try and provide some hard data to help quantify effectiveness and especially MARGINAL effectiveness. That is why I introduced True Shooting Percentage because it is one of the easiest metrics that puts Fgs and Fts into the same currency so-to-speak (ie possessions).

Why true shooting over efg%?

Posted by cubcub113 on 5/24/2020 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by marl_karx on 5/24/2020 3:31:00 PM (view original):
His stats have changed a bit since my analysis because he has one more Tournament run left in his career but here he is:

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4476238

The 55% is not FGA/FTA its FGA/(FGA+FTA) because I was trying to make my guy's FGA/FTA split add up to your 166. Your breakdown would be 100/66 and my player's would be 91/75. Because there are so many different ways to report the same thing -- and each of them is more or less useful for various purposes -- I think I confused things more than clarified sorry, lol

He was 181 FGA/148 FTA and now he is 182 FGA/151 FTA so he really is a legendary ~82-83% by that way of accounting.

Also, when I say 1 FG% = 2.3 FT% neither of those is relative. Perhaps I should have written 1% FG = 2.3% FT. As an example say FG% went from 54 to 55. Then True Shooting would stay the same if FT% went from 70 to 67.7 ASSUMING that the FGA/FTA ratio stayed constant.

My purpose was to try and provide some hard data to help quantify effectiveness and especially MARGINAL effectiveness. That is why I introduced True Shooting Percentage because it is one of the easiest metrics that puts Fgs and Fts into the same currency so-to-speak (ie possessions).

Why true shooting over efg%?

Because EFG% just adjusts FG% for 3 pointers which are irrelevant here while TS% gives you a way to account for FTs which EFG% doesn't even address. EFG% = FG% in this case as far as I can tell. And the significance of FT shooting was the original question I was taking up.

I'm just glad I'm good at this game without the formulas..... I can't even read those last few messages Haha

Posted by topdogggbm on 5/25/2020 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I'm just glad I'm good at this game without the formulas..... I can't even read those last few messages Haha

Lol, same here.... except the "being good at the game" part.