[Grades] Grades v. Pelicans 1/21/2014
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
Oh, good grief. NOBODY said his assists don't count. This is just getting beyond stupid. Spike said IT is getting better assist numbers because he's dishing the ball to people who make baskets. That is NOT a dig. Some of you really need to quit trying to find something offensive in every single post that's made about IT.
You know even though you say it's not meant to be a knock on Thomas, it sure comes across that way...
I think I know what you're trying to say (and you can correct me if I'm wrong). You're trying to say that Thomas has not improved his ability to setup his teammates at all (or only slightly) and the only reason his assists are up are because he has better finishers and shooters around him. If this statement is true, one could look at assist opportunities per minute from last year and compare them to this year. Obviously, there would be some external factors that won't be controlled for in the comparison, but it should give you a decent indication of the progression of Thomas in terms of setting others up.
Unfortunately, we do not have assist opportunities per minute for last year's season since we started the advanced player tracking this year. (At least I think so. I could be wrong.)
Edit: This argument reminds me of one that is centered around BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play) for baseball. For those of you that don't know, it is a stat that is used to gauge pitchers. It measures the batting average when a ball is put into play against a pitcher. This stat should remain very consistent from pitcher to pitcher because when a ball is put into play, defenses usually convert an "out" at a very similar rate. Some pitchers may have a very low BABIP to start the season and also have very good pitching numbers. This is usually an indication that the pitcher has been experiencing a bit of luck and that his defense is getting people out at a very high rate. For those of you that play Fantasy Baseball, sell high on these guys!!
This reminds me of assists in a way. The leagues average BABIP would be equivalent to the NBA's average FG%. You could be generating plenty of opportunities for your teammates to score (or plenty of opportunities for your defense to get an out), but they are converting at a rate below the league average. Some might say, well why don't they just strike them out? I would probably say that's the equivalent of the PG scoring themselves.
Nothing better than trying to force an analogy
I think I know what you're trying to say (and you can correct me if I'm wrong). You're trying to say that Thomas has not improved his ability to setup his teammates at all (or only slightly) and the only reason his assists are up are because he has better finishers and shooters around him. If this statement is true, one could look at assist opportunities per minute from last year and compare them to this year. Obviously, there would be some external factors that won't be controlled for in the comparison, but it should give you a decent indication of the progression of Thomas in terms of setting others up.
Unfortunately, we do not have assist opportunities per minute for last year's season since we started the advanced player tracking this year. (At least I think so. I could be wrong.)
Edit: This argument reminds me of one that is centered around BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play) for baseball. For those of you that don't know, it is a stat that is used to gauge pitchers. It measures the batting average when a ball is put into play against a pitcher. This stat should remain very consistent from pitcher to pitcher because when a ball is put into play, defenses usually convert an "out" at a very similar rate. Some pitchers may have a very low BABIP to start the season and also have very good pitching numbers. This is usually an indication that the pitcher has been experiencing a bit of luck and that his defense is getting people out at a very high rate. For those of you that play Fantasy Baseball, sell high on these guys!!
This reminds me of assists in a way. The leagues average BABIP would be equivalent to the NBA's average FG%. You could be generating plenty of opportunities for your teammates to score (or plenty of opportunities for your defense to get an out), but they are converting at a rate below the league average. Some might say, well why don't they just strike them out? I would probably say that's the equivalent of the PG scoring themselves.
Nothing better than trying to force an analogy
As time goes by, I fully believe we're going to see a more rounded performance from IT because he will learn to have faith in the other guys, meaning he'll feel comfortable about passing to them and not feeling he has to do it all himself. This comes with learning how your teammates play.
I liked what I saw last night. It was a balanced effort.
I liked what I saw last night. It was a balanced effort.
Come on now. Where did Spike say IT can be more efficient? Let's not put words in people's mouths. If Spike wants to post that, then that's fine.
He simply said it's nice to have players like Gay and Cousins to feed the ball to and that it might be the reason why his assists are up. It just came across as another excuse to not give Thomas credit. That is all.
Per 36 as a starter last year: 5.5 APG
Per 36 as a starter this year: 7.3 APG
That's a pretty big difference. I'm not willing to give ALL the credit to Gay and Cousins converting at a high rate unless I see some advanced data behind it. I'm certain the play of Cousins and Gay have contributed to it.
He simply said it's nice to have players like Gay and Cousins to feed the ball to and that it might be the reason why his assists are up. It just came across as another excuse to not give Thomas credit. That is all.
Per 36 as a starter last year: 5.5 APG
Per 36 as a starter this year: 7.3 APG
That's a pretty big difference. I'm not willing to give ALL the credit to Gay and Cousins converting at a high rate unless I see some advanced data behind it. I'm certain the play of Cousins and Gay have contributed to it.
Wouldn't it be easy to just take his 20 points and 17 shots+3 possessions with FT shooting and say he got TS% of .500 in this game.
As for just incorporating 3-pointers into FG%, it's called eFG% and it was 15 points/(17shots*2).
People forget that these grades are relative to usual perfomance, so IT definitely deserves a better one. He played like usual himself, both good and bad, but for better part of the game he tried to contain his tendencies on offense and gave a damn on defense.
As for just incorporating 3-pointers into FG%, it's called eFG% and it was 15 points/(17shots*2).
People forget that these grades are relative to usual perfomance, so IT definitely deserves a better one. He played like usual himself, both good and bad, but for better part of the game he tried to contain his tendencies on offense and gave a damn on defense.
Yes. You've figured me out. I'm a total H8R. [Edit: I added the smiley just to show that I'm not really a total hater...just in case.]
If you really want to slant my post, you can say that I think Gay and Cousins have made IT statistically better. Or if you really want to slant it (I'll do it for you), IT is only performing this well because he is playing with Cousins and Gay. If I want to knock IT, I'll stick to defense. He's doing just fine on offense.
Absolutely. Improved efficiency by our main 2 has helped everyone else.
Not everything has to be driven by personal agenda, unless you're always looking for it.
[Edit: I added the smiley just to show that I'm not really a total hater...just in case.]If you really want to slant my post, you can say that I think Gay and Cousins have made IT statistically better. Or if you really want to slant it (I'll do it for you), IT is only performing this well because he is playing with Cousins and Gay. If I want to knock IT, I'll stick to defense. He's doing just fine on offense.
Absolutely. Improved efficiency by our main 2 has helped everyone else.
Not everything has to be driven by personal agenda, unless you're always looking for it.
Yes. You've figured me out. I'm a total H8R. [Edit: I added the smiley just to show that I'm not really a total hater...just in case.]
If you really want to slant my post, you can say that I think Gay and Cousins have made IT statistically better. Or if you really want to slant it (I'll do it for you), IT is only performing this well because he is playing with Cousins and Gay. If I want to knock IT, I'll stick to defense. He's doing just fine on offense.
Absolutely. Improved efficiency by our main 2 has helped everyone else.
Not everything has to be driven by personal agenda, unless you're always looking for it.
[Edit: I added the smiley just to show that I'm not really a total hater...just in case.]If you really want to slant my post, you can say that I think Gay and Cousins have made IT statistically better. Or if you really want to slant it (I'll do it for you), IT is only performing this well because he is playing with Cousins and Gay. If I want to knock IT, I'll stick to defense. He's doing just fine on offense.
Absolutely. Improved efficiency by our main 2 has helped everyone else.
Not everything has to be driven by personal agenda, unless you're always looking for it.
And now back to reality...
Yes. You've figured me out. I'm a total H8R. [Edit: I added the smiley just to show that I'm not really a total hater...just in case.]
If you really want to slant my post, you can say that I think Gay and Cousins have made IT statistically better. Or if you really want to slant it (I'll do it for you), IT is only performing this well because he is playing with Cousins and Gay. If I want to knock IT, I'll stick to defense. He's doing just fine on offense.
Absolutely. Improved efficiency by our main 2 has helped everyone else.
Not everything has to be driven by personal agenda, unless you're always looking for it.
[Edit: I added the smiley just to show that I'm not really a total hater...just in case.]If you really want to slant my post, you can say that I think Gay and Cousins have made IT statistically better. Or if you really want to slant it (I'll do it for you), IT is only performing this well because he is playing with Cousins and Gay. If I want to knock IT, I'll stick to defense. He's doing just fine on offense.
Absolutely. Improved efficiency by our main 2 has helped everyone else.
Not everything has to be driven by personal agenda, unless you're always looking for it.
B-R.com indicates that Thomas leads all starting point guards in TS%: it has Chris Paul at fourth, Stephen Curry at sixth, Tony Parker at seventh, Mike Conley at tenth, and Russell Westbrook at fifteenth. They also indicate that Thomas is fourth among starting point guards in three point percentage, again ahead of Curry (8th), Paul (13th), Conley (14th) and Westbrook (18th). Some people look at those numbers, and they tell them that Isaiah Thomas is a great point guard, because EFFICIENCY~! I look at those numbers and they tell me that, if Thomas is tops in those categories, and so many great point guards are so far behind him, then those categories can't be all that important to being a great point guard. Hell, shooting efficiency might be the least important attribute a point guard can have. TS% would tell you that Isaiah Thomas is not only a better shooter than Stephen Curry, but significantly better; I can't take a statistic like that seriously.
I don't think the stats like and I think he may be the most efficient scoring pg in the league. I just don't think it matters that much as teams are rarely going to spend a lot of energy to stop him, we have 2 other big scorers to maximize and he gives up a lot on the other end. Some people on here confuse the argument and think we don't recognize how talented he is rather than if his skills are the right fit.
I assume you're only looking at this season (so far a down year for Curry - lowest FG% and 3PT% of his career), because Curry's career TS% is higher than IT's.
But if you can't take TS% seriously as a statistic because IT's is higher than Curry's this year, then I suppose you can't take FG% or 3PT% seriously, either.
But if you can't take TS% seriously as a statistic because IT's is higher than Curry's this year, then I suppose you can't take FG% or 3PT% seriously, either.
I know, it's just a step down from damned lies, but you can't be serious. As always it should be put in proper perspective, but it's valuable. It shows that guys in love with cute little mid-range jumpers don't help their teams that much, even when they shoot 50% from the field (that's a GOAT mid-range shooting), but don't get to the line.
And perspective for IT is that he plays a) on a losing team and b)besides two very talented players.
a) results in teams not using a lot of energy to stop him, when they can just hang around, lull him into thinking he's beating them, then change the strategy in the last minutes and let IT self-destruct. Interesting that OKC changed pattern to half instead of last minutes, probably wanted garbage time sooner rather than later, and put the hammer down.
b) these two guys teams are actually trying to guard, now that Kings are a serious threat to win, even when opposing teams don't try to gift them the W. And so Thomas is able to slip through the cracks of whatever defensive system is out there to stop DFC/RFG. In Memphis long and quick guard, plus shutting down paint as a strategy, followed by Boogie/Rudy still forcing inside resulted in lack of cracks.
That said IT is a poor man's AI, he can score in bunches, and some teams don't have personnel or good execution on defensive end to stop him. But when they do, IT scores efficiently, only when the other team looks at other guys or doesn't bother that much.
And perspective for IT is that he plays a) on a losing team and b)besides two very talented players.
a) results in teams not using a lot of energy to stop him, when they can just hang around, lull him into thinking he's beating them, then change the strategy in the last minutes and let IT self-destruct. Interesting that OKC changed pattern to half instead of last minutes, probably wanted garbage time sooner rather than later, and put the hammer down.
b) these two guys teams are actually trying to guard, now that Kings are a serious threat to win, even when opposing teams don't try to gift them the W. And so Thomas is able to slip through the cracks of whatever defensive system is out there to stop DFC/RFG. In Memphis long and quick guard, plus shutting down paint as a strategy, followed by Boogie/Rudy still forcing inside resulted in lack of cracks.
That said IT is a poor man's AI, he can score in bunches, and some teams don't have personnel or good execution on defensive end to stop him. But when they do, IT scores efficiently, only when the other team looks at other guys or doesn't bother that much.
context is very important here, as it always is. TS% is useful when you compare players fulfilling similar roles, using up similar amounts of possessions within a comparable hierarchy. it gets complicated once people start using it to claim the superiority of player A (a third option/roleplayer kind of guy) compared to player B (a second option, whose team relies on him to create shots for himself and others), or something along similar lines.
Well, naturally, but you've always been pretty "inflexible" when it comes to stats.
But that's not correct. For instance, here is this year's in-progress data, team TS% vs. team winning percentage:
An r^2 of 0.63 is pretty darn correlated. This tells you that shooting more efficiently so that you increase your team TS% by about .01 is worth about 10% in the winning percentage column.
Opponent TS% also correlates in the way that you would expect:
It's not as tight, and the slope is smaller, but that's still a pretty good correlation. Decrease your opponent's shooting efficiency by about .01 TS% and you increase your winning percentage by about 5%.
Now it's a bit disturbing to see that offensive efficiency is more closely related to winning that defensive efficiency, but I would suspect that a lot of the remainder of the defensive contribution is wrapped up in things like steals and forced TOs that don't show up in opponent TS% but effectively decrease your opponent's score.
But the bottom line is that of course efficiency correlates with winning, and correlates well. It would be shocking if it didn't.
But that's not correct. For instance, here is this year's in-progress data, team TS% vs. team winning percentage:
An r^2 of 0.63 is pretty darn correlated. This tells you that shooting more efficiently so that you increase your team TS% by about .01 is worth about 10% in the winning percentage column.
Opponent TS% also correlates in the way that you would expect:
It's not as tight, and the slope is smaller, but that's still a pretty good correlation. Decrease your opponent's shooting efficiency by about .01 TS% and you increase your winning percentage by about 5%.
Now it's a bit disturbing to see that offensive efficiency is more closely related to winning that defensive efficiency, but I would suspect that a lot of the remainder of the defensive contribution is wrapped up in things like steals and forced TOs that don't show up in opponent TS% but effectively decrease your opponent's score.
But the bottom line is that of course efficiency correlates with winning, and correlates well. It would be shocking if it didn't.
True "Shooting" Percentage is a bit of a misnomer, what TS% actually measures is scoring efficiency, mainly because getting to the FT line (a key component of TS%) isn't as much a function of shooting as it is of slashing. And efficiency must always be balanced with an analysis of volume. Point guard play? If you're going to try to measure that, why are you using scoring efficiency?
But I don't think its crazy to think Isaiah's been a more efficient scorer than those guys this year (especially given that Curry's had a down year). I'm also not seeing anybody taking that crazy step that you are taking where TS% is used as the SOLE reason to take one player over another. It might be happening somewhere in the deep recesses of the internet, but not in any rational circles.
But I don't think its crazy to think Isaiah's been a more efficient scorer than those guys this year (especially given that Curry's had a down year). I'm also not seeing anybody taking that crazy step that you are taking where TS% is used as the SOLE reason to take one player over another. It might be happening somewhere in the deep recesses of the internet, but not in any rational circles.
Well, naturally, but you've always been pretty "inflexible" when it comes to stats.
But that's not correct. For instance, here is this year's in-progress data, team TS% vs. team winning percentage:
An r^2 of 0.63 is pretty darn correlated. This tells you that shooting more efficiently so that you increase your team TS% by about .01 is worth about 10% in the winning percentage column.
Opponent TS% also correlates in the way that you would expect:
It's not as tight, and the slope is smaller, but that's still a pretty good correlation. Decrease your opponent's shooting efficiency by about .01 TS% and you increase your winning percentage by about 5%.
Now it's a bit disturbing to see that offensive efficiency is more closely related to winning that defensive efficiency, but I would suspect that a lot of the remainder of the defensive contribution is wrapped up in things like steals and forced TOs that don't show up in opponent TS% but effectively decrease your opponent's score.
But the bottom line is that of course efficiency correlates with winning, and correlates well. It would be shocking if it didn't.
But that's not correct. For instance, here is this year's in-progress data, team TS% vs. team winning percentage:
An r^2 of 0.63 is pretty darn correlated. This tells you that shooting more efficiently so that you increase your team TS% by about .01 is worth about 10% in the winning percentage column.
Opponent TS% also correlates in the way that you would expect:
It's not as tight, and the slope is smaller, but that's still a pretty good correlation. Decrease your opponent's shooting efficiency by about .01 TS% and you increase your winning percentage by about 5%.
Now it's a bit disturbing to see that offensive efficiency is more closely related to winning that defensive efficiency, but I would suspect that a lot of the remainder of the defensive contribution is wrapped up in things like steals and forced TOs that don't show up in opponent TS% but effectively decrease your opponent's score.
But the bottom line is that of course efficiency correlates with winning, and correlates well. It would be shocking if it didn't.
first of all you have converted TS% into a team stat, which like most of the good work TS% does is completely obvious as its just a mush stat of all the actual underlying stats that have largely tracked like FG%/OppFG% etc.
secondly TS% is not a defensive stat because you can't control how well the other team shoots FTs (slight exception might be Malone's fascination with the Hack-a-Shaq). eFG% gets you as far. Best argument I can see for TS% in that setting is that it could account for one team hacking more or less, but then it differs in how it accounts for that in random ways depending on how well the other team does something over which the defensive team has no control. Or, if you actually want to see what is going on rather than having mommy mush your strained peas and carrots into a single mucky blob, you just actually look at the real stats underlying the "advanced" stats.
Now the larger issue goes back to the first: you turned TS% into a team stat. If it stayed as a team stat it would still be mush, but it would as I said also be fairly obvious.
Top 10 Teams in FG%:
Miami
San Antonio
Houston
Dallas
OKC
Clippers
Golden State
Atlanta
Indiana
Portland
I mean, I doubt the Top 10 TS% leading teams is going to get any more accurate than that. Its well known, its established, its not disputed.
BUT, now let's look at the Top 50 TS% players in the NBA this year:
James Nunnaly
Keith Bogans
Jeff Withey
Ryan Hollins
Chris Anderson
Brandon Wright
LeBron James
Alan Crabbe
Mason Plumlee
Kyle Korver
Rasual Butler
Miroslav Raduljica
Kevin Durant
James Jones
Bismack Biyomob
Greg Smith
Brook Lopez
Anthony Tolliver
Marco Bellinelli
Wesley Matthews
Matt Bonner
Jannero Pargo
Jonas Jerebko
Chris Copeland
Samuel Dalembert
Andrew Bogut
Martell Webster
Alexis Ajinca
Timofey Mozgov
Jose Calderon
Boris Diaw
Andre Igoudala
DeAndre Jordan
Chris Bosh
Nick Collison
James Harden
Courtney Lee
JJ Reddick
Chandler Parsons
Patty Mills
Pablo Prigoni
Robin Lopez
Goran Dragic
Elton Brand
Tiago Splitter
Amir Johnson
Tyson Chandler
Paul George
Mike Miller
That's Top 50 in the NBA, and what, out of those Top 50 in this particular stat we have maybe...4 of the 24 All Stars who will be in the ASG game in a few weeks? If George hadn't squeaked in at #49 it would be 3, and only 2 off contenders. Most are blatant roleplayers. How many of those guys carry their numbers and winning with them wherever they go? I would be hardpressed to find any conventional stat less aligned with actual offensive talent, with guys who make things happen. Theory: TS% IS a team stat. It measures your team's system, your role, and it may measure how well your superior teammates are setting you up. Because most of the time when you are really good at it, it means you are standing under the hoop taking passes for dunks or spotted up with your feet set in the corner while the guys with actual talent, and lower TS%s, create your shot for you.