Exactly. I think most picks have mentioned some of these. I'm still waiting for the writeup that says:

I'm picking XXXXX, he had a TS% of YYY.... Nuff said.

btw, victor and zoidberg are both on (nicholas isn't but should be at some point before the weekend hopefully), so we should be able to get some picks out today. also, i think battschr posted earlier.

Yeah and also wanted to say that I really like RUFFNECK's team. He's got guys that force turnovers, and a some gazelles to run with Magic.

agree though that Ts% seems far from "underrated" in this draft...though seadood has come forth and said that he meant to focus more on how effectively the poeple with good Ts% passed.

James

Let me know if I missed any.

Stop stealing my gazelles reference. You'll have to pick a different animal for other teams.

you're just bitter about mookie imo

Thing about TS%, I like the stat don't get me wrong. It basically seperates chuckers from efficient players. A person cold theoretically have higher than 1 TS% actually much higher if magically they always got to the line, but the thing is they aren't taking shots and never taking contested shots which is a good thing but then you have player B who is on a bad team and has to take contested shots so his TS% is lower than it would be if he was on another team with better players. TS% is a nice tool, it shows that my boy CWebb was an inefficient scorer which there is no doubt about even if I didn't see TS%, thing is he does everything else pretty well, actually really well so it can make up for his bad TS%. If were going to base everything on TS%, then it does become stupid but I'm pretty sure not everyone is basing their drafting on TS% only, I'm definitely not or Clifford Robinson and Tim Hardaway wouldn't be on my team. And there are a bunch of guys who have drafted low TS% guys who do other things really well.

A high bulk crappy TS% is a bad but not that bad of a sign. A low bulk low TS% is a really bad sign to me.

I was either taking Pressey or Larry Smith if AC got taken.

TS% is a better metric if you look at it by position. Obviously it's going to favor big men, who get tip-ins and dunks, so if you find an guard or small forward who's an outside shooter with a high TS% you can give it more weight.

TS% also likes guys who shoot 3s at a good rate.

I didn't say anything about it being the key to this draft. Underrated in this draft, yes, and I stand by that.

And while we're at it, I really think this draft has underrated all around players who are excellent 3 point threats, and lights out 3 point shooters in general.

Oh no - the way the rest of my team went so far, Mookie is the perfect guy for me - especially on the defensive end and in running the break.

It's no different than in the regular NBA thread people are like "zomg Amare has a per of like 800! when he's obviously not a top 5 player in the league.

I mean, that's impossible to believe if you've been reading this thread.

i got no clue who to take. was eyeing sampson. i made a nice list of players but i left it at home.

gonna think a bit, may be a while.

I think of TS% as a decent baseline and part of the equation. You don't need a good ts% to be valuable, and just having a good ts% doesn't mean you're automatically valuable.

You obviously need good d, rebounding, and ball movement, otherwise you're not really getting the easy shots that lead to the high ts%. So you can have a guy like Kidd - who can't really shoot - but Ds up very well, rebounds very well, and passes very well. He's going to be very valuable because, even if he doesn't score at a high efficiency, he limits the other team's efficiency and leads to better looks for other guys.

I mean guys who can create their own shot are valuable, because in certain situations they'll be a better option. And I give a certain amount of weight to the idea that surrounding guys with better players will up your efficiency. But guys who are shoot first players will always be shoot first players, even on good teams.

How so? Remember I said "who like to pass." I think there are several of those players who've been passed up in favor of high volume guys in these past couple rounds. And in general guys like that haven't been met with as much fanfare as "zomg he has a PER of x and a TS of y." An example of that would be Hedo, who I think is a great pick... He was who I'd have taken in the early 4th if Mike Miller was gone.

And I think as this draft goes deeper, PER will become more and more overrated. Right now everyone should have their teams pretty much set as far as "stat sheet stuffers" are concerned, so now it's going to come down to a lot of specialists... and PER is a horrible judge of that imo.

I'll stop using gazelles, but IIRC I got it from the hoopshype bio on Shareef... or somebody else, I forget.

[edit] not Shareef... i have a bad memory.

See, I think there are lots of examples of guys who as they got older learned to subjugate their game to others for the betterment of a team. Tim Hardaway is a great example. Ron Harper is a great example. Finley, Malone, Payton, heck even Stackhouse has learned to focus on D and more team play and less on shooting. Maybe its a "survival trait" to keep their jobs, but there are definitely examples of guys learning and accepting new roles.

I know where you got it from

QFMFT. This is a pretty consistent stat across the board, regardless of team or coaching changes.

I'm impressed with the NBA history knowledge in this thread. Recent picks of Donaldson & Pressey, especially. You just don't hear about these guys anymore. And Larry Smith, heck I've never heard of him.

Now that pressey has been picked - the 85-86 bucks, what a sick squad. Cummings, moncrief, pressey, pierce. If they didn't have to go through one of the greatest teams ever in the '86 Celts, this could have been a title winning team.

D

None of those guys became better shooters with time. With the exception of Hardaway who got worse, they've all been pretty consistent throughout their career. But yeah they have mostly accepted a lesser role in their respective teams, but that doesn't mean they are/were any good at them.

The only counter example I can think of right now is Lamar Odom's efficiency shooting up with Pau, but that's such a small sample.

Someone said that "shoot first players always stay shoot first players". I'm noting that's not the case. I'm not arguing that people magically become better shooters. But they can and do take fewer shots, play more D, pass the ball more. There are lots of examples of that. Hey, Epippen is going to turn McHale into less of a black hole amirite?

C'mon. Ron Harper wasn't good in his new role as defender and 4th option instead of chucking first option? Stackhouse doesn't play better in his new role off the bench?

sorry to hold up the draft but im not gonna pick for awhile. going to lunch now.