## The story told by total (score) percent

TS% times scoring opportunities is the simplest way I know of for determining the outcome of a game.  last year for example, the Timberwolves had a total shooting percentage of .518 as a team and 94.8 opportunities to score by my calculations.  By contrast, their opponents had a TS% of .563 and about 95.8 opportunities (due to 39 more rebounds and 40 less turnovers in 82 games primarily) this is a difference of about 1 opportunity per game.  You can see how multiplying 2 x.518  x  94.8 = 98.2 and  2 x..563 x 95.8 = 107.6  is about right  for the actual average scoring last year.  No matter how you slice it ,  to win, a team must have a higher ts% x opportunities product then its opponent.   You can also analyze players as well as teams using TS%  (some players provide more opportunities as well by causing more turnovers and by producing more rebounds than their opponent) I thought it would be interesting to see how Twolve players  individually compared in this respect.
First some background,  to obtain this information I went to 82 Games and looked up players by position and then found the section that contains the player  stats at his most common position and then his opponents stats.  This is the only place I could find information on the actual opponent the player was dueling against.  To find that opponents TS% I first needed to find how many points he scored (given) and how many shots he took (FGA +.44 x FTA) The TS% for each TWolf player is also given at basketball reference.

More background,  I calculated a league average TS% of .543 and the TWolves average at .518 and opponents at .563 (meaning we were almost equally bad on offense as defense)    By position league averages appear to be:     C =.564,  PF= .544,  SF=.538,  PG= .533  SG=.537.

Here are the respective averages of former Players followed by their opponents averages.   Jefferson .524 & .561

Pecherov  .487 & .597  Cardinal  .546 & .612  Gomes .528  & .576  Wilkins .515 & .571  Pavlovic .422 & .527  of these,jefferson   was obviously the best,  his 524 -.561 =.37 meaning he was outshot by 3.7 percent.

Of the new players added  Ridnour .570 & .541 is a plus and Beasleys .505 & .514 is within 1 percent and Websters

.543 & .561 when averaged together are on par with their opponents (typical of a 41 win team) of the remaining players:  Love .549 & .548  Milicic .499 & .597  Hollins .600 & .580  (but unlike Milicic he produces less shooting opportunities and more for the other team) Ellington .527 & .534  Flynn 511 &.525 (surprised this is lowest for all guards meaning best defense?)  Sessions .513 & .558 (less defense than Flynn?)  Brewer .502 and .572 (what was he doing on defense? He was much better as a rookie).  One thing to note, these figures would not take into account help defense.   So there it is my first post ,   I did this because I originally wanted to see who were the better players and because Aas a fan of  "Wages of Wins" I wanted to eliminate the one inaccuracy I saw in their evaluation of players.  "wages" uses a overall team defense strategy  to arrive at its evaluation otherwise it is very accurate IMO having position adjustments

## Trending Discussions

forgot?

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

I already have a Vox Media account!

### Verify Vox Media account

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

We'll email you a reset link.

Try another email?

### Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

### Join Canis Hoopus

You must be a member of Canis Hoopus to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Canis Hoopus. You should read them.

### Join Canis Hoopus

You must be a member of Canis Hoopus to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Canis Hoopus. You should read them.