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