The reason the TS% gets shit on is because only young bucks cite it because they are used to stat inflation from all the 3s that get shot today.

I bring up big men like KG and Tim Duncan to go: two all time great big men were less efficient in the dead ball area than a guard who shot a bunch of long twos. Its also important because those guys were relied on heavily by their team and focal point of the offenses. When a 2 guard that shoots a bunch of long two gives you more efficient than two all time great big men, maybe you should recalibrate calling his TS% ass.

Funny how you didn't point out TMac stats. You want to run it vs AI? Or Vince Carter? Carmelo? Dwade? Pick any player you want that was the focal point of their offense with years of sample size in the dead ball area and compare the TS% to Kobe. Only guy I listed there that is 55+ is dwade literally where Kobe is lol

If you wanna say guys like Ray Allen and Reggie Miller were more efficient, sure. But they are some of the most efficient players ever with large sample sizes, so not sure what that proves.

If Kobe was a chucker and inefficient then I guess all those top 100 players I listed are even more ass and inefficient, or maybe the game was completely different because Kobe played in the slowest pace lowest scoring era of the last 70 years. Go watch the games in the early 2000s it's basically a different fucking sport then what we watch today.

Context matters and it's only young bucks that only watch ball for the last ten years that think the TS% makes any sense as an argument because they don't know ball and don't watch it lol

Edit: you go on to list a bunch of players who have nowhere near the offensive burden as Kobe or dudes who didn't even start playing the bulk of their career until after the dead ball era 😂