For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family.
dwayne2005 wrote:Regarding Brook Lopez, 3 point shooting at .346 equals 1.038 points per shot attempt. 2 at .466 equals 0.932 points per shot attempt. If he earnt all his free throws from his 2 point game, his 2 point efficiency rises to 0.98. For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family. It's taken the idiots in the league 40 years to figure out, and they still haven't given the 3 point shot its due. My prediction is that 3 point shots will eventually be so abundant they will practically destroy the game as an entertainment. Something will eventually need to be done to counteract it and bring back diversity. I'm not confident enlarging the 3 point line would do that (most shooters these days shoot several feet behind the line already). Besides, you'd probably also need to enlargen the court sideways to counteract the side 3's. You'll probably just make it a guard dominant game with shots still raining from 3. There is a possibility 3 point shooting is less consistent than 2 point shooting (probably closer than you imagine), so 2's may still have some value even if they aren't as efficient on the average.
[Q] wrote:Yeah but your data and points per shot don't mean much if you need a single bucket to break a cold streak or just need a bucket at the end of the game. I still prefer the higher percentage shot. You might get more points per shot, but at the end of the day, that shot has to go in for you to get the points
It's very frustrating as only 42.2% of his shots come within 10 ft of the basket when he's shooting 73% from 3 ft and in and also a solid 51% from 3-10 ft
What a waste of abilities
NovU wrote:Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:
Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411
BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want
Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.
dwayne2005 wrote:NovU wrote:Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:
Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411
BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want
Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.
My eyes probably tracked the wrong box at Basketball Reference or something, though I am mystified where since I can't see any confusable 60% boxes. It wouldn't be the first time. It was Basketball Reference I was looking at. I ran the numbers through my program and last night came up with:
League wide, up to the all-star break, 3 point shooting was 1.08 points per shot (or 36% average; (PL3PM/PL3PA)*3) while 2 point shooting (this time discounting the threes from the equation) counts as 1.02 points per shot (or 51% average; ((PLFGM-PL3PM)/(PLFGA-PL3PA))*2).
On the other hand, if you count all the free throw shots as relating to the 2 point game, 2 point shooting becomes worth 1.13 points per shot ((PLPTS-(PL3PM*3))/(PLFGA-PL3PA+(0.44*PLFTA))). So by that measure, 2 point shooting is more efficient than 3 on the average for the league by 0.05 points per attempt (almost the same as the difference between 3 point shooting and 2).
Interestingly, up to the all-star break, Stephen Curry saw a dramatic increase in efficiency by this measure. He is 1.24 from 3, 1.19 from 2 and 1.43 from 2 point range plus free throws. Obviously, he is getting fouled because he can shoot whether or not it is coming from 3 point range. maybe partly for fear that he is go out and shoot a 3? So it brings into question assigning all the value of free throws to the 2 point game. Brook Lopez was 1.03 from 2 point range, 1.00 from 3 point range and 1.10 from 2 point range plus free throws.
Manute Bol was way more efficient not shooting 3's (0.59 vs 0.87 and 0.92 when adding free throws). He got extremely lucky in one game in particular where he pledged to donate to charity for every 3 he scored or something (if I recall correctly). It is probably more proof of the existence of God than it is of Manute Bol's 3 point shooting (and I'm an atheist).
dwayne2005 wrote:The context of the 'league is stupid' remark that you keep honing in on was that the NBA very, very slowly embraced the 3 point shot over the first decade in particular when it was clear that there was strides to make in terms of efficient scoring, which is what the bottom line is. You want to score my points per shot, but the NBA treated the 3 point line as a boogeyman largely because they were still stuck in conventional mindsets that grew up on a pre-1979 NBA game. It may appear more of a minor detail comparing the NBA today to the NBA of the 1990s, but it is still part of a historical trend: originally they just didn't shoot them because it wasn't the way it should be done, according to them. As for when the game is on the line in the crunch, it depends on scoreline but broadly you may be correct: the higher percentage, more reliable shots are the best to take. If a game is down double digits with 1:30 remaining, good luck bringing back the game swapping 2 for 2.
But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.
And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.
And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.
dwayne2005 wrote:But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.
And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.
They had a reason to be reluctant to shoot the 3's early on. Largely cultural. There is no reason why they would be shooting so many 3's now in contrast besides the fact that they are realizing now that it is efficient (albeit maybe not entertaining) basketball.And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.
I made an ammendment to my post before seeing yours that addresses this:
Not to mention you are looking for 3's when the game is much closer with much less time on the clock because you are going to be fouling sending them to the line for an assured 2 points.
If the scoreline keeps coming back down to 3 or under, your point makes sense. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two, but teams do depend on that 3 point shot down the line. It is not always a matter of the highest percentage shot in the crunch especially if the other team is not cold. If the other team are ahead 4-6, it is probably more frequent than 1-3 anyway.
dwayne2005 wrote:I'm not saying based on present stats 2 point shots have no role. Right now, assuming that this idea that all free throws should be awarded to the 2 point game is bogus and that it is not 50:50 (it makes sense for bigs, but how about shooters like Stephen Curry?), there is reason to argue that they aren't shooting enough 3's. That they should be taking even more than they are now. If the 3 point shooting percentages you cited continue to rise, then you can argue they should be shooting even more than whatever the number they are lagging behind today is. Eventually, as I said I predict it will destroy the game as an entertainment. It's not that I don't feel shooting can be entertaining basketball. I don't drool over dunks, I am well passed that. There is something ASMR about shots going in nothing but net. Like hot knives cutting through butter. It is the fact that diversity makes for entertainment, it always has and always will and I envision a time where the balance will begin to be tilted too much in favor of the long range game that something will need to be done (maybe a clock).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests