A lot of us have said this and know it to be true. We have also talked about the confidence factor that comes from seeing shots drop vs brick. We have mentioned momentum and how bricking a bunch of 3's has a positive effect on the opponent. There's so much more to stats than just 3>2 so shoot as many as possible. GS is the model. They win in the regular season. They win in the playoffs. They win blowouts and close games. They don't just stand around and jack up 3's even though they have 2 of the best 3 point shooters in the league.
How can we talk about how Murray picks his models without mentioning his worn down casting couch at the Rio Grande Valley???
Every time Rockets lose a close game people blame the refs. Guess what every time Rockets win a close game the losing team does the same think. Rockets needed a tall defense I stud that could hit 3s. They got 6f 5i Shupert. Only thing left is sign House. Lose in the playoffs, and wait till July1 to try and get someone. First round pick is gone.
This analysis is severely lacking. For starters, you don’t have to shoot another 3 if you make the first one. So two threes vs two twos aren’t the only options, but we can ignore that for now. Also, I think 52% is way too high for a two point jumper, maybe CP3 can do that but no other player can make those shots 52% of the time, certainly not Harden. But again, we can ignore that, I’ll use that number anyway. If you’re down by 4, scoring 4 points means overtime, and let’s assume for the sake of simplicity that overtime is a coin flip, so 50%. The other important context you’re missing here is that making two 3s is 6 points, which means no overtime — you win the game in regulation. So using your numbers 2 pt shot, 2 pt shot .52*.52 = 27% chance for overtime * 50% chance to win overtime = 13.5% chance to win 3 pt shot, 3 pt shot .37*.37 = 13.7% chance to win the game So given the numbers that you've presented, back to back 3s actually gives a higher chance to win, unless you want to give the Rockets more than 50% chance to win in overtime.
Except taking 3 two pt shots at the percentages given still net a slightly better probability than taking two 3 pt shots. Of course my 5 minute analysis is lacking many variables. It wasn't intended to be a deep dive, just simple math to show how in small sample situations 3 is not always better than 2. The percentages I provided are a rough estimate of how the Rockets score. In fact, if anything, my 3 pt percentage is generous in closing situations of games where the vast majority of them are tough contested ones with tired legs. Rockets score 2s mostly in the paint. Anyways, I think something we both can agree on is that we should run an actual offense in close game situations instead of just relying on Harden taking low percentage contested threes with tired legs. An open three from a set play offense to get someone open is much preferable.
Isn't Harden like 37% on stepback 3s this year? According to Moreys Models, (which is also probably the worlds most downgrade modeling agency).....that means, down by 1, it's a perfectly fine shot to take because the expected value, is 1.1 and the Rockets were down by 1.
I just think we need a new coach. MDA has said multiple times that he is willing to let his players take as many threes as possible, even if that means taking 50, 60, or 70 threes a game." Duh, 3 > 2, so let's take 100 of them." I don't think this is Morey's idea because he ought know better. Concepts such as variance, that two-pointers are actually more efficient as a single shot, that bricking threes one after another gives away the momentum and let's your opponent back into the game... etc. These are basic stuff. If Morey doesn't know this - which I highly doubt - then he needs to go too. Also, does the whole jack as many threes as possible philosophy take into account the fact that your opponent is already anticipating this and adjusted their defense? Of course 3 > 2 strategy seems to work in vacuum and models based on past results will also agree with this, but in the past we didn't have many teams adjust their defenses knowing that a team like the Rockets is going to take bunch of threes. Remember the infamous 16-17 Spurs series? What happens in that scenario? Anyways MDA is just dumb. I guarantee you that none of the things I pointed out above ever crossed MDA's mind.
This team just stinks. They have a fluky #2 offense because of Harden's explosiveness. I take it more seriously when it's someone like the Sixers in the top 3 or the Warriors or Nuggets--teams that have ball movement and plenty of creators/stars to generate those points. Harden is not going to be this godly in the Playoffs. I'm sorry to tell you guys this, so I think it's about time to adjust Morey's stupid models that haven't had enough success to be stubbornly adhered to. 1) Shot-chucking offense isn't sustainable 2) This team doesn't have enough solid drivers to get you easy baskets when the 3 ball isn't falling 3) Chris Paul and Harden dribbling the air out of the ball will get them nowhere. Yes, sometimes the stupid chuck-ups luckily go in (as they were for Chris Paul in those WCF games 4 & 5), but when they're not falling, it's idiotic shot selection and not sustainable to get you anywhere far in the Playoffs. Not sure if Morey and D'Antoni are the types to ever change and adjust their models/theories, but whatever...
The ones that the entire league adopted...? They will it's just all part of the 44 year plan. Decade of zig then ...boom ....zag
The reason your math works this way is because you are comparing unlike things. You can't score 4 points shooting 3 point shots and you aren't considering a number of things that factor in when you compare multiple shots with different point values. Yes, the odds of hitting both shots is higher with the higher percentage shot, maybe even if a third shot is added. So what? Instead, consider that you need to score 6 points to win a game and will have 3 attempts to do that. Given the same shooting percentages, which is better? With the 3 point shot the probability of one particular outcome is much lower, but 4 out of the 8 outcomes win the game. With the 2 point shot, only 1 out of 8 outcomes wins. That means the 3 point shot is better in this case, which incidentally, is how games are actually played. .52 ^ 3 = 0.14 .36 ^ 3 * 4 = 0.187 It has nothing to do with sample size, it has to do with devising a fair comparison. Now, if you only need 2 points to win, you don't shoot the 3 because it's statistically more efficient, you take the shot you think is best. Hopefully that's a dunk, but it may still be a 3 if that's how the game plays out.
It's not clear it was even intended to be correct but only to advance your point of view. It's not an "analysis" when it omits determinative factors. Any time you have two minutes left, you don't know how many points you need or how many shots you will get, so your contrived example is completely worthless. Games don't play out like that.
Maybe the model should start with not giving up 40+ points in the 3rd period. CONSISTENTLY, if this team gets a lead it gets lazy and the refs work their magic too. We have seen this behavior over seasons. D intensity has to be a constant because it drives the flow of the offense. If every player needs smelling salts at halftime and a swift kick in the ass so be it. When the team stops playing D they get lazy on offense too and the movement stops and they make bad LAZY decisions that create the string of bad 3s and TOs. This team STILL lacks its identity and it has about 25 games to get it back or its not going very far. To me to a degree this is bad coaching and game management because this has been the single greatest weakness of the team over the years and it seems like nothing changes and it just gets laughed. You can do that when you win 65 games but the bill always comes due eventually. Who are you going to be no matter what? Stop showing me you can piss away a game and miraculously save the game at the end or not. Show me you care the entire game on every possession. We have won a lot of games the wrong way because we have had to with longer minutes but it fed into this longstanding excuse that has to stop somewhere.
After reading some of the posts here, this comes to mind..... In Moories we trust... ....... ....... .......
