1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  1. Glendelicious

    Glendelicious Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    283
    I was considering the flak Alston gets for his three-point shooting last year and the way many people complain about guys shooting even better: 34% 35% 36%. Well, last year, the 50 guys in the NBA who took the most 2 pt field goal attempts (mostly big-time scorers) averaged about 49% on those shots. Now I don’t know how well the rest of the league did on 2pt shooting, but I think if these are the guys most trusted to score for teams, then we can reasonably hold 49% on 2pt FGA to be a fair standard—unless someone can make a good argument against it.

    So if two guys shoot 500 shots each, one all two pointers, one all three pointers:

    500 shots * 2 points * 49% success rate = 490 points.

    500 shots * 3 points * 32.66...% success rate = 490 points

    Rafer shot 32.7%, making him as efficient at shooting 3s as the league’s top scorers shooting 2s.

    Actually, 500’s easy to work with, but since Rafer took 312 from 3 range.

    312 shots * 3pts * 32.7% = 306pts
    312 shots * 2pts * 49% = 306pts


    There are other factors. According to Hollinger, some of the best 2 pt shooters in the league shot FTs on around 50% of their 2pt FGA, but you can’t bash a guy for not being Wade or Kobe.

    And I’m not suggesting one should be excited about a team of guys who all make a third of their 3pt shots; shooting better is…better. However, I don’t think Alston’s shooting was nearly as detrimental as people make it out to be. Maybe it wasn’t a plus, a weapon; but it wasn’t a big minus.


    Furthermore, looking at these numbers, I am strongly inclined to believe that the basketball world should lower their 3pt-shooting standards, a touch. What’s the league average, 35%? Call it 34%. 500 3pt shots at 34% is 510 points. So anyone who can do that should be encouraged to chuck away unless they convert a very high % of their 2pt FGA. For example, Yao is so efficient inside that it doesn’t make sense for him to shoot 3s. He can reasonably be counted on to shoot 52%—54% on 2pt FGA with a great FT% (520-540 points on 500 2pt FGA, before FT).

    Of course, this is a very quick n dirty and certainly not an in-depth study. There are other factors involved and I’d love to hear other perspectives.

    Off the top of my head:

    - What are the outcomes of missed 2pt FGA v. missed 3pt FGA? Do defenses rebound better on 2pt FGA or 3pt FGA? Do they get more fast break points from one or the other? Which type of miss is more likely to lead to an offensive board?

    - Getting the opposition into foul trouble by driving to the hoop—what are the numbers here? How important is that? It sounds good in theory, but how often does it work? Is it dependant on the type of defense a team plays?

    - Should the rockets be more inclined to chuck 3s, even if only at league avg %s, because they would give Yao more room to operate?

    - Is there a big difference in 2pt efficiency between the top 50 I looked at and the rest of the league? Do the results favor shooting more 3s or less 3s?

    - I’m looking at what happens if two guys take an equal number of 3s and 2s (500 v. 500). Does it break down differently if guys shoot more or less of either?

    - Does driving more correlate to higher 3pt %?

    There are a lot of factors and I don’t know how statistically significant they are. Who knows? Maybe studies would prove that other factors, like the ones above, are so significant that players should only shoot 3s if they can make 34% or 35% or 36%. But it’s quite possible that other factors would conclude that one should rain 3s if one can manage 32%. In order to opine with a lot of confidence, it would really take a ton of studying and more statistical info than I have access to, but I certainly don’t think we have enough information to bash Alston. And from what we do have, it seems quite likely to me that anyone who makes more than a third of their 3s is doing (at least) no harm.

    Anyway, I’m no Hollinger, or even a Hollinger wannabe, so maybe you guys who do this better might jump in and offer your expertise.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. bejezuz

    bejezuz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    69
    Interesting read. I'm hoping some of the stats wizards come in and discuss this. This could be a great thread.
     
  3. aamir

    aamir Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's simple risk and reward. The higher risk of missing a three is rewarded with the extra point in the event of making the three. Thus, the risk is taken in an effort to increase your score verse a two-point FG rather than equalize it. If you are only equalizing your score, you are better off shooting the higher percentage shots as there is a better chance of out-performing your average and, once again, scoring more points.

    That said, some of the attacks on Alston's ability are rather questionable. I see people complaining even today when Alston has been shooting 50% from the field and 53.8% from the three (second only to Novak). Everyone's favorite Alston replacement (V-Span) is only shooting 40% from the field and 11.1% from the three thus far...
     
  4. deshen

    deshen Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    159
    Good analysis. Actually I am thinking the same thing. We need more 3s in the game. 33.33% 3s is equal to the 50% 2s. The whole team should shot 3s as much as possible since we have enough shooters this season


     
  5. Kim

    Kim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 1999
    Messages:
    9,286
    Likes Received:
    4,178
    good post

    it's really hard to quantify all the surrounding factors to 3pt %
    Miami wasn't a great 3pt% team, but they won it all. They were better than the Rockets though.

    I think you have to take a look at it from a different perspective.
    It's not giving Rafer 3's vs giving Yao 2's.

    The 3ptes that the Rockets will be taking this year are a product of the system. They will be good, open, set shots resulting from double teams and ball movement.

    It's just not good basketball sense for Yao or T-Mac to be taking difficult 2pt shots against triple teams.

    To quantify how important it is for Rafer to shoot 33%, 34%, 35% etc is really difficult, other than saying, the better he shoots, the better it is for the Rockets.

    The relative success is what's important here. If Rafer shoots much worse than Luther per se, than it's just bad basketball to have a 31% shooting Rafer in there instead of a 39% shooting Luther.

    Last year there were like 108 total 3pt shooters in the NBA. Rafer was like 91st out of 108. That's terrible.

    I don't think Rafer needs to be top 20 to be effective. I'm not sure exactly where Rafer needs to rank. I just know he has to be better than 91st.
     
  6. Like A Breath

    Like A Breath Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    34
    Three reasons why 33% 3's is worse than 50% 2's.

    1. You can't get to the free throw line if you're shooting 3's. With 2's, you get to the foul line and add extra points there.

    2. It is much harder for your big men to grab offensive rebounds off of 3's.

    3. With the long rebounds, the other team gets out to easy fast break opportunities, leaving your big men behind on defense.

    Jim O'Brien goes by the 33% rule, and that's why he was a terrible coach with the Celtics.
     
  7. Kindger

    Kindger Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    2
    Let's see,

    (49% - 32.7%) x 500 = 81.5

    So by shooting 32.7% from behind the arc 500 times, you give up 81.5 more opportunities to the opponents than the 49% 2-pointers. That's why you need better 3-point shooting %.
     
  8. alexcapone

    alexcapone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    543
    Did anyone see the OTL special about this a few months ago?? It talked about how the creation of the 3 pt line had changed the game and was used to counter athleticism. Anyway, they gave some commentary about the difference between shooting the 3 at 33% vs shooting the 2 at 50%. I don't remember exactly what they said or which one was better for that matter. If anyone remembers any more about it please post.
     
  9. bejezuz

    bejezuz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    69
    So what? They've got to go down to the other end and shoot too. Then we get a rebound or get the ball back.
     
  10. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    Well, it's not simple math -- multivariate statistical analysis more likely. At least you yourself also noticed, there are many other things that could lead to one way or the other.

    I remember Tango and I briefly disputed the notion of the seemingly equivalent shooting of 50% 2-pt and 33% 3-pt in here and here.
     
  11. Pocket Rockets

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    11
    ya most likely on a 4-2 fastbreak so their percentage increases on their shot while we struggle to get back on D.
     
  12. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    46,746
    Likes Received:
    12,273
    You beat me to it, especially point #3
     
  13. Glendelicious

    Glendelicious Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    283
    Can you provide evidence to support these claims? You may be right, but maybe not.

    1. Player X is a 40% 3pt shooter, but can't finish inside the line or hit the mid range and can't hit FTs—gee, why don't we call him Bowen. Should he drive or take 3s? 3s, of course. On the other hand, Tony Parker has demonstrated how much more effective he is when not shooting 3s.

    2 and 3. Much harder for your big men to grab boards but easier for your guards? What are the fast break numbers? I don't know. I don't have the data to know this. Do you?


     
  14. Glendelicious

    Glendelicious Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    283
    I'm sorry, I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure. Can you clarify please?

     
  15. Like A Breath

    Like A Breath Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    34
    Bowen is a 38%+ 3 point shooter, that is why he should be shooting 3's. I'm not saying that 3's are bad, just that 32% from 3 is bad. If Bowen was 32%, he wouldn't even be on the floor most of the time. He is also a rare exception with his horrific free throw shooting.

    3 point shots generally lead to long rebounds, this is a fact. The ball hits the rim with greater force and bounces farther. It is easier for both team's guards to grab long rebounds(since they are further out), so think of it this way...

    1. If your big man grabs an offensive rebound, he can have a quick high percentage shot since he is already near the basket. If your guard grabs a rebound, he just sets up the offense again, since he is too far away to shoot a layup.
    2. If THEIR big man grabs an defensive rebound, they have to set up their offense, being too slow and too far from their bucket. However, if their GUARD grabs a rebound, they have a quick fast break since they are already ahead of the big men and are faster than them anyway.

    Therefore, your big men getting the rebound is the most favorable result and their guard getting a rebound is least favorable. When shooting 3's, you increase your chances of getting the bad rebounding result and decrease your chances of the positive one.

    I don't have data, but it is something I've noticed over the years. Watch Jason Kidd and LeBron James, they make a living off of long rebounds for easy fast break points.
     
  16. Glendelicious

    Glendelicious Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    283
    Oh, I see what you mean, silly me—81 more rebounding opportunities from missed shots. OK, so what if you have good rebounding guards, like Kidd or Sura or Wells, to come in from the wings to collect missed 3s?

    I understand your point, but again, I don't think we have enough information to know for sure.

     
  17. Glendelicious

    Glendelicious Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    283
    Cool, I'll check them out now.

     
  18. Kindger

    Kindger Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm saying, 49% 2-point and 32.7% 3-point will get the same score at offensive end, but the latter one gives up more scoring opportunities to the opponents. So, the 3-point shooting percentage has to be higher than 32.7% to compensate that in order to have the same efficiency of the 49% 2-point.

    For example, the 500 32.7% 3's create 81.5 more loose balls than 500 49% 2's. Assume we get 1/3 offensive boards back (27) so the opponents get another 2/3 rebounds (54), which means they have 54-27=27 more field goals than us. Given the same FG% (49% 2-p or 32.7% 3-p), that's 27 points.

    So, to score the same points as 49% 2-point, the 32.7% 3-point gives up 27 more points in every 500 shots.

    I know bball isn't math, but generally, low percentage shooting gives opponents more FGA. That's why 32.7% is not an acceptable 3-point shooting percentage.


    EDIT: Sorry, my typing is very slow, just saw your reply :) BTW, very nice post
     
    #18 Kindger, Oct 23, 2006
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2006
  19. real_egal

    real_egal Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,430
    Likes Received:
    247
    I had a lengthy back and forth discussion on that matter with some guy on a Chinese board, and later on, more and more people joined. We discussed from pure mathematic point of view, then talked about real game situation, where defenses adjust accordingly, and rebounding adjustment thereafter. Too many uncertain factors play an important role in the outcome probability. After some intense debates and some name calling :D , we agreed that it couldn't reach a final decision, under a universal realistic criteria of premises.

    I am not going to go through this again, but all I can say is, this has not proven to be a pure math problem only, so far.
     
  20. wnes

    wnes Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    8,196
    Likes Received:
    19
    To make an in-depth analysis, I think one will need to conside at least:

    1) missed FT opportunities and shooting %s of our big men presumably playing in the paint;
    2) differential rebounding abilities of the big men vs the guards in close and long ranges, respectively, and vs those of opposing teams' (to make it meaningful, one has to look at every team seperately);
    3) transitional defense vs each team, and opposing teams' abilities to initiate and finish the fastbreaks, and their FT shootings in case we elect to foul.

    There could be other relevant stats I failed to include, assuming one is able to gather all these data and come up with a complicated math model to simulate real life competitions. In any case, I am pretty confident it's a sure bet 33% 3-pt is inferior to 50% 2-pt shooting, how much one needs to raise the % of the former though in order to make it equivalent to the latter is the million dollar question. :)
     

Share This Page