[Adv Stats] How the Rockets look on Deep 3s vs Others

Right, we already know that is Morey's creed.
Hence the Threes, free throws and dunks.

My question was more toward whether the 27foot shot is worth more than the 24foot shot.
The corner three is one of the most valuable shots created on an offense because it typically provides both a high point per shot value and good geometry of the floor space.
Part of that is because it is just a few inches closer than the rest of the arc.
So by that conventional wisdom, you would expect that the closer shot you take that gives you the same value of three points, that would be better.
Unless you can have the same or similar accuracy which is highly unlikely.

 

Yeah, you can calculate it, so why run the graph this way (using FGA as one of the axes) unless your goal is to make Anderson, with his high FGA, look outstanding? If you multiply his FGA by his %, he's in the middle of the pack. The only valid point of giving credit for FGA is to show that a guy is a consistent threat. 3PM/70 would be a better stat for that, and it would be less flattering to him.

 

Wait, what - - stats lie? Sunnuvagun.

 

I think you could make the argument that spacing is more reliant on attempts than makes for above average deep shooters

 

Not sure I agree with this concept. The Houston offense involves 2 guys doing the PNR and 3 guys spotting for 3 and forming a triangle on the court. It doesn't matter how far you are from the 3 pt line, either somebody is open or Harden can go ham on a single defender.

 

Thanks, that's why I said that i love what Anderson brings to the team.
Its not only that he allowes lesser shooters to stand in the corners which has high precentage and add the 3 point threat.
But mainly that extra space makes the offense almost like a transition offence in terms of room to operate and space between defenders.
This ability is what made last years offence so unique. Now with Paul its going to be even more dengarous.

 

Ryno takes some of the hardest shots in the league but at very high efficiency. He's basically one of our emergency outs for shooting if we can't find a higher quality look, but defenses have to contain him which allows for Harden (CP3) to do his thing. The idea is that putting Ryno at 27 feet overall produces more points per possession than putting him at 24 feet. Ryno's #s will suffer, but the rest of the team's will improve a a result.

 

We need more corner 3s. I didn't realize how minimal our corner 3pt attempts are. Those are the money shots, especially with a guy like Anderson.

 

Usually it's Beverley or Ariza shooting the corner three it seems while Anderson and Gordon (being better shooters), shoot the harder threes.

 

Great thread.

I think the value of these players is huge. It's the current next step of the analytics. Get a defender way out there. Let your top tier guard beat his guy, force the defense to rotate with only 3 or 4 defenders now and only one big if it's Ryno out there.

@heypartner somewhat off topic but you have any charts/data to reference on volatility. Our guys seem to be fairly volatile hot or not guys. If you look at Ryno he'll go 4 for 6, 4 for 10, then 0 for 5. Harden takes it to the extreme at times with his 2 for 10, 1'for 11 type nights behind the line.

DM talks about high variance. Which I guess is good but obviously not as good as consistently high performance.

Offensively... besides Harden doing wtf? ... I think this became their biggest problem. They'd grow reliant on this spacing then if it didn't work they'd not down and return to dribble mania crap.

They need more action of this spacing.

 

Our team creates action through the PnR and for this to work, we needed another ball handler. That's why we brought in CP3 as opposed to Milsap or Griffin like so many folks wanted. He brings continuity to our offense when Harden sits as well as a stronger midrange presence for our team. This creates slashing opportunities via baseline cuts and hopefully even Harden now as we pull the inside D out even more.

Besides, no matter how volatile shooters are, the chances of ALL our shooters going cold in a game is pretty slim. We just need 2-3 of our shooters to do reasonably well and our offense is typically fine. With sharpshooters like CP3, Ego, and Ryno along with decent shooters like Harden, Ariza, and Tucker, the chances of 2-3 them getting hot is very, very good.

 

It's troublesome that we lost so many perimeter shooters in the CP3 deal and didn't replace any of them. I definitely feel we got worst as a shooting team . Pj tucker is a low volume perimeter shooter. CP3 rather pass than shoot. Mbut isn't a perimeter shooter. Morey needs to sign some more shooters!!

 

a little confused by this post. cp3 is a better shooter than bev and he doesn't need someone to get him that shot. lou was only necessary bc hou was forced to double down on what they do based on personnel. so I dont see what you're saying

 

lolwut? I hope this is sarcasm... We only lost 2 shooters in Bev and Lou. Dekker was garbage from distance and Harrell didn't even shoot threes. We replaced Bev with CP3, who actually shot MORE threes than Bev last season. While Tucker was "low volume", there is no reason he cannot scale up his attempts in our system next to Harden and CP3 and he is just as good if not better a shooter than Lou who shot a paltry 32% in the 23 games he played for us. As for Moute, he shoots corner threes pretty damn well and that's all we need from him.

 

I mean it sounds right... but that's why I was asking about stats.
It's obviously not as binary as "how are these guys shooting consistently on threes/deep threes vs. winning percentage"

It is interesting to note that in the playoffs - probably way too small a sample size - Ryan shot 23% from three in WINS. And 35% in losses. That's right. Meanwhile, EG shot 49% from three in wins vs. 28% in losses.

I can't recall the minute details of the specifics, particularly against Spurs, on how Pop was setting up his defense. And of course, again, small sample size and Ryan just being such a weird shooter (home, road splits, etc.). The obvious conclusion is that recognizing Ryan as a floor spacer potential key to the offense.... just let him shoot those deep threes, keep the rest of the offense bogged down a bit.

But this is barely statistical analysis.

Statistics of course deals a ton with volatility, variation, standard deviations, etc. so it's somewhat interesting you don't see a lot of that type of analysis in the advanced analytics movement. Or at least it hasn't filtered down to the masses in an understandable way.

Simple hypothetical. On the same volume, type and distance of shots, resulting in the same eFG%, would you rather the guy that hovers within +/- 2% of 35% three point shooting every game, or the guy that varies wildly +/- 10% or 15% depending on the game? And at what FG%/eFG% does you answer change? Meaning, I would assume at 35% or higher on threes, you'd rather have that consistent guy. But at 30% on threes, perhaps you'd rather have that volatile guy, especially since the coach can just take him out. I'm sure there's all kinds of volatility type analysis like this that would impact team formation and strategy once the team is formed.

None of which impacts the ballhandler argument. Yes, they needed another ballhandler, playmaker, no doubt.

 

IMO, it's less so how Ryno shoots and more so of how many other people are shooting well or poorly as well. Essentially, if both Ryno AND Ego shoot well, we will probably win. The same applies if Ryno or Ego shoots well while Ariza, Bev, Lou, or Harden were also shooting. I am not sure how accurate or possible calculating team variance would be however. That said, hot shooting is often contagious.