McHale very rarely shot 3-pointers. His best overall year by far was 1986-1987 (I remember watching him play many games this year), and he was 0-4 for the entire year on 3-pointers. His two best 3-point shooting years were 89-91, but he barely took over one 3-pointer every two games during those two years. He ended his career with his final 2 seasons making a combined of two 3-pointers (2-31). Career 26% 3-point percentage.
This isn't some high school argument about stats nerds vs. jocks. Jesus can we grow up a little bit here? If you think you have some sort of magical, hidden knowledge about how the long range 2-point jump shot is somehow worth more points than anyone can detect, then bring your proof. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that it's still worth 2 points. Don't hide behind "actually playing the game" and some sort of secret basketball knowledge about set plays and spacing. I, and others, are more than happy to talk X's and O's (but, as someone else already pointed out, basic geometry is already in favor of the 3-point shot in terms of "spacing"). By the way, here are the average FG% for the league last season: 64.6% - At the rim 39.8% - 3-9 Feet 41.7% - 10-15 Feet 38.3% - 16-23 Feet 35.9% - 3-Point Someone tell me how, if you take the league-average player, having that guy take a 23-foot jump shot is worth more when he can just take a step back and have it worth 50% more points with only a -2.4% difference in his ability to make that shot? Also, what I think is getting lost in all the defensive penis-waving from the people afraid of math here is that we are talking general strategy, what is and isn't supported by hard facts. Obviously, every single play and every single player is different, so that needs to be taken into account. To again use a baseball analogy, you aren't going to give Bengie Molina a green light to steal bases because he's slow and fat and can barely run from first to third without collapsing. But Ricky Henderson? You let him run all day every day. If you can find a guy who can successfully make the long 2-point shot at 60%, then that's a guy whom you don't mind taking that shot. If he's a 50% shot but he's surrounded by 25% 3-point shooters, then again, maybe you let him take that shot every time. But if he's Carlos Delfino and Chandler Parsons is open on the corner? Then why the hell is he taking that shot, ever, unless he's wide open? You can always find a counter example or an exception to the rule. But to dismiss good analysis and thought just because you can't be bothered to understand it or it goes against your own perceptions seems rather...ignorant.
Typical CF posters. Never let the facts and Morey's expressed statements get in the way of your incorrect beliefs. Other forums do not have this problem. What is it about CF that brings out the ignorant in people?
I think this answers it all. Let's say the team takes every shot from the 3-point range making them at 33.3% (not a problem with the Rockets). Essentially you have a team equivalent to one that shoots 50% from the 2-point range. That's great shooting! Remember, you're going to be able to shoot every time. No blocks and no turn overs. If you are fouled, you have 3 FTs. Add to the mix a dominant center who is now able dunk with ease against one defender or to do serious offensive rebounding, you're all set. If your defense is in place, you're going to be a very difficult team to beat.
Apart from the basic math that means it's better to shoot, say, 36% from behind the arc than, say, 50% in front of it, I assume that longer shots probably mean longer rebounds, and, therefore, probably more offensive rebounds. On the other hand, long defensive rebounds might lead to more fast break points than short defensive rebounds. Does anybody know what the data shows about these two issues?
I think Nubmongers point is great. You just can't argue against the math. I also think that the Rockets were playing last season pretty close to that principle. The new signings (Garcia, Casspi and Williams) who can all make use of the 3-pointer indicate that there is a logic in what the team is looking for. Getting the ultimate center makes the plan perfect.
Case closed. Surprised by those 3-9 ft ones. Those are chippies, but usually actually pretty damn difficult to hit mainly because of (lack of) mental fortitude.
Wow Ive done heard it all. LOL Taking a 3 is better than a 2 these days. I remember playing ball and I was taught that the mid range jumpers/set shot was a better shot. Coach would get heated if we took a step back just to take a 3. LOL if we didnt make it your ash was on the bench. I also remember when a player would step in to take a 2 instead of a 3, Commentators would say he stepped in to take a better shot. Hold up I heard that term used a lot this past season as wll..LOL @ those that really think taking a 3 is better than taking a 2. Another thing I remember, jokers last season would get mad as he?? when the Rockets would take a all then of 3's when they were ice cold.
1) We're talking about the NBA, not high school basketball. 2) Your coach was bad. 3) It's OK. Most coaches for most sports below the professional level are bad.
Joker Im talking about the NBA as well. Been watching this game probably longer than you. We can ask these coaches of today which shot is better. And Im pretty sure smart one, they will say the 2 point shot. **** have you even played this sport Mr. IQ.
Another thing, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. Does it make it right? No sir , not at all. So stop trying to make it sound like you are some type of Basketball Philosopher/Expert.
I apologize for taking shots at your coach. That was totally uncalled for, especially since I never met the man. At any rate, it's pretty clear that most (successful) coaches are also moving towards ignoring the long 2, both on offense and defense. The Heat, for example, have basically regressed to surrounding LeBron with 3-point shooters. The Spurs do the same thing, albeit with a bit more flash and movement - nearly all of their plays end with a drive to the paint or a pass to an open man for the 3. The vaunted Bull's defense built by Thibodeau is essentially a variation of the zone defense, where the "zone" in question is the paint. They literally pack the paint for as long as they can get can without violating the 3-second rule while the other players guard the 3-point perimeter. This defensive strategy essentially gives up the long 2 because it is never actively defended - even the on-ball defender is trained to back up and prevent the open lane to the basket instead of staying close to his man. Some of this is because of the recognition that any shot that isn't at the rim or at the 3-point line is inefficient. Some of it is also because of the way modern guards have evolved to be so fast and so strong that if you give them an inch of open path to the basket, they will not only get there, they'll And-1 you for good measure. (They are also, incidentally, part of the reason why the rim shot is such a high-percentage play in the first place, so it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing where the stats are giving you the data but the play on the floor is telling you the story.) Again, no one is saying that you shouldn't shoot the long 2, ever. If your man is open, then he should take the shot, because an uncontested shot is always a high-percentage play regardless of where it is on the floor. And no one is saying you shouldn't threaten the shot to draw the defender or you can't move there because that ground is hot lava or something. All we're saying is that, as a general principle, you should try to get the open look at the 3-point line or at the basket, because anything in-between is the basketball equivalent of hitting on 17. You can get away with it once in a while, but you keep doing it long enough and the house will always win.
1. Morey's numbers determined that mid range scoring is inefficient. 2. Spacing. Stretch 4 will space up the paint even more, allowing the post offense of Howard, the penetration of our scoring guards like James and Lin, and the cuts of Parsons. It's that important. 3. Yup, the Rockets only want 3 points, layups, and free throws.
It isn't. More is a huge statistician. The expected value from each shot dictates what kind of shot he is looking for (if you remember back to any stats class expected value is the same thing as mean). Expected Value = Amount x Probability. E[3pt]= .359 x 3= 1.077 E[2pt]= .383 x 2= .766 So according to league average.. Every time you take a 3 pointer instead of a 23 foot jumper you earn .311 points.
What facts, get off the numbers and watch the games please. Again like I said asked the Coaches and Players whats the best shot. Then get back at me.
No biggie pimpn. And I do understand your take. Question how many teams won the Chip with this method over the past 10 season?
I don't think anybody even tried and they were not built to do so. The two teams that did really well last season using this method in some form at least were San Antonio and Houston. Also the Knicks did well.
but value goes with X, i.e the situation we were in. We had no inside presence, therefore needed balance that out with a 3 point shot. Now, we have inside scoring and the flexibility to match up if the other team goes small. Fabio couldn't shoot the three, neither could timmy, or parker yet they were one of the strongest starting fives because of the post presence by timmy and double penetration from frenchie. With dwight, harden/ parsons/lin as 3 point shooters is more than enough.
The Suns and Warriors use to practice this method and had playoff's success but never won a Championship. The Spurs do not practice this method, they are a more balanced team. They took shots from everywhere on the court. The Rockets had no other choice. We didnt have a lot of plays either, just iso, spot up 3's and pick n roll. LOL the Knicks crumbled in the playoff's with that type of method. Couldnt hit a 3 to save their lives.
