3 point shots are more efficient than mid range jumpers average wise. However I feel 3 pnters are streaky. A shooter can go 8/10 in one game and go 2/10 the next and still have 50%. Is there any advanced stats head can compare "streakyness"? Maybe something like repeatability between 3 pnter and mid range jumper. This year we have many blow out games thanks to bunch of 3 pointers. However law of average always comes back. In games if we don't get hot downtown, we would struggle. For example, Rockets faces team A twice. Let team A score be constant at 100 points. First game Rockets score 130 and win in a blow out. 2nd game Rockets struggling making 3 points and only score 90. Even though our average score is 110. The record of these head to head is still 1-1. If we can take less 3 pointers and more mid ranges, first game Rockets only score 115 and 2nd game Rockets score 105. Rockets' average score is still 110 but the record would be 2-0. Right now I don't have the time to dig out the detail of every games Rockets played, but looking at the standing and average points differential, even though Golden State is 1 spot ahead of us, our differential is much higher at +3.7 per game. Also somebody here had posted comparison of the 3 point percentage for each players between our wins and losses. Delfino has the biggest percentage gap. This also supports the theory that 3 pointers are streaky since his has the highest attempts per game in the league. Should Rockets cut down their 3 point attempts especially in the playoff facing a same team several times?
This would be difficult to analyze because the data would be heavily summarized. You'd probably have to watch video and look at each shot. For instance, how many 3s are contested? Who's shooting them? Any average three point shooter should take a wide open three. For the most part this season, it seems like the Rockets are pretty good at avoiding contested 3s except for maybe late in the shot clock. We don't have a J.R. Smith on this team luckily.
no. the 3-point shot does multiple things. 1) can't recall where, but the FG% differential between a "long 2" and a 3-pointer is insignificant. thus, the "expected point value" is higher for a shot selection of all 3-pointers vs. all long-2s, despite the fact that you'll probably hit less 3s than 2s in a raw count. 2a) if we start spotting up from 15-20 ft, our spacing condenses. it's easier for defenders to cover less of the court with help defense. blocking and defending shots is a game of inches. 2b) when you condense your spacing offensively, you start choking off your drive lanes. consider this: take any snapshot from game film. draw a circle around each individual defender as a "place you can't dribble-drive or make a pass" with the ball. this is conventional thinking - you have to avoid those defenders to get a layup. a more sophisticated way to think about it is - erase those circles. re-draw those circles around the defender AND the person he's defending. that diagram will truly tell you where your drive/pass options are. this seems obvious, but it's a concrete way to really see the effect of spacing. the same thinking applies to spread offenses in college football.
3 pointers are only slightly more streaky than regular jumpshots for most players(excluding certain bigs whose range only extend out to 18~20 feet). However, they are worth 50% more than a regular jumpshot. Any extra amount of streakiness involved, especially given the huge volume of shots attempted each NBA game, is minimal compared to the huge gain in points per make. The only shots that are better than open 3s are those inside the paint.
No, it's what we do, and we shoot a good enough percentage to make it work... Problem is that we need to defend the 3 better than we do.
All the posts above make sense (especially post #7). I think we have more opportunities for open 3s thanks to our back court. I'd rather take a 3 than a long 2. Spacing is very important especially for our playmakers. However from eye test, some players take open mid range jumpers pretty consistent like free throw (not streaky but consistent). Parsons is pretty good at it when he pumps fake at 3 point line and takes a dribble inside and shoots a wide open jumper. Before we had Patterson that his base line jumper seemed to have higher percentage than his free throw. With Smith and Jones at 4, I think our guard should focus on pick and roll more to get our 4s easy shots near the rim. With that being said, I don't want Delfino takes mide ranges. He seems to have higher percentage at 3 even though steaky. Maybe with our new found legit PFs, we'll see our number of 3 pointer drop.
Do the Rockets shoot too many threes? HA... Are X-ray bursts the most luminous electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe?
We shoot a lot of 3s because we dont have a post presence to dump the ball in to right now. When we get one of those we will shoot less 3s and probably a better % when we do shoot them since the defense will have to rotate from the post player making the pass out...
It's a standard deviation thing. Defining risk as std dev, if Return/Risk for 3 pts is more than Return/Risk for 2 pts(not lay up), than it might be a good idea to go for the 3.
Specifically, return = %chance of each outcome * points scored per outcome for the 3 ball, outcomes are 3 & 0 I notice, we don't seem to use std dev in any of the stats we throw around In a case where return is the same for 2 and 3, usually std dev for 3 will be greater than 2, so risk/return ought to be higher for 2, if and only if return for 3 <= 2
average 3pt shooting percentage is 36%. shots from 10-15 feet are 41%, and shots 16-23 feet are 38%. Mid range shooting is almost as streaky as 3 pointers, so there is no value in taking more mid range shots.
If there is wide open 3, take it, but the problem with the Rockets is they give up easy 3 to shoot the 3. Sure, when you are shooting 50%+, then it is great, but if you are shooting average at 30%, then don't do it.
Nothing wrong with streakiness if it averages out to a win. It has for us. You replace every three we've shot with a 15-footer, we lose a lot more. Plus, not getting to the line much is the biggest issue for long-range teams. Harden alleviates that.
we are currently averaging 36.7% (10.6 made/game) which amounts to 31.8 pts/game. That is enough points to keep the defense honest to make sure that they limit the open looks even if we are not making them during the game. That opens the lanes for drives or dump it on the low post.
As a lower percentage shot than a long to mid 2 pointer, the 3 point shot will have higher volatility, however it also returns 50% more points so is clearly of higher value on a per shot basis. As for the deviation, the impact of the volatility of the shot itself can be smoothed over the course of the game by increasing the pace and number of possessions. The more shots you take, the less impact that short term volatility has on the outcome. It's like coin flipping. You flip a coin 3x the odds of getting 100% heads is 1/8. If you flip it 8 times, the odds of getting 100% heads declines to 1/256. In other words, there is an inherent increase in volatility from shooting the 3, but the more 3's you shoot, the less meaningful in terms of volatility and overall impact to the game. So, if you want to reduce the volatility of the 3 point shot, you have 2 choices. Either shoot ZERO 3's (zero impact), or shoot MORE 3's (larger sample). Counter to some people's intuition, shooting fewer 3's is probably the worst of the options assuming the team is shooting passably well.
