On 3s

Not only do 3s lead to longer rebounds, they also lead to less predictable bounces off the rim. It's much easier for a good rebounder to guage where a missed 2 is going than it a missed 3.

Now, the problem with committing 1 or 2 of your "good rebounding guards" to snagging offensive rebounds is that if they don't get the rebound, you have 1 less guard in position for transition defense... The other team will eat you alive for that. Since your bigs are already under their basket, you're basically conceding a 2-1, 3-1, or even 4-1 fast break going the other way. Not good.

 

Dick Motta was the first coach I ever heard talking about how much he liked the 3 because you only have to make a third of them.. this was back in the early 80's..

But let's be honest. If we were shooting a lot of threes as a team, and only making 33%, none of us would be very happy with that. The point is not to aim for 33%, the point is that 33% should be the bare minimum. Anyone shooting less than 33% from the arc should probably not be taking many 3's, if at all.

The point is simply to illustrate the extremely high value of a 3-pt shot vs a 2-pt shot. A made 3-pointer is worth 50% more than a made 2-pointer. This means that it is to your extreme advantage to have players which can hit a significantly higher percentage from the 3 than just 33%.

It is for this reason that people like Ray Allen, Michael Redd, Peja Stojakovic, Jason Terry, Reggie Miller, Larry Bird, etc etc were/are so valuable. Very often, a 3-pointer will be worth more then even 3% of the total score of the team's points in any given game. When taken as a percentage of point differentials at any given time during a game (in other words, because most NBA games are usually not blowouts, but stay, at most, within the 10-20 point range), one single made 3-pointer can either dramatically reduce your opponents' lead, or, conversely, dramatically extend your own. This is especially true the closer to the end of the game the shot comes.

This is why it is so breathtaking and encouraging to have added, in just one offseason, no less than 3 new and very reliable 3-point shooters (Novak, Battier, Padgett), along with improved returning players (Head, Alston), and decent ones (McGrady, Snyder).

With Yao, Hayes, Wells, Howard, Battier, McGrady and Snyder all reliably working the mismatches inside (I expect to see McGrady, Battier and Snyder all have about equal production both inside and outside), the perimeter will be open enough, and the outside shooters are good enough, that it would be an astonishing disappointment if our team were only able to average 33% from the 3 this season. I wouldn't be surprised to see us hover around 40% as a team.

Think about how many 'free' points per game that would mean. Putting it very simply, if the team were to average, say, 24 3-pt attempts per game, an increase from 33% to 40% would mean an average increase in ppg of 5 to 6 points.

Even if that's the ONLY thing that were to change from last season (not even taking into consideration Yao's and McGrady's health this year and absence last year), just look at how many games we lost last season by less than 6 points.

Ultimately, the point is not to simply jack up more 3's just because a lower percentage can equal the same amount of points as shooting 2's, but rather to create an advantage for your team, to create mismatches, by acquiring players which have the skills to hit an inordinately high percentage from the 3.

That is what we have done this season, hopefully. It certainly appears so. If it turns out that way, it will translate into many more wins, easier, with far less struggle and wear-and-tear on Yao and TMac.

This is going to be good.

 

One thing I forgot to add:

For the same reasons stated above, it is therefore also absolutely imperative that we have improved defense AGAINST the 3-pt shots. More than anything else last year, poor perimeter defense led to many losses.

This is why the additions of Battier, Wells, and Snyder will be so critical to our success this year.

 

What I've been impressed about this season (as much as the addition of the three point threats) is the shooters' ability to recognize how that threat leads to easier 2 point shots. Yao is getting left alone to make a cut to the basket and he's getting easy layups and dunks... I don't remember seeing nearly as much of that last season because no one would bite on our lousy 3 point shooting.

 

There is a big difference in getting 50% of 2's vs 33% or 3's.

You can't get 33% 3's if you can't get 50% 2's consistantly.

You can can either post players or dribble penetration to score the 2's.

If you have Juwan as your best 2pt option, you will not get many opportunities to score easy 3's because the defenders don't need to help in the post and would just shadow your 3 point shooters and as a result, the 3's drop in percentage.

It's very rare that a team can get a higher percentage of 3's w/ a weak 2 point scoring option. In such senarios, you would need a shooter such as Reggie Miller or Ray Allen that can go around screens an get the shot off w/ very little open room to score consistantly.

 

Rebounding against the longer boards that are a result of 3 point shooting is just a fundamental that has to be taught and practiced. The perimeter defenders are too busy staring at the shot while the offensive perimeter goes by them for the board and most of the time the ball is rebounded by the shooter himself or at least someone on the same side of the floor since they have the best look and feel for the trajectory of the shot and where it is going to go. While the defender is either releasing to the wing up the floor (typically not the case in a JVG team) or is heading directly to the glass to add rebounding strength inside (very typical of our guys).

Those perimeter defender need to be taught to box and shield the shooter, make body contact after the shot is gone, then turn and face the basket while maintaing the contact with the offensive player until they ride the player out of the play. It's just something that has to be worked on but is a big huge bugaboo that statisticians try to turn into part of the analysis of 3-point shooting.

For a team like JVG's, our guys should very seldom get caught going for the offensive board and letting the opponents get out on the break on them. JVG hates poor transition defense and we are always at the bottom of the league in offensive boards anyways. When we shoot them, we gotta get back if the defender releases in transition, and when we are defending, we've got to box out. This is the one area of concern for Mr. Steven Novak. Can he get back in transition when he is on the floor. This is another reason that guys like him may be better suited to playing with the 2nd unit. Because we cannot afford to have more than one guy on the floor at at time that is slow. This is the biggest reason that Juwan is so ineffective playing with Yao. Juwan shoots that linedrive jumper that bounces out long if he doesn't hit it, and then the race is on to the other end and him and Yao make us late getting back. Of course, with Steve out there shooting instead of Juwan, he is about 5-7 feet further down the floor so he can get back easier and more of his shots are gonna go down the drain as well.

 

What?

Ask GS if your theory is true.

While you may not get offensive boards from people under the basket, you will get a ton of offensive boards around the FT line.

I'd venture to say that 3 pt shots give you a 15% higher chance of getting an offensive board than your average 15 ft jumper.

 

The best statistical analysis is sometimes the easiest. If you sort NBA players by 3pt FG attempts, Alston is in the Top 50. Of those Top 50, Alston ranked 48th in 3pt FG%.

I don't care what anyone wants to make of 33% 3s vs 49% 2s, but the 48th ranked player in 3pt % out of the top 50 who shot the most is not ranking very well relative to othe NBA players, so maybe he should not be shooting as many 3s anymore at that %...or let him do it for another team.

 

3s comparion with other teams in recent regular seasons:

3PT%
HME OPP 3PM-A
2005-2006
houston 0.332 0.369 469-1414
phoenix 0.399 0.363 837-2097
dallas 0.374 0.361 416-1113
san antonio 0.385 0.339 524-1362

2004-2005
houston 0.364 0.338 553-1521
phoenix 0.393 0.335 796-2026
dallas 0.364 0.330 463-1273
san antonio 0.363 0.367 507-1395

2003-2004
houston 0.366 0.372 515-1406
phoenix 0.345 0.349 415-1202
dallas 0.348 0.363 507-1456
san antonio 0.358 0.327 408-1140

2002-2003
houston 0.346 0.347 439-1267
phoenix 0.343 0.320 394-1149
dallas 0.381 0.340 636-1668
san antonio 0.354 0.339 449-1270

conclusion:
Phoenix shots the most among teams yet with high accuracy nearly 40%. I believe that is the reason why they won us in last season. If we could shot above 36%, we should shoot as much as possible.

 

On average, less than 25% of the rebounds goes to the offensive team. Even if you put all the rebounding guard out on the floor, it is unlikely that you will get a ton of offensive rebounds. Most of those long rebounds goes the other way. What is worse, if your guards rush in to fight for long rebounds and failed, the opponent can easily run an 2-1 or even 3-1 4-1 fast break that they probably can score or draw a foul more than 80% of the times. It is just too much a risk to have the guards go for long rebound. If they can pick up a few, perfect, but you really don't want them to spend all their energy on fighting for offensive rebounds.

 

In addition to the factors mentioned by Like A Breath, here are three other problems:

1. There is no such thing as a "33% shooter".

Your shooting % is affected by the defense.

If you shoot 3s too often, the opposing D catches up to it and start defending the 3 point line HARD. Now your former 33% shooter will shoot 25% because of the heavy pressure. How do you loosen it up? By going to the basket for some 2 pt attempts in order to give keep the defenders guessing and give the shooters some room. Basketball is a dynamic game. You gotta have a balance of inside and outside to make it work.

2. This goes with Like A Breath's issue about lack of free throws:

Even if all you do is shoot 3s and you are able to maintain a 33% rate without incurring the disadvantage of long rebounds, etc, that scoring efficiency, which would be equivalent to a 50% shooting on 2 pt shots, actually sucks.

Few players ever draw fouls on 3 pt attempts, so a 33.3% 3 pt shooting translates to 1.0 pt per possession or .500 TS%. That kind of efficiency is significantly below the NBA average (which is around .528 TS%, IIRC).

Also, team-wise, a 1.00 pt per posession is not good. Every NBA team averages more than 1 pt per posession as far as I know, and that's taken into account turnovers already. When you gun that 33% shot with little possibility of free throws, you are not taking an efficient shot.

3. By shooting too many 3s, you let the defenders off the hook by not risking foul trouble and not getting into the penalty (where even non-shooting fouls gives you FTs). This is another diadvantage.

 

I believe the saying is, if you hit 1/3 of your treys, it's just as effective as hitting 2/3 of your 2s. I always knew Alston was a capable shooter and never understood why people questioned his ability on an injury-riddled team where he had no scorers.

But who cares? Rockets are gonna light it up from 3 this year

 

For a team relying heavily on shooting threes as a major offensive weapon as well as a key to opening up the defense for T-Mac and Yao, shooting 33% of threes collectively isn't gonna cut it. One of the reasons is rhythm.

Basketball is a game based on flow, flow generates morale, morale pushes players to play better than their opponents. Psycologically, in multiple possessions, hitting one three pointer out of every three possessions is very different from hitting one two point shot out of two possessions in terms of flow. When the superstars work hard and the final result is two clanks off the rim out of three possessions it is particularly demoralizing, coupled with the above mentioned disadvatange of lack of fouls drawed, lack of team penalty, lack of rebounds, and factor into normal turnovers and missed attempts by the superstars, shooting 33.33% of threes are worse than shooting 50% twos because it's easier to go into a scoring drought caused by the above factors, which disrupts rhythm and demoralizes the team.

 

Alston deserves the flak he got for his shooting. It's true that hitting 1/3 of your 3pt shots is the same thing as hitting 1/2 of your 2pt shots. However, it's not like those top scorers who shoot 49% from 2pt range are just shooting 2pt shots. They also make their share of 3's, or they draw a fouls and get to the FT line (the most efficient way to score).

Alston's 0.327 3PT% would be acceptable...if he didn't miss from everywhere else, and actually got to the line a decent number of times. Overall, Alston's TS% (FG% adjusted for 3pt shots and FTs) was a horrible 0.475. The league average is a bit under 0.53.

For a visual to see just how bad it is, check out these TS% rankings. 181 players played enough minutes last season to qualify for this list. Rafer came in at an astounding 170th.

 

Looking simply at counting 3 ptrs as 1.5 field goals (also known as effective field goal percentage - efg%) is seductive but misleading when comparing 3-ptrs vs. 2-ptrs.

(1) FT's need to be factored in. Typically this is called true shooting percentage (ts%). Here's a quick example:

2005-06 efg%:
Yao: 51.9
Luther: 49.3

Wow, Luther is about equal to Yao when you count Luther's 3-ptrs compared to Yao's 2's. That's not the complete story though. Now let's add in FT's.

2005-06 ts%:
Yao: 59.2
Lurther: 51.7

Big difference when you consider the impact of FT's.

Further if you look at Rafer's ts% - it's 47.5%. Doing a quick check if you looked at players with 1000 minutes or more in 05-06 there are a total of 254 players. Rafer ranks about #238 out of 254 with ts%. The average for this group of players was 53.5%. EDIT: I see JimRaynor has commented on this already.

(2) You have to factor in offensive rebounds and possessions. efg% is just a contrived number to normalize scoring but it doesn't account for the lost possessions for missed 3's vs. 2's.

05-06 OREB% (% of total offensive rebounds a team collects), the NBA median was ~26% (high of 32% and low of 22%). The Rockets were at 25.5%. That means that typically a team will get an offensive rebound 1 out of every 4 missed shots.

What does that mean? If in 05-06 everyone not named Yao on the Rockets shot all 3 ptrs instead we would have missed 34 shots per game vs. 28 shots. That's a net increase of 6 missed shots which means that the Rockets would have given up 4 more possessions assuming they could have gotten 2 out of the 6 OR's from the additional misses.

 

I don't see anyone mention this. 3-pointers are usually shot wide open. 2-pointers, on the other hand, are often contested. This is the big difference.

Why are 3s open shots? Because they are usaully the result of kick out. In other words, you have to be able to consistently make difficult 2s in order to get open 3s. That's why you have to have a higher percentage of 3s to justify taking them because they are wide open shots.

 

See that's the thing. We don't know exactly what % he needs to shoot in order to stay out on the floor. For me it's just so difficult to quantify given all of these fluid unmeasurable factors.

While you make a good argument about 3pt shooting possibly being overvalued, I still don't think one could argue that Rafer was an asset last year. There were only 108 Total 3pt shooters in the league last year (those who shot enough to qualify, ie not Yao), and Rafer was 91st!

And the thing to remember is that this year, it's not a philisophical difference between choosing to take what kind of shots. The Rockets should be an efficient well balanced scoring machine. Good shots should be and will be taken within the natural flow of the sytem. That's really what I care about, stuff like Yao getting the ball in good position for an easy hook, or Rafer or whoever being the recipient of multiple passes and being wide open.

The Rockets are talented and smart this year. If anyone starts to get too selfish and starts taking bad shots, he will be benched...i'm sure of that.

So with this in mind, how good does Rafer need to shoot? I really don't know. It's not about absolute %s as much as the difference between Rafer and the next best option (perhaps Luther Head). Rafer is a better ball handler and passer than Luther, but if Rafer is pulling an 0 for 5er 3pt night and it's getting down to crunch time and Luther Head was money throuhout the game, I'm guessing Luther will be playing point in the end.

So for me, it's not science as much as how the game is going and how JVG feels in his gut about who's performing better that night.

Honestly, from what Rafer has shown so far in preseason, he has been nothing but great. He's shooting better than he ever has in his ENTIRE CAREER. Hopefully he keeps it up, so there would not have to be any discussion about this at all during the season. That's right Rafer, just hit 40% of your treys and everyone will love you.

 

Kim, I agree with almost everything you said except Rafer will never be universally loved here no matter how well he shoots. Too many people have it in for him. For me, if he shoots a better %, that should be enough to keep the starters role this season unless Luther shoots lights out. If V-Span can shoot well enough to keep defenses honest (just from 2pt range), he could become tough to handle also.