PDA

View Full Version : Better Offense: In the paint or Behind the 3pnt line.



mr_badman
09-02-2010, 11:31 PM
whats the better offense 3pnt :guns: >>>>>> (((:D)))

or w:box:rking the P:faint:int

Baller1
09-02-2010, 11:31 PM
:laugh2:

shep33
09-02-2010, 11:51 PM
Working the paint by a longshot IMO. I dunno how many teams shoot 50% from 3, but good bigs always shoot above 50% easy. Not only that but they draw fouls, get the other team in trouble, and get freethrows to boot.

If it was about 3 point shooting, the Suns would've won the championship.

Hustla23
09-02-2010, 11:53 PM
I'm sure there's mathematical analysis involved in determining the most efficient course of action.

Does the much higher success rate of "in the paint" shots outweigh the extra value offered by a three point shot?

There's probably articles on this and what not.

Wade>You
09-02-2010, 11:53 PM
IMO Championships are won inside the paint, whether it's on offense or defense.

mr_badman
09-02-2010, 11:54 PM
Working the paint by a longshot IMO. I dunno how many teams shoot 50% from 3, but good bigs always shoot above 50% easy. Not only that but they draw fouls, get the other team in trouble, and get freethrows to boot.

If it was about 3 point shooting, the Suns would've won the championship.

:clap: I agree :hi5:

The Knicks too ;)

tredigs
09-02-2010, 11:59 PM
I'm sure there's mathematical analysis involved in determining the most efficient course of action.

Does the much higher success rate of "in the paint" shots outweigh the extra value offered by a three point shot?

There's probably articles on this and what not.

This thread could be VERY interesting, or go horribly wrong.

eFG% wise, a solid 3pt shooter is almost always going to be superior from beyond three than he is from 10-23 feet (mid-long range). The paint points are highly particular to the player and how good he is at finishing around the hoop.

But there's a limit to how many solid 3pt opportunities you're afforded, and there's also additional benefits to attacking the paint that you don't get from three (getting to the line and subsequently putting them in foul trouble - which has a cascading positive effect for your team).

I don't know, my mind's starting to go a little crazy thinking about the different angles to take on this, so I'm just going to stop where I'm at and hear what others have to think about it.




Working the paint by a longshot IMO. I dunno how many teams shoot 50% from 3, but good bigs always shoot above 50% easy. Not only that but they draw fouls, get the other team in trouble, and get freethrows to boot.

If it was about 3 point shooting, the Suns would've won the championship.

You're taking straight FG% here - and that's not the right way to look at it - considering a 3 is worth... 3 points, not 2. Efg% is what you should be looking at, and there are a lot of players whose eFG% from three is better than their %'s from <10 feet + the paint. Also, paint scoring FG%'s are highly skewed due to open dunks/layups, which shouldn't even factor into this discussion. You obviously take those if they're available.

Bottom line, IMO? Nice and simple; have to have both. But if you can shoot threes anywhere near 40% while shooting a high volume (i.e. - while being guarded), then take every one you can - because it will net your team more points than if you don't.

blastmasta26
09-03-2010, 12:06 AM
I would take the paint. You can do your work consistently from there plus you can draw fouls more easily. Three point shooting puts up more points obviously but cold streaks can lose you the game quickly and I think it's easier to score inside against good defense than it is to score on the perimeter against good defense.

tredigs
09-03-2010, 12:11 AM
One other thing that would be in favor of 3pt shooting rather than paint scoring is the fact that while scoring in the paint will get you more drawn fouls, it's also gonna net you far less second chance opportunities. I don't know the numbers off hand, but I do know that a missed three clanking off 9 feet in a random direction has a much better chance of being rebounded by the offense than a rimmed baby hook or up 'n under.

Ovratd1up
09-03-2010, 12:28 AM
Well a good three point shooting team are easier to find than good paint post players or penetrators.

Another thing is that three pointers, while worth enough more to make up for the lesser percentages, are missed more frequently, which results in more transition play, which hurts your defense.
In this sense, Paul Milsap's eFG% of 53.8 might be worth more than Matt Bonner's 56.7, because Milsap makes more shots, allowing his team to set up on the defensive end, etc.

THE GIPPER
09-03-2010, 12:36 AM
a perfect balance of both is best.

BkOriginalOne
09-03-2010, 12:36 AM
PAINT.
No question. Higher percentage shot with a chance of a free throw.
Free points and you put your opponent in foul trouble, making it easier to score? Sounds like the better offense to me.

SouthSideRookie
09-03-2010, 12:39 AM
Depends if you want to win, if that's the case then in the paint.

Ovratd1up
09-03-2010, 12:47 AM
a perfect balance of both is best.

:eyebrow:

thescore53
09-03-2010, 12:52 AM
paint = 2 points behind the arc = 3 points

so "technically" it's obvious what the better offense is.

but if u mean both arent identical shooting and were talking literally and whats possible. it would be paint cause it the higher percentage shot.

FOBolous
09-03-2010, 12:55 AM
post offense is consistent. 3 pts shots come and goes.

consistency plus accuracy > 1 extra point, inconsistency, low accuracy

JPHX
09-03-2010, 12:56 AM
This thread made me think of 1m:16s on this vid. hehe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw6RgIf6epQ)

ChiSox219
09-03-2010, 12:56 AM
One other thing that would be in favor of 3pt shooting rather than paint scoring is the fact that while scoring in the paint will get you more drawn fouls, it's also gonna net you far less second chance opportunities. I don't know the numbers off hand, but I do know that a missed three clanking off 9 feet in a random direction has a much better chance of being rebounded by the offense than a rimmed baby hook or up 'n under.

http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/29/rebounding-by-shot-location/

ChiSox219
09-03-2010, 12:59 AM
post offense is consistent. 3 pts shots come and goes.

consistency plus accuracy > 1 extra point, inconsistency, low accuracy

A three point shot is not inconsistent, it is just made at a lower rate than a shot from the paint.

Kashmir13579
09-03-2010, 01:00 AM
a perfect combo of the 2.

DenButsu
09-03-2010, 01:11 AM
I just put together this chart to illustrate a few points (I hope the mods will let it stand as an image, but if not I understand. :cool: ).

The first section is overall defensive efficiency. You could look at this (and for my purposes here, I am) as a single overall defensive rating, so that Charlotte had the best, and Toronto the worst defense in the league last season.

The next five sections are opponent shooting percentages (meaning that the lower, the better, since you want your opponents to miss, of course :) ) for shots taken at the rim, within 10 feet of the basket, and so on. If the 3-point percentages look out of wack I believe it's because they're tallied as eFG% rather than simple FG%.

In each category, green is the best 1-8, yellow the next best 9-16, and red the bottom half. But I kept teams on the same line across based on their defensive efficiency, which is why the numbers and colors get jumbled as you move to the right.

http://a.imageshack.us/img842/5058/nbadefensiveefficiencya.jpg

At a glance I think what this chart shows is that, basically, both at-rim and 3-point defense are very important, as they both have the highest degree of correlation with the overall defensive efficiency rankings. Mid-range defense, on the other hand, seems to be less important, where teams like Boston and San Antonio can falter in the mid-range while maintaining top 10 defenses, and a team like Sacramento can be fairly elite at defending the mid-range but still have a sub-par overall defense.

The one obvious outlier here is Orlando's 3-point defense being far worse for them than in any other category. My guess there would be that the impact Dwight Howard alone makes near the rim balances that out, but I could be wrong about that.

But I think bottom line is pretty much that most teams with great defenses are very good at defending both the rim and the arc.

Ovratd1up
09-03-2010, 01:12 AM
http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/29/rebounding-by-shot-location/

Do you have all of these pages bookmarked?
And if so, can I see your bookmarks page? Ha.
This is really great, so thanks.

tredigs
09-03-2010, 01:25 AM
http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/29/rebounding-by-shot-location/

Really interesting. The one thing I can think of off hand that would skew a chart to look like this (as far as the propensity for O-boards in the paint) are self put backs off of missed sitters. You see bigs rack up multiple O-rebounds just clanking it off the rim and getting their own board quite often - but I don't think that this is the type of shot that we're thinking about when considering paint scoring.

Other than that, I'd be surprised and interested to see why this is the case; because it does not seem like it should or would be.

tredigs
09-03-2010, 01:35 AM
I just put together this chart to illustrate a few points (I hope the mods will let it stand as an image, but if not I understand. :cool: ).

The first section is overall defensive efficiency. You could look at this (and for my purposes here, I am) as a single overall defensive rating, so that Charlotte had the best, and Toronto the worst defense in the league last season.

The next five sections are opponent shooting percentages (meaning that the lower, the better, since you want your opponents to miss, of course :) ) for shots taken at the rim, within 10 feet of the basket, and so on. If the 3-point percentages look out of wack I believe it's because they're tallied as eFG% rather than simple FG%.

In each category, green is the best 1-8, yellow the next best 9-16, and red the bottom half. But I kept teams on the same line across based on their defensive efficiency, which is why the numbers and colors get jumbled as you move to the right.

http://a.imageshack.us/img842/5058/nbadefensiveefficiencya.jpg

At a glance I think what this chart shows is that, basically, both at-rim and 3-point defense are very important, as they both have the highest degree of correlation with the overall defensive efficiency rankings. Mid-range defense, on the other hand, seems to be less important, where teams like Boston and San Antonio can falter in the mid-range while maintaining top 10 defenses, and a team like Sacramento can be fairly elite at defending the mid-range but still have a sub-par overall defense.

The one obvious outlier here is Orlando's 3-point defense being far worse for them than in any other category. My guess there would be that the impact Dwight Howard alone makes near the rim balances that out, but I could be wrong about that.

But I think bottom line is pretty much that most teams with great defenses are very good at defending both the rim and the arc.

This is what I'm talking about, and I'd be curious to see the adjusted FG% (eFG for 3's) when breakaway layups/dunks are removed (again, this is obviously a must take for the free 2) and it only accounts for contested 2's.

My guess is that the eFG% for threes would be much higher than the paint scoring, but that the effects from fouls (foul trouble for them, foul shots for you) would bring it back closer together.

Someone, somewhere has done this research - and I'd like to see it.

Antipod
09-03-2010, 01:48 AM
Paint>>> 3 pointers

Ovratd1up
09-03-2010, 02:11 AM
I just put together this chart to illustrate a few points (I hope the mods will let it stand as an image, but if not I understand. :cool: ).

The first section is overall defensive efficiency. You could look at this (and for my purposes here, I am) as a single overall defensive rating, so that Charlotte had the best, and Toronto the worst defense in the league last season.

The next five sections are opponent shooting percentages (meaning that the lower, the better, since you want your opponents to miss, of course :) ) for shots taken at the rim, within 10 feet of the basket, and so on. If the 3-point percentages look out of wack I believe it's because they're tallied as eFG% rather than simple FG%.

In each category, green is the best 1-8, yellow the next best 9-16, and red the bottom half. But I kept teams on the same line across based on their defensive efficiency, which is why the numbers and colors get jumbled as you move to the right.

http://a.imageshack.us/img842/5058/nbadefensiveefficiencya.jpg

At a glance I think what this chart shows is that, basically, both at-rim and 3-point defense are very important, as they both have the highest degree of correlation with the overall defensive efficiency rankings. Mid-range defense, on the other hand, seems to be less important, where teams like Boston and San Antonio can falter in the mid-range while maintaining top 10 defenses, and a team like Sacramento can be fairly elite at defending the mid-range but still have a sub-par overall defense.

The one obvious outlier here is Orlando's 3-point defense being far worse for them than in any other category. My guess there would be that the impact Dwight Howard alone makes near the rim balances that out, but I could be wrong about that.

But I think bottom line is pretty much that most teams with great defenses are very good at defending both the rim and the arc.


Paint>>> 3 pointers

Which one should I go with, hmmmm..

Tony_Starks
09-03-2010, 02:37 AM
Inside-out has always been the blueprint for championships. Teams have tried to play from the outside-in like Phoenix and Dallas but no one has ever proven the time old philosophy wrong yet.

PHX2daDEATH
09-03-2010, 02:48 AM
a combo of both, a dominant inside game alone can win titles though (Spurs, Lakers)the spurs in particular are a good example, good either way when it mattered.

Bausman
09-03-2010, 03:16 AM
Ballance.

ChiSox219
09-03-2010, 03:53 AM
I just put together this chart to illustrate a few points (I hope the mods will let it stand as an image, but if not I understand. :cool: ).

The first section is overall defensive efficiency. You could look at this (and for my purposes here, I am) as a single overall defensive rating, so that Charlotte had the best, and Toronto the worst defense in the league last season.

The next five sections are opponent shooting percentages (meaning that the lower, the better, since you want your opponents to miss, of course :) ) for shots taken at the rim, within 10 feet of the basket, and so on. If the 3-point percentages look out of wack I believe it's because they're tallied as eFG% rather than simple FG%.

In each category, green is the best 1-8, yellow the next best 9-16, and red the bottom half. But I kept teams on the same line across based on their defensive efficiency, which is why the numbers and colors get jumbled as you move to the right.

http://a.imageshack.us/img842/5058/nbadefensiveefficiencya.jpg

At a glance I think what this chart shows is that, basically, both at-rim and 3-point defense are very important, as they both have the highest degree of correlation with the overall defensive efficiency rankings. Mid-range defense, on the other hand, seems to be less important, where teams like Boston and San Antonio can falter in the mid-range while maintaining top 10 defenses, and a team like Sacramento can be fairly elite at defending the mid-range but still have a sub-par overall defense.

The one obvious outlier here is Orlando's 3-point defense being far worse for them than in any other category. My guess there would be that the impact Dwight Howard alone makes near the rim balances that out, but I could be wrong about that.

But I think bottom line is pretty much that most teams with great defenses are very good at defending both the rim and the arc.

Awesome post

:drool:





Which one should I go with, hmmmm..

LOL


Really interesting. The one thing I can think of off hand that would skew a chart to look like this (as far as the propensity for O-boards in the paint) are self put backs off of missed sitters. You see bigs rack up multiple O-rebounds just clanking it off the rim and getting their own board quite often - but I don't think that this is the type of shot that we're thinking about when considering paint scoring.

Other than that, I'd be surprised and interested to see why this is the case; because it does not seem like it should or would be.

You make a good point.

I'd also consider a league with a lot of scoring from perimeter players at the basket, you have a lot of situations where the defense has to rotate and the shooter (say a 6'10 SF) becomes an extra man to box out.


Do you have all of these pages bookmarked?
And if so, can I see your bookmarks page? Ha.
This is really great, so thanks.

If you being are serious, PM me your email.

myglobs
09-03-2010, 04:13 AM
I would say that paint scoring is by far superior to 3pt scoring.

for one, like many of you have said, it gets you fouls. fouls for one thing are in most cases the highest % shots for most players and don't forget the and one. it is a three point opportunity. with a higher percentage then a straight three point shot.

a foul also forces teams to make adjustments. take a player out earlier out of rotation then usually or make him be more carefull on d.

and what i think is mostly important. good paint scoring gives you a lot of free three point opportunities.

and think about your offense as the first line of defense. if you miss a long shot it gives you a long rebound and if the D rebounds it gets your opponent a fast break.

or lets ask another question, give me the last champ without strong paint scoring?!?

Khalifa21
09-03-2010, 08:09 AM
I'd rather my team pounded it in down low rather than jacking them up from outside.

Khalifa21
09-03-2010, 08:12 AM
I'd rather my team pounded it in down low rather than jacking from beyond the arc, but unfortunately i'm a Knicks fan...

ewing
09-03-2010, 08:12 AM
I guess I'd rather shoot uncontested lay ups then 3s. Its a tough choice though

d-baller23
09-03-2010, 01:25 PM
My team can do both so..... yeah

DenButsu
09-03-2010, 07:32 PM
Okay, I'm an idiot.

I just realized I misread the thread title the first time around. My whole big first post with the chart and everything is about which is better DEFENSE, not offense.

My apologies if that threw the thread off.

Klivlend
09-03-2010, 07:37 PM
Basketball is a game that should be played from the inside out. It all starts in the paint.

topdog
09-03-2010, 07:43 PM
Both. Paint when it's easy, range when they pack. Can't have both? Depends on what position you play.

CLASSOF72
09-03-2010, 07:43 PM
No paint = no three last I checked.

topdog
09-03-2010, 07:44 PM
or lets ask another question, give me the last champ without strong paint scoring?!?

Detroit.