PDA

View Full Version : What percentage of 3's do you need to make in order to make it worth it?



Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 02:29 AM
I.e.

If you are shooting 50% from three point range, is it warranted to be going crazy and shooting a high number?


I am asking for a valuation here.

For example, in baseball, if you aren't stealing second base at least 75% of the time successfully, then you need to stop stealing because you are creating a negative run value. But as long as you are over 75% then you are creating a positive run value and you should be stealing every chance you think you can possibly make it.

Obviously open three's, three's in transition, three's when you have team mates under the goal, plays that create a pick-n-roll so you are open for a three all matter. I'm not asking for three's with a man in your face.

But at what percentage does it become worth it to set a lot of plays for a shooter to get as many looks as possible at open three's in a game?

MTar786
08-01-2013, 02:37 AM
I'd say at least 33% if.you're not a reputable three point shooter and at least 30% if you are

Chronz
08-01-2013, 02:41 AM
Its much lower than 50% thats for sure, I havent looked at the league wide trends in awhile but Im leaning towards 33%. Thats essentially like shooting 50% from the field, which from my understanding is right around league average.

Look into eFG%, Im sure its in the stats basement of PSD somewhere, you just have to keep in mind that the cost/benefit of 3's go beyond average valuation, theres some question to the overall consistency of the approach. For example, the Dwight Howard led Magic were a preeminent offensive team on average, but they had the highest volatility of the top offenses because of the hot/cold nature of distance shooting. A similar analogy I can come up with would be like comparing the power of a hot pitching staff at the right moment. It can carry you

setman2000
08-01-2013, 02:41 AM
Well Technically 33.3% but I think 40% is the benchmark I want to see from guys on my team who shoot 3's as a major part of their game.

el hidalgo
08-01-2013, 02:42 AM
33% obviously. That equals 50% from the 2 point line. that is a good shooting percentage

Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 02:44 AM
League average last year in the NBA was 35.9% while overall field goal shooting was 45.3%.


What I am looking for is a ratio of possessions to points and a rate that shows the number of offensive rebounds that would indicate that shooting a three is worth it over a typical field goal.

Basically, you are attempting an extra point value, but at a more difficult angle.

If it's just 33% then the league as a whole should be shooting 3's a lot more often.

Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 02:45 AM
33% obviously. That equals 50% from the 2 point line. that is a good shooting percentage
I guess. Are you figuring it like this?

If you make 2 out of 6 three attempts, that's still 6 possessions to score 6 points. That's the same as taking 6 possessions and making 3 field goals from inside the line.

Kyben36
08-01-2013, 02:47 AM
I disagree with the use of %, its about how good you are period. Look, a guy like Evan turner can shoot 35% from 3, but he may only take 1 a game because he isnt that great of a shooter, vs a guy like Kirk Hinrich who might shoot a similar %, but takes 3 per game,

as far as Im concerned though, a good shooter should shoot at least 38+%, really if your not 40% though your not really considered a good 3pt shooter though.

Chronz
08-01-2013, 02:50 AM
League average last year in the NBA was 35.9% while overall field goal shooting was 45.3%.


What I am looking for is a ratio of possessions to points and a rate that shows the number of offensive rebounds that would indicate that shooting a three is worth it over a typical field goal.

Basically, you are attempting an extra point value, but at a more difficult angle.

If it's just 33% then the league as a whole should be shooting 3's a lot more often.

I guess. Are you figuring it like this?

If you make 2 out of 6 three attempts, that's still 6 possessions to score 6 points. That's the same as taking 6 possessions and making 3 field goals from inside the line.

I added it to my first post but eFG% is what the metric is known as. Last year league average eFG% was .496 so 33% is the perfect cut off. Its more important to make them from my understanding than shoot a higher rate on limited attempts. Tho the intangible benefits of having a guy whom defenses cant allow to get open can be worthwhile

PPP is the purest form of efficiency tho.

tredigs
08-01-2013, 02:51 AM
The problem with the 33% from 3 = 50% from 2 valuation is that shots within the arc - and especially in the paint - equal more offensive rebounds and more And 1's. But for a player like Curry for example who can shoot in traffic and still hit 40+% from three, there's no amount of threes he should not take. Especially if you're capable of exploiting an overaggressive defense in favor of a cutting pass for a high% 2.

Chronz
08-01-2013, 02:52 AM
BTW

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/695/0awn.jpg

This chart gives you an idea of who the most efficient/prolific offensive players are in the league. Bron and KD are in a class all their own.

Leftcoast_yg
08-01-2013, 02:54 AM
I disagree with the use of %, its about how good you are period. Look, a guy like Evan turner can shoot 35% from 3, but he may only take 1 a game because he isnt that great of a shooter, vs a guy like Kirk Hinrich who might shoot a similar %, but takes 3 per game,

as far as Im concerned though, a good shooter should shoot at least 38+%, really if your not 40% though your not really considered a good 3pt shooter though.

Hit it right on vandangler.

Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 02:55 AM
I must admit, the reason I'm asking is because of an Online Association on NBA2k where I have Novak who is a 92 rated three point shooter and I'm making 53% of my three's with him.

While he is a 53 overall rated player and highly deficient in other avenues of the game, I am wondering if I am justified popping 10+ attempts per game with him and giving him so many minutes when he is making them at such a high rate.

I would think someone like that starts to become very valuable and essential.

It makes me wonder if the league as a whole isn't shooting enough 3's in general. If you are making over 40% of your three point attempts wouldn't that mean that you are scoring at a higher rate per possession?

Doesn't the NBA keep track of possessions per points? I would assume that would be a sabr-driven statistic in the game.

I.e. we had 85 possessions in this and we scored 105 points, that's 1.24 points per possession. Vs we had 82 possessions and scored 90 points which would be 1.10 points per possession.

I would think a high three point shooting team would do well within this scope.

tredigs
08-01-2013, 02:56 AM
BTW

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/695/0awn.jpg

This chart gives you an idea of who the most efficient/prolific offensive players are in the league. Bron and KD are in a class all their own.
I was checking that out today too. Harden's the next best thanks to those FTs. Pretty blatantly shows the importance of getting to the line (added bonus being getting their bigs in foul trouble).

Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 02:57 AM
The problem with the 33% from 3 = 50% from 2 valuation is that shots within the arc - and especially in the paint - equal more offensive rebounds and more And 1's. But for a player like Curry for example who can shoot in traffic and still hit 40+% from three, there's no amount of threes he should not take. Especially if you're capable of exploiting an overaggressive defense in favor of a cutting pass for a high% 2.

True, and this is the sort of logic that I was looking for.


I don't know a ton about basketball, but I am a sabr-driven person in baseball. So I am sort of looking for the sabr-driven logic in basketball. Which you basically just referenced here.

Chronz
08-01-2013, 02:58 AM
The problem with the 33% from 3 = 50% from 2 valuation is that shots within the arc - and especially in the paint - equal more offensive rebounds and more And 1's. But for a player like Curry for example who can shoot in traffic and still hit 40+% from three, there's no amount of threes he should not take. Especially if you're capable of exploiting an overaggressive defense in favor of a cutting pass for a high% 2.

Shots in the paint are generally higher% than 50% anyways so its always best to try and get that shot off first and then complimenting it with 3's. The orb% that comes from shots in the paint is undeniable, courtvision has a beautiful interactive graph that shows specifically where rebounds come from: http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

But shots from midrange usually yield very little offensive rebound (unless your Kobe).

jimm120
08-01-2013, 03:00 AM
As others have said.....as a team, its 33%

but the problem is that basketball is about runs. Shooting 33% will get you in deficits which will be hard to come back from and knock you out of the game much easier.

So as someone said, if you can go and shoot 38% or 40%, then not only are you getting extra points, but you're doing it at a clip in which will keep you ahead during the game.

tredigs
08-01-2013, 03:00 AM
I must admit, the reason I'm asking is because of an Online Association on NBA2k where I have Novak who is a 92 rated three point shooter and I'm making 53% of my three's with him.

While he is a 53 overall rated player and highly deficient in other avenues of the game, I am wondering if I am justified popping 10+ attempts per game with him and giving him so many minutes when he is making them at such a high rate.

I would think someone like that starts to become very valuable and essential.

It makes me wonder if the league as a whole isn't shooting enough 3's in general. If you are making over 40% of your three point attempts wouldn't that mean that you are scoring at a higher rate per possession?

Doesn't the NBA keep track of possessions per points? I would assume that would be a sabr-driven statistic in the game.

I.e. we had 85 possessions in this and we scored 105 points, that's 1.24 points per possession. Vs we had 82 possessions and scored 90 points which would be 1.10 points per possession.

I would think a high three point shooting team would do well within this scope.

The game has slowly transitioned to volume 3pt shooting via 3pt specialists over the years, and arguably THE most predictive measure of a teams success is 3pt volume X 3pt% (first heard this from a high end basketball gambler on a Simmons podcast). So, yes. If you have interior D, a post presence or a high% slasher to get you And 1's plus easy buckets in the paint (think Harden), + elite 3pt shooting, you're winning a lot of games and should be a force in the playoffs.

Trueblue2
08-01-2013, 03:03 AM
1 3pt basket is worth 1.5 2pt baskets.

It's not that simple though, the ability of a team to make a 3 spaces the floor and opens up easier scoring opportunities inside. Which is a value that doesn't show up on metrics or stats.

tredigs
08-01-2013, 03:03 AM
Shots in the paint are generally higher% than 50% anyways so its always best to try and get that shot off first and then complimenting it with 3's. The orb% that comes from shots in the paint is undeniable, courtvision has a beautiful interactive graph that shows specifically where rebounds come from: http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

But shots from midrange usually yield very little offensive rebound (unless your Kobe).

Yeah, no doubt. It's starting to become pretty clear to teams that the deep two is the suckers shot. Pretty intuitive to most, but still it's an easy trap shot to get volume shooters to take.

Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 03:05 AM
Does basketball have a Fangraphs equivalent site where I can learn some of this information like you can in baseball so easily?

I am enjoying the discussion btw.

tredigs
08-01-2013, 03:11 AM
Does basketball have a Fangraphs equivalent site where I can learn some of this information like you can in baseball so easily?

I am enjoying the discussion btw.
It's tougher than baseball because so much of the game is predicated on team synergy, but yeah there's a ton and it's growing quick. To be honest stats.nba.com just recently stepped it up and became a solid resource, and if you want some high end discussion on it, this is the forum: http://apbr.org/metrics/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=adf11c70b684e8c5660846b6feb33189

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 03:29 AM
League average last year in the NBA was 35.9% while overall field goal shooting was 45.3%.


What I am looking for is a ratio of possessions to points and a rate that shows the number of offensive rebounds that would indicate that shooting a three is worth it over a typical field goal.

Basically, you are attempting an extra point value, but at a more difficult angle.

If it's just 33% then the league as a whole should be shooting 3's a lot more often.


That's starting to happen. Every year we get more and more teams taking more threes. Most three point records are being broken, especially the sheer volume ones.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 03:31 AM
I must admit, the reason I'm asking is because of an Online Association on NBA2k where I have Novak who is a 92 rated three point shooter and I'm making 53% of my three's with him.

While he is a 53 overall rated player and highly deficient in other avenues of the game, I am wondering if I am justified popping 10+ attempts per game with him and giving him so many minutes when he is making them at such a high rate.

I would think someone like that starts to become very valuable and essential.

It makes me wonder if the league as a whole isn't shooting enough 3's in general. If you are making over 40% of your three point attempts wouldn't that mean that you are scoring at a higher rate per possession?

Doesn't the NBA keep track of possessions per points? I would assume that would be a sabr-driven statistic in the game.

I.e. we had 85 possessions in this and we scored 105 points, that's 1.24 points per possession. Vs we had 82 possessions and scored 90 points which would be 1.10 points per possession.

I would think a high three point shooting team would do well within this scope.

You want to check out mysynergysports.com.

And yep, it is really easy to gamet he simulation in 2k. I am killing it with Bargs, Booner, and Novak.

SMH!
08-01-2013, 03:50 AM
BTW

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/695/0awn.jpg

This chart gives you an idea of who the most efficient/prolific offensive players are in the league. Bron and KD are in a class all their own.

wow! :clap:

Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 04:27 AM
I appreciate the feedback guys, and I'll certainly check those out.

Would there be enough interest in having a section of the forum devoted to 'sabr' basketball stats like the baseball section has?

Chronz
08-01-2013, 04:37 AM
I appreciate the feedback guys, and I'll certainly check those out.

Would there be enough interest in having a section of the forum devoted to 'sabr' basketball stats like the baseball section has?

lol . its been done. but nobody really seems to have the time, effort to dig in. Its much easier to wait for the articles to be published. But there are a few projects I wouldn't mind working on. Nothing too fancy, just playoff adjust rates.

MickeyMgl
08-01-2013, 04:41 AM
I.e.

If you are shooting 50% from three point range, is it warranted to be going crazy and shooting a high number?


I am asking for a valuation here.

For example, in baseball, if you aren't stealing second base at least 75% of the time successfully, then you need to stop stealing because you are creating a negative run value. But as long as you are over 75% then you are creating a positive run value and you should be stealing every chance you think you can possibly make it.

Obviously open three's, three's in transition, three's when you have team mates under the goal, plays that create a pick-n-roll so you are open for a three all matter. I'm not asking for three's with a man in your face.

But at what percentage does it become worth it to set a lot of plays for a shooter to get as many looks as possible at open three's in a game?

33% 3-pointers ≈ 50% 2-pointers
50% 3-pointers = 75% 2-pointers

Theoretically, if you're shooting 50% on 3-pointers, like Steve Kerr did several times, you should not hesitate to shoot it when you get the opportunity. On the other hand, if you're shooting 50% on 3-pointers, chances are you are doing so at least in part by being selective and seldom shooting it when you have to alter your shot a great deal, like Steve Kerr. Likely, the shooters capable of anything approaching 50% from the arc, would shoot much less efficiently if they made an effort to "shoot more".

bloomis1307
08-01-2013, 08:28 AM
Define a statistical outlier.......Lebron James and Kevin Durant haha


BTW

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/695/0awn.jpg

This chart gives you an idea of who the most efficient/prolific offensive players are in the league. Bron and KD are in a class all their own.

Sportfan
08-01-2013, 09:13 AM
Well I looked into this a little more
http://hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx
If you calculate the NBA average of 2 point shots you get 49.9%, so pretty much exactly 50%

That means a 33.3 3PT% exactly or above would be produce more points than the average % of taking a 2 point shot

Kashmir13579
08-01-2013, 09:20 AM
BTW

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/695/0awn.jpg

This chart gives you an idea of who the most efficient/prolific offensive players are in the league. Bron and KD are in a class all their own.
I was looking at this the other day. Carmelo had one hell of a season lol

As for the question, as long as opposing players respect your shot, anywhere close to 30% deems you worthy to shoot 3s imo. When you aren't hitting you're still spacing the floor, and that extra point goes a long way.

Jamiecballer
08-01-2013, 10:10 AM
I.e.

If you are shooting 50% from three point range, is it warranted to be going crazy and shooting a high number?


I am asking for a valuation here.

For example, in baseball, if you aren't stealing second base at least 75% of the time successfully, then you need to stop stealing because you are creating a negative run value. But as long as you are over 75% then you are creating a positive run value and you should be stealing every chance you think you can possibly make it.

Obviously open three's, three's in transition, three's when you have team mates under the goal, plays that create a pick-n-roll so you are open for a three all matter. I'm not asking for three's with a man in your face.

But at what percentage does it become worth it to set a lot of plays for a shooter to get as many looks as possible at open three's in a game?

this is a great question and one that is very near and dear to my heart. obviously you will get the mathematical answer will is about 33% i believe but i believe it should be higher myself.

if you are wide open, like the result of a great ball movement from one side of the court to the other, and you are a 30% shooter or higher, i say bombs away. but if you are anything less than a 38-40% shooter from 3, and there is time left on the shot clock i think it should be more or less a last resort for the reasons already mentioned (offensive rebound potential, the fact that a layup or dunk are converted at MUCH higher than 50% rates, etc.)

Jamiecballer
08-01-2013, 10:13 AM
The problem with the 33% from 3 = 50% from 2 valuation is that shots within the arc - and especially in the paint - equal more offensive rebounds and more And 1's. But for a player like Curry for example who can shoot in traffic and still hit 40+% from three, there's no amount of threes he should not take. Especially if you're capable of exploiting an overaggressive defense in favor of a cutting pass for a high% 2.
+1

simply looking at the math of it is short-sighted.

Jamiecballer
08-01-2013, 10:16 AM
33% 3-pointers ≈ 50% 2-pointers
50% 3-pointers = 75% 2-pointers

Theoretically, if you're shooting 50% on 3-pointers, like Steve Kerr did several times, you should not hesitate to shoot it when you get the opportunity. On the other hand, if you're shooting 50% on 3-pointers, chances are you are doing so at least in part by being selective and seldom shooting it when you have to alter your shot a great deal, like Steve Kerr. Likely, the shooters capable of anything approaching 50% from the arc, would shoot much less efficiently if they made an effort to "shoot more".
another great point to add to the discussion.

RiceOnTheRun
08-01-2013, 12:02 PM
3pt shots get you 150% of points that a normal shot would, so just multiply the percentage by 1.5

So 40% from the 3pt line is effectively getting you the same as shooting 60% from within the arc. Let's say you shoot 42% out of 100 shots. You're making 42 shots and 126 points. That would take 63 out of 100 normal shots so it would effectively be 63%. So, a good percentage would probably be around mid-30s which would be like shooting ~50% from the field normally.

The problem is, three point shots are more streaky and definitely take much more mental focus than say making a layup or a mid-ranged jumpshot, which makes it easier to disrpupt. But at the same time that's why players like Steph Curry who can consistently make it from outside are a bigger threat than a mid-range jumpshooter who settles for slightly higher percentage shots but miss out on that extra point. It also makes a player who can get inside at will, like Lebron or Melo, an extremely dangerous player because defending that takes a two man effort.

edit: Like someone else said above, efficiency usually comes from not taking stupid shots. Usually though, just having the threat of the 3pt shot is a dangerous weapon within itself because either you guard the shot and make it hard for them or you try to cover the lanes, forcing them to take that long range shot. Hell, just the threat of having Novak on the floor was enough to warrant 4yr/16m from the Knicks. Given, that it was a stupid contract but even a guy who could do nothing else but catch-and-shoot was considered valuable and worth minutes in that sense of just "being that threat".

scissors
08-01-2013, 12:52 PM
I recently read that a 3FGA with a 28% likelihood of going in is still more efficient than the average 2FGA.

Let that sink in for a minute.

ILLUSIONIST^248
08-01-2013, 01:05 PM
33% obviously. That equals 50% from the 2 point line. that is a good shooting percentage

Way to hop on Chronz post. Why are you still posting. No one forgot that you lost an account bet vs me. You and DMF must be brahs.

el hidalgo
08-01-2013, 01:18 PM
Way to hop on Chronz post. Why are you still posting. No one forgot that you lost an account bet vs me. You and DMF must be brahs.

posts were made less than a minute apart. i guess great minds think alike. u mad bro?

Jeffy25
08-01-2013, 01:39 PM
great info guys, thanks

JerseyPalahniuk
08-01-2013, 01:42 PM
I was looking at this the other day. Carmelo had one hell of a season lol

As for the question, as long as opposing players respect your shot, anywhere close to 30% deems you worthy to shoot 3s imo. When you aren't hitting you're still spacing the floor, and that extra point goes a long way.

Don't look at the X axis, look at the Y. He is high on the X axis because that is usage percentage, he is simply involved in more possessions of his team than any player in the NBA. He is far below LBJ/Durant and even Harden in efficiency though.

Great topic though, lots of valuable links posted here.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 01:47 PM
I recently read that a 3FGA with a 28% likelihood of going in is still more efficient than the average 2FGA.

Let that sink in for a minute.


Yep. A bad three is the best bad shot to get and a bad three can be more efficient than an average two point shooter.

el hidalgo
08-01-2013, 02:04 PM
I recently read that a 3FGA with a 28% likelihood of going in is still more efficient than the average 2FGA.

Let that sink in for a minute.

really? that interesting. im rusty on my probability and statistics. id like to see the formula for that given case.

Bruno
08-01-2013, 02:09 PM
getting closer to the 36-40% range from three is what I would settle on. the 3-7% on top of 33% is what makes it a defendable approach in the face of the hot/cold reality of depending upon and building around three point shooting. but go ahead and tell that to the 2011 Mavericks.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 02:26 PM
really? that interesting. im rusty on my probability and statistics. id like to see the formula for that given case.

Not really a formula

28/100 = 84 (threes)
42/100 = 84 (twos)

el hidalgo
08-01-2013, 02:30 PM
Not really a formula

28/100 = 84 (threes)
42/100 = 84 (twos)
i didnt realize it was just comparing it to a 42% fg shooter... i thought it was comparing it to a 50% ft shooter only taking 2 FG's and a 28% 3 point shooter taking one 3 pointer

Chronz
08-01-2013, 02:30 PM
Not really a formula

28/100 = 84 (threes)
42/100 = 84 (twos)

True, but given identical efficiency rates, isnt it best to take the shot that is more consistent? Maybe the value of offensive rebounds tips this the other way tho.

Among other possible variables, we need to know the efficiency of off the dribble shooters from both ranges. My guess is that the further you get, the harder it is to score 1 on 1 or off the dribble.

tredigs
08-01-2013, 02:50 PM
Not really a formula

28/100 = 84 (threes)
42/100 = 84 (twos)
42% is well below your average two, the three also yields less offensive boards than your average 2 and gives you a far lower chance of an And1. A 28% three is much worse.

1-800-STFU
08-01-2013, 02:56 PM
The first interesting thread I've read in the NBA forum since someone proposed getting rid of out of bounds

Kudos

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 03:21 PM
42% is well below your average two, the three also yields less offensive boards than your average 2 and gives you a far lower chance of an And1. A 28% three is much worse.


No, the average two point jump shot is 42 percent. A great percentage on two point jump shots is 50 percent. In fact, that's the highest in the league.

IndyRealist
08-01-2013, 03:35 PM
33% would be 1.0 points per possession, which is not good. You would want to be closer to 1.13ppp which I believe is the offensive efficiency of the Thunder, or 37.6%. Really if it is a good shot or not depends on how efficient the rest of the offense is.

Chronz
08-01-2013, 03:56 PM
33% would be 1.0 points per possession, which is not good. You would want to be closer to 1.13ppp which I believe is the offensive efficiency of the Thunder, or 37.6%. Really if it is a good shot or not depends on how efficient the rest of the offense is.

You're talking about overall efficiency tho, not just from the field. If every jumpshot were rebounded by the opposing team, I would agree that the PPP is too low, but 3pt jumpshots actually lead to more offensive rebounds than midrange jumpshots (again, unless you are Kobe). They are also less likely to result in turnovers than forays to the rim, but also much less likely to get you to the foul line. Sounds like alot of factors to account for, we kept it simple.

Off.RTG is higher because it accounts for rebounds, fta, turnovers.. Looking solely at league average eFG%(.496), .33 is the cutoff. (thunder had an eFG% of .527). But I would agree its relative to the team/league.

IndyRealist
08-01-2013, 04:48 PM
You're talking about overall efficiency tho, not just from the field. If every jumpshot were rebounded by the opposing team, I would agree that the PPP is too low, but 3pt jumpshots actually lead to more offensive rebounds than midrange jumpshots (again, unless you are Kobe). They are also less likely to result in turnovers than forays to the rim, but also much less likely to get you to the foul line. Sounds like alot of factors to account for, we kept it simple.

Off.RTG is higher because it accounts for rebounds, fta, turnovers.. Looking solely at league average eFG%(.496), .33 is the cutoff. (thunder had an eFG% of .527). But I would agree its relative to the team/league.

Overall yeah, I'm pointing to relative team efficiency. Ultimately teams HAVE to take low percentage shots at times, it's the nature of the game. The more I think about it, the more I think it's better to compare ppp against the median shot in the NBA, rather than the average shot.

If the shot's ppp is above the median for the league or team (i.e. in the top half of all shots taken) then it's a relatively good shot. Is median value available anywhere, or cumulative shot data in general? Average could be skewed by excessively low value shots you have to take playing basketball.

Also, eFG would exclude shots which lead to free throws which still result in points that possession. We're not talking about accuracy of shots, we're talking value of taking a shot. Taking a 2 that gets you fouled is more valuable in terms of point production, than taking a 2 in general. So the comparative 3pt shot would need to be more effective due to less fouls on that shot.

Spanklin
08-01-2013, 04:53 PM
Glad someone finally brought up PPP and turnovers.

You always have to consider both ends of the floor -- transition defense. If you can rebound a three at a good clip, and also get back on defense to stop high % transition scoring, then you can afford to shoot a lower % compared to two pointers that give it right back on the other end.

How many times have we seen San Antonio leak out after an easy bucket and get it right back, while leaving a couple defenders in place to assure this strategy doesn't bounce right back at them? If you see a guy with a clear layup or no rebounding help then you can leak out, but you have to defend for rebounds on threes.

Schemes matter.

JeremiahWing
08-01-2013, 05:27 PM
League average last year in the NBA was 35.9% while overall field goal shooting was 45.3%.


What I am looking for is a ratio of possessions to points and a rate that shows the number of offensive rebounds that would indicate that shooting a three is worth it over a typical field goal.

Basically, you are attempting an extra point value, but at a more difficult angle.

If it's just 33% then the league as a whole should be shooting 3's a lot more often.

But there is way more to consider here... 3 point shots create long rebounds and fastbreaks. They are also hardly ever fouled in the act of shooting. You need to create fouls to eliminate the other team's best defenders and to create free-throws, which are high percentage shots. It's not as simple as in baseball where the action is much more contained.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 05:38 PM
33% would be 1.0 points per possession, which is not good. You would want to be closer to 1.13ppp which I believe is the offensive efficiency of the Thunder, or 37.6%. Really if it is a good shot or not depends on how efficient the rest of the offense is.

Uh, 1 points per possession actually sounds pretty good.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 05:39 PM
But there is way more to consider here... 3 point shots create long rebounds and fastbreaks. They are also hardly ever fouled in the act of shooting. You need to create fouls to eliminate the other team's best defenders and to create free-throws, which are high percentage shots. It's not as simple as in baseball where the action is much more contained.

This is why we use points per possession. It factors in rebounding and foul shooting.

The only shots teams should be taking are at the rim and threes.

Chronz
08-01-2013, 05:41 PM
I dont know how to express what Im trying to say but I feel like we would have a better idea of the whole (take more 3's breaking point) if we had numbers on set 3's vs off the dribble 3's. Forcing the 3pter isn't likely to be more efficient than offenses currently running. I feel like statistics have done all the optimizing they can, 3's have become a staple of elite offenses more than ever in this era of strongside overloads.

Chronz
08-01-2013, 05:45 PM
Uh, 1 points per possession actually sounds pretty good.

Hes talking about overall team efficiency tho. Like 1PPP would yield 100 pts per 100 poss. (obviously), which would rank your team dead last in offensive efficiency.

ChiSox219
08-01-2013, 05:48 PM
Chronz I havent seen anything but the Rockets must have data because they discourage off the dribble 3's.

I posted the 3pt% of transition 3s via synergy.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?708597-fastbreak-three-pointers&p=21774565#post21774565

ChiSox219
08-01-2013, 05:50 PM
Also i think something thats hard to account for is the increase in interior spacing when you have 4 guys capable of drawing defenses out to the arc, just look at Miami and Houston.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 06:07 PM
Chronz I havent seen anything but the Rockets must have data because they discourage off the dribble 3's.

I posted the 3pt% of transition 3s via synergy.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?708597-fastbreak-three-pointers&p=21774565#post21774565

Data on their own players of course. Curry however is 40 percent off the dribble three and the Rockets would highly encourage him to shoot threes.

Pablonovi
08-01-2013, 06:16 PM
I recently read that a 3FGA with a 28% likelihood of going in is still more efficient than the average 2FGA.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Hey scissors,
Got a Link for this?

Pablonovi
08-01-2013, 06:18 PM
I appreciate the feedback guys, and I'll certainly check those out.

Would there be enough interest in having a section of the forum devoted to 'sabr' basketball stats like the baseball section has?

Hey Jeff25,
Would you be kind enough to explain what 'sabr' means (baseball-wise; and/or basketball-wise)? Thanx
btw This IS one of the best threads ever; lots of people contributing useful thoughts and links.

Pablonovi
08-01-2013, 06:24 PM
Don't look at the X axis, look at the Y. He is high on the X axis because that is usage percentage, he is simply involved in more possessions of his team than any player in the NBA. He is far below LBJ/Durant and even Harden in efficiency though.

Great topic though, lots of valuable links posted here.

Here's the post to which you, JerseyP, were referring:
Quote Originally Posted by Kashmir13579

I was looking at this the other day. Carmelo had one hell of a season lol

As for the question, as long as opposing players respect your shot, anywhere close to 30% deems you worthy to shoot 3s imo. When you aren't hitting you're still spacing the floor, and that extra point goes a long way."

Hey Jersey,
I thought he was making fun of Melo's low shooting percent; especially given his monster usage rate; thus his "lol". So, either you missed his "lol"; or I am misinterpreting him and you were right.

By the way, you asked me either in a post or PM what FUBAR means = F-cked Up Beyond All Repair (or Redemption).

JeremiahWing
08-01-2013, 06:43 PM
Data on their own players of course. Curry however is 40 percent off the dribble three and the Rockets would highly encourage him to shoot threes.

lol why respond to me if I'm such a vile, unlikable creature? Don't waste your time. My respect for you is below zero.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 06:46 PM
lol why respond to me if I'm such a vile, unlikable creature? Don't waste your time. My respect for you is below zero.

I am shocked a teacher can't handle criticism of their worldview.

JeremiahWing
08-01-2013, 07:02 PM
I am shocked a teacher can't handle criticism of their worldview.

That's why I disrespect you; you don't criticize views, you criticize people.

Grow up a little.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 07:12 PM
That's why I disrespect you; you don't criticize views, you criticize people.

Grow up a little.

I found your views to be harmful, idealistic, and repulsive.

Learn how to handle criticism.

Jamiecballer
08-01-2013, 09:05 PM
I found your views to be harmful, idealistic, and repulsive.

Learn how to handle criticism.

could you try and be just a little tolerant, for the purpose of discussion maybe?

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 09:36 PM
could you try and be just a little tolerant, for the purpose of discussion maybe?

Look at how this sequence occurred.

I responded with how Curry is 40 percent off the dribble threes. He then flipped out because of another thread we had a discussion in.

I didn't derail the conversation.

ChiSox219
08-01-2013, 09:59 PM
Data on their own players of course. Curry however is 40 percent off the dribble three and the Rockets would highly encourage him to shoot threes.

Source? I'd guess thats from a telecast and backed by SportsVu? Also, Steph is a freak so that doesnt surprise me but at 45% from 3 for the year my bet is he shot even better off the catch. If your saying that a Steph Curry off the dribble 3 is a good shot I think everyone agrees with that.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 10:06 PM
Source? I'd guess thats from a telecast and backed by SportsVu? Also, Steph is a freak so that doesnt surprise me but at 45% from 3 for the year my bet is he shot even better off the catch. If your saying that a Steph Curry off the dribble 3 is a good shot I think everyone agrees with that.

He's 49.2 percent on spot ups. 51.9 percent on transition threes, 47.8 percent on hand offs, 37 percent off of screens, and 37 percent on isolation threes.

He's a magician really.

KnicksorBust
08-01-2013, 10:27 PM
It's no coincidence that the Heat-Spurs-Knicks are the best offensives and all could shoot from 3. The league has officially changed. You need elite shooting and playmakers.

Guppyfighter
08-01-2013, 10:41 PM
It's no coincidence that the Heat-Spurs-Knicks are the best offensives and all could shoot from 3. The league has officially changed. You need elite shooting and playmakers.

Knicks were partly third best because of threes, but it's mostly because of offensive rebounds and lack of turnovers. Their spot up shooting wasn't that great, other than Melo of course.

mrblisterdundee
08-02-2013, 12:03 AM
Threes are worth 50 percent more than twos. The really good NBA players take a lot of high-percentage shots up close. Making it worth it with threes would mean that you shoot a high-enough percentage to equal the amount of points you would have scored on those high-percentage attempts up close. You'd also have to account for the twos that turn into three-point plays and the threes that turn into four-point plays.
Let's say that, accounting for twos that turned into three point plays and threes that turned into four-point plays, your successful two-point field goals created an average of 2.1 points and your successful three-point field goals created an average of 3.04 points. That means a three would be worth 44.7 percent more than a two.
Let's say you make about 63 percent of your two-point field goal attempts. You would have to make 28.1 percent of your three-point field goals for them to equal the amount of points created on average from your two-point field goals

JasonJohnHorn
08-02-2013, 01:07 AM
Well... there are dude who shoot 45 from the field and teams let them shoot all they want... so if a guy is shooting 33 from the arc, he's doing better than a lot of jump shooters and some post players.


But I consider 33-35% decent.... 36-38% is good 39-42% is great and anything after that is AMAZING!

KingstonHawke
08-02-2013, 01:42 AM
Depends on your role in the offense. For example, as a pick and roll PG (creator) you only need to make enough to be a threat. That way, you can force defenders to go over the top of screens, and to run out on you hard when your open, etc. As a spot up shooter (specialist) your percentage has to be a lot higher for you to be valuable to your team.

A great example is Kobe Bryant. He's a terrific 3 point shooter. One of the best in the league. Evidenced by his having the 3 pointers made in a single game record. But when Shaq left, his role in the offense changed. Now, he doesn't get to play off of Shaq (one of the ultimate post creators). Instead he has to be the creator all the time. That's going to include taking some low probability shots, just for the sake of keeping up that threat, and negatively effecting your three point percentage.

Another example is Dwayne Wade. He's never been a great three point shooter, but before Lebron got to town it wasn't an issue. His role in the offense was always as the creator (remember, he came into the league as a PG). Now with Lebron (the best creator the league has ever seen) that pushes Wade to the role of spot up shooter, and his below average range for the position is turned into a glaring weakness that hurts the Heat at time. Reason why I said they should've traded him this offseason for Thompson, Barnes, and Bogut. The reverse of this example is James Harden, and that explains why that was a good trade for both parties. Reduced to a specialist Harden isn't better than Martin (or what Lamb is expected to be).

carlthack
08-02-2013, 02:08 AM
35% from three point range is good. 45% from the field is good. 80% from the free throw line is good.

JeremiahWing
08-02-2013, 02:19 AM
Look at how this sequence occurred.

I responded with how Curry is 40 percent off the dribble threes. He then flipped out because of another thread we had a discussion in.

I didn't derail the conversation.

Please, show me where I flipped out? I think you need to switch to decaf.

Guppyfighter
08-02-2013, 02:28 AM
Please, show me where I flipped out? I think you need to switch to decaf.

My Post


Data on their own players of course. Curry however is 40 percent off the dribble three and the Rockets would highly encourage him to shoot threes.

Your Post


lol why respond to me if I'm such a vile, unlikable creature? Don't waste your time. My respect for you is below zero.

JeremiahWing
08-02-2013, 02:32 AM
My Post



Your Post

In all objective honesty...

What is more "flipping out," telling someone they are repulsive for their opinion or asking someone not to respond to them anymore because they can't refrain from personal attacks? Get help, is the best advice I can give.

JeremiahWing
08-02-2013, 02:54 AM
Repulsive for my opinion on screen time for children lol.... not torture, or racism, or something that would warrant such an attack, but rather an opinion most psychologists and mainstream medical workers agree with. Really. Get a grip.

Shahrose
08-02-2013, 03:36 AM
League average last year in the NBA was 35.9% while overall field goal shooting was 45.3%.


What I am looking for is a ratio of possessions to points and a rate that shows the number of offensive rebounds that would indicate that shooting a three is worth it over a typical field goal.

Basically, you are attempting an extra point value, but at a more difficult angle.

If it's just 33% then the league as a whole should be shooting 3's a lot more often.

Not sure if anyone else posted this but it seems like simple math.

.453*2= 0.906 points per 2pt FG attempt. So to make a three "worth it" you want at least 0.906 pts per 3pt attempt.

Thus, (0.906/3)*100 = 30.2% to make it worth it based on the league average.