3 vs 2 Math --- Interesting to think and talk about

[megablue]

Here is some simple, perhaps OVER-simplified, math showing the point differentials between three-point shots versus two-point shots for first 10 games:
Two-Pointers: 228/389 = 58.6% ... .586 x 2 points = 1.172 points per attempt
Three-Pointers: 102/287 = 35.5% ... .355 x 3 points = 1.065 points per attempt

Overall: 330/676 = 48.8%
Total Points: 911
Free Throws: 149
Field Goals: 762 ... 762 points/676 total attempts = 1.127 points per attempt

Not a math major ... and would be interested in thoughts of others, but it seems clear that shooting threes makes sense only if you can make a high enough percentage of them, relative to two-point shooting success. It is overly simplified to think this way, most probably, but the three-point shooting, versus inside the arc, seems to make the most sense if your two-point shooting percentage is LESS than 1.5 times your three-point shooting percentage. I realize the analytics go much deeper than that, of course ... rebounding, match-ups, ability to drive to lane/rim, defense you are playing against, etc... but if you shoot a lot of threes, you simply have to hit a good percentage of them (which is already the OBVIOUS conclusion) ... but this post is to discuss the either/or dilemma and how to evaluate the most successful approach for your team.

I do think you can expect to shoot more free-throws if you shoot more shots inside the arc ... free-throws can add up and make a difference, as we all know, especially late in close games.

For FUN and DISCUSSION ... comments and insights are welcomed ... especially by Mathematicians and Statisticians. 😎

 

[jwphelps]

Here is some simple, perhaps OVER-simplified, math showing the point differentials between three-point shots versus two-point shots for first 10 games:
Two-Pointers: 228/389 = 58.6% ... .586 x 2 points = 1.172 points per attempt
Three-Pointers: 102/287 = 35.5% ... .355 x 3 points = 1.065 points per attempt

Overall: 330/676 = 48.8%
Total Points: 911
Free Throws: 149
Field Goals: 762 ... 762 points/676 total attempts = 1.127 points per attempt

Not a math major ... and would be interested in thoughts of others, but it seems clear that shooting threes makes sense only if you can make a high enough percentage of them, relative to two-point shooting success. It is overly simplified to think this way, most probably, but the three-point shooting, versus inside the arc, seems to make the most sense if your two-point shooting percentage is LESS than 1.5 times your three-point shooting percentage. I realize the analytics go much deeper than that, of course ... rebounding, match-ups, ability to drive to lane/rim, defense you are playing against, etc... but if you shoot a lot of threes, you simply have to hit a good percentage of them (which is already the OBVIOUS conclusion) ... but this post is to discuss the either/or dilemma and how to evaluate the most successful approach for your team.

I do think you can expect to shoot more free-throws if you shoot more shots inside the arc ... free-throws can add up and make a difference, as we all know, especially late in close games.

For FUN and DISCUSSION ... comments and insights are welcomed ... especially by Mathematicians and Statisticians. 😎

For me making enough threes to force the defense to come out opens the floor and the lane for easy twos.

 

[Creed Bratton]

 

[megablue]

Sorry ... if I gave you a headache !! That's funny !! 😂🤣😂

 

[BlueSince92]

Critical point to be aware of is these numbers are dynamic and affect each other. Obviously slumping doesn’t help. But in general each made three pointer spreads out the defense more, raising the proportion of high-percentage looks we get from two. And vice versa to some extent. But less because those made threes can just wipe you off the map fast if you don’t address them.

 

[megablue]

For me making enough threes to force the defense to come out opens the floor and the lane for easy twos.

Yes. That's a damn good point ... no question. I've wondered if will begin to make sense for some teams to simply zone us and force us to hit threes, like Dean Smith did to Pitino, and like Huggins did to Calipari, in the NCAA tournament to take away everything inside ?? Colgate zoned us last night, but their size was no match-up for Carr and Williams inside. We didn't get much of anything driving, though. Like in every sport, there's always a ying-and-yang to how teams play each other ...

 

[Oboro3]

Think about it this way...

If you hit 3 threes out of 10 shots which is 30%, you have 9 points. To beat that, you need to hit 5 twos out of 10 shots which is 50% for 10 points. In other words, if you hit a decent percentage amount from threes, the other team is forced to shoot well as well from twos to overcome that difference. Playing good defense and hitting a good percentage from three puts a lot of pressure on the opposing team.

 

[B.B.H.]

Here is some simple, perhaps OVER-simplified, math showing the point differentials between three-point shots versus two-point shots for first 10 games:
Two-Pointers: 228/389 = 58.6% ... .586 x 2 points = 1.172 points per attempt
Three-Pointers: 102/287 = 35.5% ... .355 x 3 points = 1.065 points per attempt

Overall: 330/676 = 48.8%
Total Points: 911
Free Throws: 149
Field Goals: 762 ... 762 points/676 total attempts = 1.127 points per attempt

Not a math major ... and would be interested in thoughts of others, but it seems clear that shooting threes makes sense only if you can make a high enough percentage of them, relative to two-point shooting success. It is overly simplified to think this way, most probably, but the three-point shooting, versus inside the arc, seems to make the most sense if your two-point shooting percentage is LESS than 1.5 times your three-point shooting percentage. I realize the analytics go much deeper than that, of course ... rebounding, match-ups, ability to drive to lane/rim, defense you are playing against, etc... but if you shoot a lot of threes, you simply have to hit a good percentage of them (which is already the OBVIOUS conclusion) ... but this post is to discuss the either/or dilemma and how to evaluate the most successful approach for your team.

I do think you can expect to shoot more free-throws if you shoot more shots inside the arc ... free-throws can add up and make a difference, as we all know, especially late in close games.

For FUN and DISCUSSION ... comments and insights are welcomed ... especially by Mathematicians and Statisticians. 😎

Not that simple. The threes actually have a significantly higher offense rebounding rate. A lot of the missed threes end up being retained possessions due to ORB which leads to a score. The threes put more pressure on the defense to extend which creates the driving lanes and one on ones in the post (which is why the 2pt % is so high). Not taking the threes limits your offensive potential, creating a glass ceiling for your own team.

 

[megablue]

Critical point to be aware of is these numbers are dynamic and affect each other. Obviously slumping doesn’t help. But in general each made three pointer spreads out the defense more, raising the proportion of high-percentage looks we get from two. And vice versa to some extent. But less because those made threes can just wipe you off the map fast if you don’t address them.

Yes. Very good point and it's often made, correctly. So ... what is the "right number" of threes and how do you decide it ?? It might be best not to even talk about the desired number (unless that's a strategy to confuse opponents) and just take "good threes" ... as Pitino used to call them. Here is a summary from last year of the twenty-five (25) teams who took the most threes per game last year. it is interesting to note that the vast majority of the teams are lesser-known and most records are pretty ordinary ... perhaps owing to lack of size inside and over talent, 'ya think ??

						OFF	DEF	MGN
	ATT	3PT%	FTA	ORB	DRB	REBS	PTS	PTS	PTS	W	L
NORTH FLORIDA	33.2	36.03%	16.9	8.88	24.75	33.63	78.0	75.8	2.2	16	16
BYU	32.0	34.77%	16.1	11.91	27.59	39.50	81.4	69.9	11.5	23	11
COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON	30.6	34.33%	17.9	13.06	26.71	39.77	80.9	73.6	7.3	27	8
ALABAMA	29.9	37.27%	22.8	12.76	26.89	39.65	90.1	81.2	8.9	25	12
FURMAN	29.9	32.39%	20.0	11.24	26.55	37.79	79.5	75.9	3.6	17	16
CORNELL	29.7	34.75%	16.7	9.57	25.87	35.44	82.1	74.7	7.4	22	8
PRINCETON	29.4	35.60%	16.1	8.41	24.90	33.31	77.1	66.6	10.5	24	5
CHATTANOOGA	29.4	35.94%	18.2	9.24	27.30	36.54	78.2	71.6	6.6	21	12
CREIGHTON	29.1	36.84%	14.8	8.40	29.71	38.11	80.4	69.9	10.5	25	10
ARKANSAS - PINE BLUFF	29.0	37.53%	22.0	8.42	26.19	34.61	80.1	81.8	-1.7	13	18
UTSA	28.8	33.73%	21.9	13.09	27.19	40.28	77.6	81.0	-3.4	11	21
INDIANA STATE	28.7	38.16%	19.3	7.15	28.31	35.46	84.8	73.2	11.6	32	7
KENNESAW STATE	28.6	32.88%	22.0	12.26	26.58	38.84	82.8	80.8	2.0	15	16
SAINT JOSEPH'S	28.5	35.24%	17.1	10.09	25.71	35.80	75.5	70.5	5.0	21	14
WILLIAM & MARY	27.8	32.31%	18.8	10.33	24.85	35.18	69.8	72.1	-2.3	10	23
LIBERTY	27.5	36.82%	14.8	8.72	25.25	33.97	73.8	65.5	8.3	18	14
VILLANOVA	27.4	33.76%	15.3	8.47	26.35	34.82	70.2	65.6	4.6	18	16
NEW HAMPSHIRE	27.4	32.43%	18.2	9.19	28.23	37.42	74.1	74.1	0.0	16	15
YOUNGSTOWN STATE	27.2	32.34%	18.4	12.78	27.19	39.97	81.2	70.9	10.3	22	10
HOFSTRA	27.0	37.08%	12.5	7.70	25.06	32.76	74.2	68.5	5.7	20	13
PITTSBURGH	26.9	35.74%	18.5	11.39	25.67	37.06	75.6	67.6	8.0	22	11
ARKANSAS STATE	26.8	34.41%	20.6	13.22	25.14	38.36	78.8	77.0	1.8	20	17
WOFFORD	26.6	35.92%	16.6	10.53	26.66	37.19	74.5	73.8	0.7	17	15
GEORGIA SOUTHERN	26.6	35.19%	17.3	10.52	23.73	34.25	73.3	79.2	-5.9	9	24
UC - RIVERSIDE	26.6	31.75%	17.8	12.35	24.59	36.94	70.7	72.0	-1.3	16	18
AVERAGE	28.6	34.93%	18.0	10.39	26.28	36.67	77.8	73.3	4.5	19	14
UCONN	23.8	35.75%	18.9	11.72	27.10	38.82	81.4	63.4	18.0	37	3
KENTUCKY	24.2	40.88%	19.7	10.06	27.55	37.61	89.0	79.7	9.3	23	10

 

[B.B.H.]

The segment of fans complaining about the volume of 3s while toting the two point efficiency must understand the reason for the two point efficiency, namely the three pointers.

And you have the wrong coach if you don’t want threes lol. We aren’t slowing down

 

[megablue]

Not that simple. The threes actually have a significantly higher offense rebounding rate. A lot of the missed threes end up being retained possessions due to ORB which leads to a score. The threes put more pressure on the defense to extend which creates the driving lanes and one on ones in the post (which is why the 2pt % is so high). Not taking the threes limits your offensive potential, creating a glass ceiling for your own team.

Yes. I understand the argument and do not disagree, at all. Do you have any way of actually proving that a team rebounds better on the offense end when they shoot a lot of threes ?? I am not saying it isn't true, but I hear it a lot and cannot help but wonder ?? I'm sure there are sophisticated programs that coaches/and teams use, or maybe they have staff break down every rebound ... I don't know.
Also, maybe 2% percentages are higher simply because shots closer to the rim are easier to make ... ?? Hell, I don't know, but it's such an interesting thing to think/talk about.

We have 121 offensive and 325 defensive rebounds in total, so we average 12.1 and 32.5 per game, respectively.
I guess the thing to do ... is simply look at offensive rebound totals in games where we take a lot of threes and miss a lot of them ??

 

[UKSanders]

Here is some simple, perhaps OVER-simplified, math showing the point differentials between three-point shots versus two-point shots for first 10 games:
Two-Pointers: 228/389 = 58.6% ... .586 x 2 points = 1.172 points per attempt
Three-Pointers: 102/287 = 35.5% ... .355 x 3 points = 1.065 points per attempt

Overall: 330/676 = 48.8%
Total Points: 911
Free Throws: 149
Field Goals: 762 ... 762 points/676 total attempts = 1.127 points per attempt

Not a math major ... and would be interested in thoughts of others, but it seems clear that shooting threes makes sense only if you can make a high enough percentage of them, relative to two-point shooting success. It is overly simplified to think this way, most probably, but the three-point shooting, versus inside the arc, seems to make the most sense if your two-point shooting percentage is LESS than 1.5 times your three-point shooting percentage. I realize the analytics go much deeper than that, of course ... rebounding, match-ups, ability to drive to lane/rim, defense you are playing against, etc... but if you shoot a lot of threes, you simply have to hit a good percentage of them (which is already the OBVIOUS conclusion) ... but this post is to discuss the either/or dilemma and how to evaluate the most successful approach for your team.

I do think you can expect to shoot more free-throws if you shoot more shots inside the arc ... free-throws can add up and make a difference, as we all know, especially late in close games.

For FUN and DISCUSSION ... comments and insights are welcomed ... especially by Mathematicians and Statisticians. 😎

One other factor to keep in mind is the more 2s you are getting from getting in the lane, the more likely you should be able to draw fouls against the defense.

There is HUGE value in getting the opponent in foul trouble as it keeps their best players off the floor.

 

[B.B.H.]

Yes. I understand the argument and do not disagree, at all. Do you have any way of actually proving that a team rebounds better on the offense end when they shoot a lot of threes ?? I am not saying it isn't true, but I hear it a lot and cannot help but wonder ?? I'm sure there are sophisticated programs that coaches/and teams use, or maybe they have staff break down every rebound ... I don't know.
Also, maybe 2% percentages are higher simply because shots closer to the rim are easier to make ... ?? Hell, I don't know, but it's such an interesting thing to think/talk about.

We have 121 offensive and 325 defensive rebounds in total, so we average 12.1 and 32.5 per game, respectively.
I guess the thing to do ... is simply look at offensive rebound totals in games where we take a lot of threes and miss a lot of them ??

It’s a well known fact that Pope has hammered home in so many interviews. I don’t feel like doing the research right now. Again, you have the wrong coach if you want less 3s. Pope fully believes in the philosophy. I’m working atm so can’t research it for you

 

[megablue]

The segment of fans complaining about the volume of 3s while toting the two point efficiency must understand the reason for the two point efficiency, namely the three pointers.

And you have the wrong coach if you don’t want threes lol. We aren’t slowing down

I don't see many people complaining about taking a lot of threes. It's more of a fanbase that is interested in discussing their team, how it plays and its prospect for success. It would be interesting and fun to sit down with Pope over a pizza and discuss all of this. What we hear is that the goal is to shoot 35+ threes a game, with more than half of our shots being threes. So far, after 10 games, we have only shot more than 35 twice (Bucknell-36 and Jackson State-39). In our three toughest games, we shot Duke-10/25, Clemson-7/27 and Gonzaga 7/25. We are averaging 28.7 threes per game, down from the 32.0 threes that BYU averaged last year (second highest in the country).

So ... when Pope says the players need to trust the system, is he suggesting that we need to be shooting MORE threes ??
For myself, I certainly don't pretend to know, but cannot help but wonder if we would be more successful shooting more of them, or not, but it's fun to discuss it here.

 

[FitchandMurray29]

Think about it this way...

If you hit 3 threes out of 10 shots which is 30%, you have 9 points. To beat that, you need to hit 5 twos out of 10 shots which is 50% for 10 points. In other words, if you hit a decent percentage amount from threes, the other team is forced to shoot well as well from twos to overcome that difference. Playing good defense and hitting a good percentage from three puts a lot of pressure on the opposing team.

I’ve always thought big underdogs should just let it rip from deep. They won’t win off 2s and 3 point defense is a debated topic in the analytics community.

Our cutting/smart decisions to get good 2 point looks is what won us the Duke and Gonzaga games in my opinion. Taking that 2 point percentage to higher than normal levels.

I think our energy and the zone slowed down our two point effectiveness last night and then when the 3s weren’t falling everyone started getting a little nervous in BBN! As crazy as it sounds I wouldn’t be surprised to see more teams zone us. We have a team of capable shooters and Koby Brea. It’s not just “a great shooting team”. Think zones with extra shadowing towards Koby could affect us.

 

[chroix]

The best three is a layup and a free throw. Gets you points and hurts the other team.

 

[rick64]

They compliment each other don't they.

 

[The_Answer1313]

In prep for the upcoming game with Louisville I was looking at their numbers and it was kinda weird.

Horrible 3 point shooting team. Like 27%.
2 point shots. Close to 60%.

Yet they take over half their shots from 3.

That is some terrible shot selection.

 

[The_Answer1313]

But yeah shooting 40% from 3 is the same as 60% from 2.

As most have mentioned twos have a couple added benefits. Drawing fouls on the other team. 2s tend to be more consistent than 3s

The underdog should def fire from 3 and just hope they drop because defenses have less control over defending the 3 than the 2. This is why u almost always seen teams go nuts from 3 in upsets

 

[The_Answer1313]

As far as 3 point teams having more offensive rebounds I dunno.

I mean obviously you are shooting a low% than 2 so there’s more opportunities for rebounds I suppose. Also you hear a lot 3 point shots tend to lead to more longer rebounds

I’m not so sure the % is any different tho.

Cal was dead set against shooting a ton of threes. But also a lot of his teams owned the boards. Would we have rebounded at a greater % if we took more threes? Not entirely sure on that

 

[B.B.H.]

I don't see many people complaining about taking a lot of threes. It's more of a fanbase that is interested in discussing their team, how it plays and its prospect for success. It would be interesting and fun to sit down with Pope over a pizza and discuss all of this. What we hear is that the goal is to shoot 35+ threes a game, with more than half of our shots being threes. So far, after 10 games, we have only shot more than 35 twice (Bucknell-36 and Jackson State-39). In our three toughest games, we shot Duke-10/25, Clemson-7/27 and Gonzaga 7/25. We are averaging 28.7 threes per game, down from the 32.0 threes that BYU averaged last year (second highest in the country).

So ... when Pope says the players need to trust the system, is he suggesting that we need to be shooting MORE threes ??
For myself, I certainly don't pretend to know, but cannot help but wonder if we would be more successful shooting more of them, or not, but it's fun to discuss it here.

Pope actually addressed what he meant in the postgame yesterday about what he means by shooting 35 threes. Go check that out and it might help you get the why

 

[megablue]

In prep for the upcoming game with Louisville I was looking at their numbers and it was kinda weird.

Horrible 3 point shooting team. Like 27%.
2 point shots. Close to 60%.

Yet they take over half their shots from 3.

That is some terrible shot selection.

Good research ... sounds like a team you should just zone.

 

[B.B.H.]

Good research ... sounds like a team you should just zone.

I’m sure we will. Sorry misunderstood the first time

 

[The_Answer1313]

Good research ... sounds like a team you should just zone.

Yeah definitely. I figure Pope at some point in that game will.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Another thing about this is there’s no secret sauce.

You can be efficient on offense shooting a ton of twos or a ton of threes.

The key IMO is to taylor it to your players.

Taking 35 threes a game is a decent strategy if you are an above avg three point shooting team.

It’s absolute suicide if you aren’t a good one.

 

[The_Answer1313]

That’s why I’m still not sure the best strategy here with this team.

We have one really really good shooter.

This isn’t like those Villanova teams or I think Baylor in the past where they had multiple 40% + guys

 

[B.B.H.]

Another thing about this is there’s no secret sauce.

You can be efficient on offense shooting a ton of twos or a ton of threes.

The key IMO is to taylor it to your players.

Taking 35 threes a game is a decent strategy if you are an above avg three point shooting team.

It’s absolute suicide if you aren’t a good one.

Nope. That’s the part I disagree with. You only have to make 33% from three to be equal to 50% from two. And more ORB opportunities from those threes and you create lanes. You don’t have to be a great shooting team, or even average to prioritize the three. You’re doing one simple math problem and thinking it is that simple. There’s no NBA team using your logic for a reason. Their jobs are on the line, with millions at stake, to get that right

 

[megablue]

Pope actually addressed what he meant in the postgame yesterday about what he means by shooting 35 threes. Go check that out and it might help you get the why

THANKS for the heads up. Here it is for anyone interested. It's the third video down. It is a short and concise answer to the question.

To my view, he's clear, he wants us shooting more of them by playing harder on the offensive end and being in attack mode. It seems to me that we're settling for threes and that disappoints him some. He does not mention the effect, if any, that shooting more threes would have on our energy level to play aggressively on the defense end, however, which is a thought I had.

MSN

Here is the full interview, if you cannot get to his comments in the MSN link:

 

[B.B.H.]

THANKS for the heads up. Here it is for anyone interested. It's the third video down. It is a short and concise answer to the question.

To my view, he's clear, he wants us shooting more of them by playing harder on the offensive end and being in attack mode. It seems to me that we're settling for threes and that disappoints him some. He does not mention the effect, if any, that shooting more threes would have on our energy level to play aggressively on the defense end, however, which is a thought I had.

MSN

Go watch last nights postgame from pope too

 

[The_Answer1313]

Nope. That’s the part I disagree with. You only have to make 33% from three to be equal to 50% from two. And more ORB opportunities from those threes and you create lanes. You don’t have to be a great shooting team, or even average to prioritize the three. You’re doing one simple math problem and thinking it is that simple. There’s no NBA team using your logic for a reason. Their jobs are on the line, with millions at stake, to get that right

But shooting 33% from 3 or 50% from 2 isn’t going to win you many bball games. What if your a team like UL north of 60% on 2s and sub 30 on 3s. This is why there’s no one strategy works best for everyone


33% from 3 and 51% from 2 is the current D1 avg.

Which suggests to me that on the whole D1 teams have got the mix exactly correct

 

[megablue]

Louisville is 7th in the country in three-point attempts, but like The Answer1313 said above, they shoot very poorly, only 27% clip. I think Pope and Staff will see this and certainly zone them some to make them prove they can hit them. I sure would ...

NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

www.ncaa.com

 

[JonathanW]

Here is some simple, perhaps OVER-simplified, math showing the point differentials between three-point shots versus two-point shots for first 10 games:
Two-Pointers: 228/389 = 58.6% ... .586 x 2 points = 1.172 points per attempt
Three-Pointers: 102/287 = 35.5% ... .355 x 3 points = 1.065 points per attempt

Overall: 330/676 = 48.8%
Total Points: 911
Free Throws: 149
Field Goals: 762 ... 762 points/676 total attempts = 1.127 points per attempt

Not a math major ... and would be interested in thoughts of others, but it seems clear that shooting threes makes sense only if you can make a high enough percentage of them, relative to two-point shooting success. It is overly simplified to think this way, most probably, but the three-point shooting, versus inside the arc, seems to make the most sense if your two-point shooting percentage is LESS than 1.5 times your three-point shooting percentage. I realize the analytics go much deeper than that, of course ... rebounding, match-ups, ability to drive to lane/rim, defense you are playing against, etc... but if you shoot a lot of threes, you simply have to hit a good percentage of them (which is already the OBVIOUS conclusion) ... but this post is to discuss the either/or dilemma and how to evaluate the most successful approach for your team.

I do think you can expect to shoot more free-throws if you shoot more shots inside the arc ... free-throws can add up and make a difference, as we all know, especially late in close games.
For FUN and DISCUSSION ... comments and insights are welcomed ... especially by Mathematicians and Statisticians. 😎

I actually was a Math Major, with a Master's degree in Statistics, and thus have been a Statistician for 30 years.

Sometimes "simple" is the best way.
But there are lots of other factors to consider. For example, it is believed that missed 3's lead to more offensive rebounds than do missed 2's. But do missed (long) 3's also lead to more fast breaks for the defense? Where are the missed 2's from (18', 10', 2')? I'm sure there are big difference there in the shooting %'s from those distances.

3's make sense, IF they are NOT forced. An "open 3" by someone with a reasonable chance of making them (for example we don't want Williams shooting them no matter how open he is). Also, players know how "on" they are at the given moment. Last night when JR made his 1st 3 (after missing his first 6-7) if you watch he put his hands together like he was saying "thank you God" for finally making one. So there are times you want a guy to shoot more, and times you want him to shoot less. Also, both inside baskets and made 3's (if enough of them) open up the other shot more, increasing your chances at the other. As you indicated, matchups, and what the defense is giving you or playing is also a consideration. And lastly, FTs are a often overlooked one too. Most FTs occur as the result of a drive or post up or offensive rebound (2's). The shot doesn't count (unless it is made), so there is a 2pt shot that did not officially count (so won't affect the 2pt %) that will likely result in points. Those FT points as a result of attempting a 2pt shot, are not factored into 2pt FG%.

In Economics (yes, I also had a Minor in Economics) you are often taught a principle under the preface "all other things constant". However, in the real world it is rarely true that all other things are constant; if you change one thing there is often a trickle down effect and several other things change too. So, it's not as simple as simply comparing a 2pt FG% with 1.5x the 3pt FG%, because of these other factors.

 

[UKSanders]

Go watch last nights postgame from pope too

The postgame he included in his post IS from last night 🤣

 

[B.B.H.]

The postgame he included in his post IS from last night 🤣

My bad. Sorry I’m working lol

 

[megablue]

I actually was a Math Major, with a Master's degree in Statistics, and thus have been a Statistician for 30 years.

Sometimes "simple" is the best way.
But there are lots of other factors to consider. For example, it is believed that missed 3's lead to more offensive rebounds than do missed 2's. But do missed (long) 3's also lead to more fast breaks for the defense? Where are the missed 2's from (18', 10', 2')? I'm sure there are big difference there in the shooting %'s from those distances.

3's make sense, IF they are NOT forced. An "open 3" by someone with a reasonable chance of making them (for example we don't want Williams shooting them no matter how open he is). Also, players know how "on" they are at the given moment. Last night when JR made his 1st 3 (after missing his first 6-7) if you watch he put his hands together like he was saying "thank you God" for finally making one. So there are times you want a guy to shoot more, and times you want him to shoot less. Also, both inside baskets and made 3's (if enough of them) open up the other shot more, increasing your chances at the other. As you indicated, matchups, and what the defense is giving you or playing is also a consideration. And lastly, FTs are a often overlooked one too. Most FTs occur as the result of a drive or post up or offensive rebound (2's). The shot doesn't count (unless it is made), so there is a 2pt shot that did not officially count (so won't affect the 2pt %) that will likely result in points. Those FT points as a result of attempting a 2pt shot, are not factored into 2pt FG%.

In Economics (yes, I also had a Minor in Economics) you are often taught a principle under the preface "all other things constant". However, in the real world it is rarely true that all other things are constant; if you change one thing there is often a trickle down effect and several other things change too. So, it's not as simple as simply comparing a 2pt FG% with 1.5x the 3pt FG%, because of these other factors.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your excellent post. This is the kind of thing that I, and hopefully others, find very interesting.
For me, perhaps the biggest thing that I scratch my head and wonder about is why are there so few familiar, successful teams shooting 30+ threes a game ?? From last year's TOP 25 in attempts per game, BYU, Alabama, Villanova and Pittsburgh were the only teams that I would consider major programs. Granted Alabama shot 29.9 per game last year and made it to the FINAL FOUR, so maybe that has initiated a trend to shoot more. From last year's TOP 25 We'll see ...

I don't know if you can conclude anything about whether a team garners more ORB by shooting a lot of threes, or not, but here are last year's TOP 25 in 3-point attempts for your consideration:

						OFF	DEF	MGN
	ATT	3PT%	FTA	ORB	DRB	REBS	PTS	PTS	PTS	W	L
NORTH FLORIDA	33.2	36.03%	16.9	8.88	24.75	33.63	78.0	75.8	2.2	16	16
BYU	32.0	34.77%	16.1	11.91	27.59	39.50	81.4	69.9	11.5	23	11
COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON	30.6	34.33%	17.9	13.06	26.71	39.77	80.9	73.6	7.3	27	8
ALABAMA	29.9	37.27%	22.8	12.76	26.89	39.65	90.1	81.2	8.9	25	12
FURMAN	29.9	32.39%	20.0	11.24	26.55	37.79	79.5	75.9	3.6	17	16
CORNELL	29.7	34.75%	16.7	9.57	25.87	35.44	82.1	74.7	7.4	22	8
PRINCETON	29.4	35.60%	16.1	8.41	24.90	33.31	77.1	66.6	10.5	24	5
CHATTANOOGA	29.4	35.94%	18.2	9.24	27.30	36.54	78.2	71.6	6.6	21	12
CREIGHTON	29.1	36.84%	14.8	8.40	29.71	38.11	80.4	69.9	10.5	25	10
ARKANSAS - PINE BLUFF	29.0	37.53%	22.0	8.42	26.19	34.61	80.1	81.8	-1.7	13	18
UTSA	28.8	33.73%	21.9	13.09	27.19	40.28	77.6	81.0	-3.4	11	21
INDIANA STATE	28.7	38.16%	19.3	7.15	28.31	35.46	84.8	73.2	11.6	32	7
KENNESAW STATE	28.6	32.88%	22.0	12.26	26.58	38.84	82.8	80.8	2.0	15	16
SAINT JOSEPH'S	28.5	35.24%	17.1	10.09	25.71	35.80	75.5	70.5	5.0	21	14
WILLIAM & MARY	27.8	32.31%	18.8	10.33	24.85	35.18	69.8	72.1	-2.3	10	23
LIBERTY	27.5	36.82%	14.8	8.72	25.25	33.97	73.8	65.5	8.3	18	14
VILLANOVA	27.4	33.76%	15.3	8.47	26.35	34.82	70.2	65.6	4.6	18	16
NEW HAMPSHIRE	27.4	32.43%	18.2	9.19	28.23	37.42	74.1	74.1	0.0	16	15
YOUNGSTOWN STATE	27.2	32.34%	18.4	12.78	27.19	39.97	81.2	70.9	10.3	22	10
HOFSTRA	27.0	37.08%	12.5	7.70	25.06	32.76	74.2	68.5	5.7	20	13
PITTSBURGH	26.9	35.74%	18.5	11.39	25.67	37.06	75.6	67.6	8.0	22	11
ARKANSAS STATE	26.8	34.41%	20.6	13.22	25.14	38.36	78.8	77.0	1.8	20	17
WOFFORD	26.6	35.92%	16.6	10.53	26.66	37.19	74.5	73.8	0.7	17	15
GEORGIA SOUTHERN	26.6	35.19%	17.3	10.52	23.73	34.25	73.3	79.2	-5.9	9	24
UC - RIVERSIDE	26.6	31.75%	17.8	12.35	24.59	36.94	70.7	72.0	-1.3	16	18
AVERAGE	28.6	34.93%	18.0	10.39	26.28	36.67	77.8	73.3	4.5	19	14
UCONN	23.8	35.75%	18.9	11.72	27.10	38.82	81.4	63.4	18.0	37	3
KENTUCKY	24.2	40.88%	19.7	10.06	27.55	37.61	89.0	79.7	9.3	23	10

 

[JonathanW]

Below are our shooting %'s by year since 2000. The last column is if you simply multiplied 3-pt% by 1.5.
As you can see, they are pretty close most years, with this year and last year being 2 exceptions.

2-pt	3-pt
FG%	FG%	Equiv.
55.4	34.6	51.9
51.4	31.7	47.6
53.9	35.6	53.4
52.3	35.7	53.6
52.3	34.3	51.5
50.7	34.9	52.4
54.1	35.5	53.2
51.5	36.9	55.4
53.5	35.3	52.9
54.6	33.1	49.7
48.7	39.7	59.6
52.7	37.8	56.7
52.9	34.6	51.9
49.9	33.3	50.0
51.2	34.9	52.3
52.8	36.6	55.0
52.9	35.3	52.9
51.1	36.0	54.0
53.2	35.5	53.2
50.8	34.3	51.4
45.5	33.6	50.4
53.5	34.7	52.1
50.0	34.7	52.1
54.6	40.9	61.4
58.6	35.5	53.3

 

[The_Answer1313]

I can’t look at it right now but now I am really curious.

I have a feeling tho if I was to look at offensive rebounding % and the number of 3s a team takes there would be little to no correlation between the two.

I think this is simple. If you are above the breakeven point take more 3s. If you are below it you might want to not take as many lol.

If I’m shooting 36% from 3 but only 50% from 2 take threes

If I’m shooting 36% from 3 but shooting 60% from 2 then I might want to rethink the amount I’m taking

There’s another aspect to all of this tho. The other team. Research shows that teams on defense have little control over 3 point fg%. You know what they do have more control over? The amount of threes a team takes on them. The best 3 pt defense is forcing teams off the 3 pt line. So that factors into things as well.

 

[JonathanW]

@megablue you bring up a different topic that interests me. Rebounding. We often hear it quoted Team X leads in rebounding, Team Y averages the most offensive rebounds, and so on. But looking at just a team's rebounding numbers are missing 1/2 the story.
Example: 2 teams play, and the one has 10 offensive rebounds and the other team has 15. So the simplistic assumption is that the team with 15 rebounded better (offensively). Not necessarily!!! Suppose I tell you that the team with 10 missed 20 shots, and the team with 15 missed 35 shots. So, Team A rebounded 50% of their misses, and Team B rebounded 43% of their misses, so actually the team with 10 was the better offensive rebounding team. So rather than looking at total number of rebounds by a team, 2 more informative stats are % offensive rebounds, & % of defensive rebounds calculated as (Off Reb / missed shots) & (Def Reb / Opp missed shots).

 

[megablue]

@megablue you bring up a different topic that interests me. Rebounding. We often hear it quoted Team X leads in rebounding, Team Y averages the most offensive rebounds, and so on. But looking at just a team's rebounding numbers are missing 1/2 the story.
Example: 2 teams play, and the one has 10 offensive rebounds and the other team has 15. So the simplistic assumption is that the team with 15 rebounded better (offensively). Not necessarily!!! Suppose I tell you that the team with 10 missed 20 shots, and the team with 15 missed 35 shots. So, Team A rebounded 50% of their misses, and Team B rebounded 43% of their misses, so actually the team with 10 was the better offensive rebounding team. So rather than looking at total number of rebounds by a team, 2 more informative stats are % offensive rebounds, & % of defensive rebounds calculated as (Off Reb / missed shots) & (Def Reb / Opp missed shots).

I LOVE your contribution here and thanks for it. There's no question that programs have all kinds of software and other tools to analyze the things you just mentioned in regarding to rebounding, in addition to everything else that goes on in a game. I tried to google "how does 3-pt shooting affect offensive rebounding" and there are lots of links, discussions, etc ... If you are interested, here is a thread with a lot of back-and-forth discussion that I think is pretty good, although it is four (4) years old. It talks a lot about the stuff you've mentioned in this and your other post in this thread. THANKS, again !!

 

[B.B.H.]

I can’t look at it right now but now I am really curious.

I have a feeling tho if I was to look at offensive rebounding % and the number of 3s a team takes there would be little to no correlation between the two.

I think this is simple. If you are above the breakeven point take more 3s. If you are below it you might want to not take as many lol.

If I’m shooting 36% from 3 but only 50% from 2 take threes

If I’m shooting 36% from 3 but shooting 60% from 2 then I might want to rethink the amount I’m taking

There’s another aspect to all of this tho. The other team. Research shows that teams on defense have little control over 3 point fg%. You know what they do have more control over? The amount of threes a team takes on them. The best 3 pt defense is forcing teams off the 3 pt line. So that factors into things as well.

When a team forces you off the three point line, what opportunities are presented to the offense? That’s how you start to see the high efficiency in two point %