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

[The_Answer1313]

@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).

Yep exactly.

Look at %. Not totals.

Same can go for turnovers.

Having 10 turnovers in a 60 poss game is way different than 10 in an 80 poss game

A big reason as to why the four factors when dealing with efficiency is always in terms of precents

Fg%
Turnover %
Rebounding %
Free throw rate

 

[The_Answer1313]

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 %

The two definitely interwine with one another.

Opposite true as well. If a team is getting to the hoop at will certainly puts defenses on their toes and prob leads to more open looks from 3.

 

[B.B.H.]

The two definitely interwine with one another.

Opposite true as well. If a team is getting to the hoop at will certainly puts defenses on their toes and prob leads to more open looks from 3.

Of course that’s true. The question then becomes about what is the most efficient shot. Calipari’s run was a perfect example. He largely played inside out and that means a lower two point percentage and a higher 3 point percentage can be achieved but on less volume. Efficiency favors the three point shot and the layup

 

[The_Answer1313]

Of course that’s true. The question then becomes about what is the most efficient shot. Calipari’s run was a perfect example. He largely played inside out and that means a lower two point percentage and a higher 3 point percentage can be achieved but on less volume. Efficiency favors the three point shot and the layup

Yep which is why the mid range shot is dying or already dead now lol.

 

[The_Answer1313]

That’s why I think basketball is interesting. The whole cost benefit.

Driving for twos leads to open looks from 3.
Taking more 3s might come at a cost of the other team not fouling as much and less free throws
Blocking shots on defense might lead to giving up more rebounds.
Forcing turnovers might come at an expense of gambling too much and giving up open looks.
Going for offensive boards might come at a cost of getting beaten in transition on defense.

Everyone is connected.

 

[UKnCincy]

Lots of folks have looked into how offensive rebounding percentage various by shot location.

A team is most likely to grab an offensive rebound off of a layup or shot near the rim.

First image is Kirk Goldberry’s analysis of NBA data. Second image is Kenpom’s analysis of college data.

 

[ukfan1622]

We're shooting great from 2 point range since we get a lot of easy under the basket shots because they have to guard the three point line.

 

[B.B.H.]

We're shooting great from 2 point range since we get a lot of easy under the basket shots because they have to guard the three point line.

That’s the point. Efficient offense. People don’t understand that if you don’t take those threes, the defense shrinks in and then you don’t get those twos. Let Pope coach guys and let’s be supportive instead of trying to figure out why the coach’s analytical approach is wrong

 

[The_Answer1313]

We're shooting great from 2 point range since we get a lot of easy under the basket shots because they have to guard the three point line.

Maybe.

Or possibly we are just a better 2 point shooting team than 3 point shooting team lol

 

[B.B.H.]

Maybe.

Or possibly we are just a better 2 point shooting team than 3 point shooting team lol

Cal, is that you?

 

[jwphelps]

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 ...

That works if you can't hit threes, but I think this team has enough shooters to make a zone useless. Plus ball movement will beat a zone all day long something this team does, something Cal never learned.

 

[B.B.H.]

That works if you can't hit threes, but I think this team has enough shooters to make a zone useless. Plus ball movement will beat a zone all day long something this team does, something Cal never learned.

We are all getting so hung up over a four game span. Guys, we are hitting 36 percent from three for the season. There’s no world where that is less efficient and now let’s start shooting all twos

 

[jwphelps]

We are all getting so hung up over a four game span. Guys, we are hitting 36 percent from three for the season. There’s no world where that is less efficient and now let’s start shooting all twos

If you go to basketballscience.com they have the metrics for the 3 verse 2 pointers. Example, if you shot 30 2pters and make 50% you have 30 points, if you shot 30 3 pters and make 10 at 33.3% you still have 30 points. So if you hold the other team below 50% shooting inside the arc you come out on top.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Lots of folks have looked into how offensive rebounding percentage various by shot location.

A team is most likely to grab an offensive rebound off of a layup or shot near the rim.

First image is Kirk Goldberry’s analysis of NBA data. Second image is Kenpom’s analysis of college data.

Good post and definitely makes sense.

 

[*CatinIL*]

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'll have to consult with @HymanKaplan first...he's a math wizz.

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

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. 😎

Yeah...uhhmmm...I was told there would be no math?

 

[EliteBlue]

Historically, “good shooting” is considered 50% or better from 2 and 33% or better from 3. (As 33% from 3 = 50% from 2)

If you can shoot 33% or better for 3 then it’s worth it to let it fly anytime you have space.

If you compare it to what we are currently shooting from 2 and say 56%….you aren’t considering that our strategy is largely “layup (includes short floater/hook range) or 3”….if you cut down on 3s then you end up with a clogged lane or more long 2s and that 2pt% drops and you’re hoping to make up missed points with added free throws I.e. depending on the refs to bail you out/make calls consistently.

The only way “more 2s, less 3s” makes sense even if you’re shooting higher than 33% but less than 35% from 3 is if you have a truly dominant offensive big man like Towns or Edey. Even then, Cal relied way too much on Towns and limiting us to 5 3 point attempts against Wisconsin is largely what got us beat as the refs weren’t sending us to the line any more than they did Wisconsin despite our greater reliance on bully ball.

 

[The_Answer1313]

At the end of the day you are trying to score the most points per possession.

In the history of this sport, there's been highly efficient teams relying on the 2 and highly efficient teams relying on the 3.

I disagree. There is no "set strategy" here. One size doesn't fit all.

 

[B.B.H.]

The mods don’t want me to point out that some of you are asking for us to go back to Calipari-style offense. So I can’t technically say it. I cannot say that some of you sound like Calipari, begging for less outside shots, thinking that you can just force the ball into the paint without setting the foundation for it first. I won’t say it since me telling you that violates your ability to speak somehow magically.

 

[UKSanders]

My bad. Sorry I’m working lol

No worries... it just made me laugh a little b/c it's the exact kind of thing I would say/do, so I couldn't pass up an opportunity to give you a hard time about it... just consider it a deposit for you to return the favor when I do/say something similar 😉

 

[JonathanW]

Historically, “good shooting” is considered 50% or better from 2 and 33% or better from 3. (As 33% from 3 = 50% from 2)

If you can shoot 33% or better for 3 then it’s worth it to let it fly anytime you have space.

If you compare it to what we are currently shooting from 2 and say 56%….you aren’t considering that our strategy is largely “layup (includes short floater/hook range) or 3”….if you cut down on 3s then you end up with a clogged lane or more long 2s and that 2pt% drops and you’re hoping to make up missed points with added free throws I.e. depending on the refs to bail you out/make calls consistently.

The only way “more 2s, less 3s” makes sense even if you’re shooting higher than 33% but less than 35% from 3 is if you have a truly dominant offensive big man like Towns or Edey. Even then, Cal relied way too much on Towns and limiting us to 5 3 point attempts against Wisconsin is largely what got us beat as the refs weren’t sending us to the line any more than they did Wisconsin despite our greater reliance on bully ball.

Look at the table on the prior page. 10 of the past 25 seasons (including this year) our 2pt% was higher than our 3pt%*1.5.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I don't think anyone here is saying that tho lol.

Most people HATED Calipari's style of offense. Calling it outdated. Even in the years where it was efficient, people hated it. Cause it was ugly. A large amount of years it predicated on 1) missing a shot, rebounding and getting an easy bucket like that or 2) getting to the line. Early in that era, we made more free throws than opponents took. It was UGLY. But it was also in some seasons efficient.

I don't think anyone is begging to go back to that tho. That's not what this thread is about.

 

[B.B.H.]

I don't think anyone here is saying that tho lol.

Most people HATED Calipari's style of offense. Calling it outdated. Even in the years where it was efficient, people hated it. Cause it was ugly. A large amount of years it predicated on 1) missing a shot, rebounding and getting an easy bucket like that or 2) getting to the line. Early in that era, we made more free throws than opponents took. It was UGLY. But it was also in some seasons efficient.

I don't think anyone is begging to go back to that tho. That's not what this thread is about.

“It might not be what the intent is, but it would inevitably lead to that result in practice “ is what I would say but I cant