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

[The_Answer1313]

Saw a video early in the season and they were saying that Pope wants about 40% of our shot attempts to be threes . They also said that 40% of UCONNs shot attempts were 3’s in each of the last two years.

The current D1 average is 39.5% so 40% would be taking about an average number of 3s compared to the other D1 schools.

Seems about right.

 

[yoshukai]

The current D1 average is 39.5% so 40% would be taking about an average number of 3s compared to the other D1 schools.

Seems about right.

Funny, the guys doing the breakdown made it seem like it was unusual, lol .

 

[JonathanW]

GB, I believe it is, if it’s an unchallenged shot. By unchallenged, I mean nobody close enough to actually block the shot. I’ve seen several times this year (Brea and Oweh last night) where guys have uncontested 12-14 footers, only to drive closer to the basket, get into traffic, and miss a contested shot. It drives me insane. I’m old enough to remember Jack Givens scoring 41 points on mostly 12-16 footers

A FT (commonly made at 65-80%) is from 15’, just saying. I know it’s not often that you are wide open , but it happens.

Also some players simply don’t have the range to make a 3 (at better than 30%), but can make mid range shots at 45-55%.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Funny, the guys doing the breakdown made it seem like it was unusual, lol .

Haha yeah that's why I pointed that out earlier.

It's not like we are just bombing away from 3 here. We are pretty much the average D1 team in that regard. Pope may want us to shoot more and in the future we might, but through 10 games we aren't lol.

 

[ccukuk]

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. 😎

Many two point shots are dunks and layups. Those shots so close to the basket falsely elevates the overall value of two point shots, right?

 

[megablue]

Many two point shots are dunks and layups. Those shots so close to the basket falsely elevates the overall value of two point shots, right?

The way I see it, layups and dunks are simply part of the overall 2-point percentage. If you can get them, they are probably the highest-percentage shot a team can get, so get all you can. My math scenario was intended to provoke discussion regarding how the expected point value on 2-point attempts should be strategically viewed when it is higher than the the expected point value on 3-point attempts, based on the developing shooting statistics as the season moves along. Layups and dunks drive the expected 2-point value up and should be taken whenever the opportunity presents itself. Plus, there is the increased potential for drawing fouls, getting to the line, getting closer to the double bonus and forcing defenders to the bench in foul trouble.

 

[megablue]

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

This is an excellent bit of information !! Thank You for compiling it !! Not surprisingly, it suggests more three pointers should be taken at the higher shooting percentages.

You ended by writing "... they are pretty close most years, with this year and last year being 2 exceptions."
What conclusions, if any, do you reach regarding the last two (2) years ?? To my view, it suggests that we definitely should've shot more threes last year and that this year's inside game is stronger (percentage wise) than it has been in the last twenty (20) years. That goes, thanks to your data, to the basic essence of my original post ... does data suggest that, so far in the season (albeit with a number of weaker opponents), that Carr-Williams-Garrison are unusually effective inside on their own ability ... or BECAUSE we are taking more threes this year and opponents expect us to, freeing up space in the paint ?? Butler's and Oweh's ability to both drive inside and score is also a factor in our 2-point success, but they seem to be the only players that can routinely do this against tight pressure, in my opinion.

For reference: Last year we shot 24.2 threes a game at 40.9%. This year, so far, we are shooting 28.7 per game at 35.5%.

In 1989-90, Pitino's first year, we shot 28.9 threes a game, the most in KY history, at a 34.7% clip.

 

[JonathanW]

You ended by writing "... they are pretty close most years, with this year and last year being 2 exceptions."
What conclusions, if any, do you reach regarding the last two (2) years ?? To my view, it suggests that we definitely should've shot more threes last year and that this year's inside game is stronger (percentage wise) than it has been in the last twenty (20) years. That goes, thanks to your data, to the basic essence of my original post ... does data suggest that, so far in the season (albeit with a number of weaker opponents), that Carr-Williams-Garrison are unusually effective inside on their own ability ... or BECAUSE we are taking more threes this year and opponents expect us to, freeing up space in the paint ?? Butler's and Oweh's ability to both drive inside and score is also a factor in our 2-point success, but they seem to be the only players that can routinely do this against tight pressure, in my opinion.

For reference: Last year we shot 24.2 threes a game at 40.9%. This year, so far, we are shooting 28.7 per game at 35.5%.

In 1989-90, Pitino's first year, we shot 28.9 threes a game, the most in KY history, at a 34.7% clip.

Good questions. I think most agree that we should have shot more 3's last year, but we were just happy with the increase (by a stubborn coach) over prior years frequency. However, one would assume we shot them "when we were open", so to shoot more would have either required more attempts at screens or other ways to get guys open, OR shooting more guarded 3's, and I'm pretty sure if we had shot more guarded 3's the % would have dropped.
As for this year, while I do think Pope wants us to shoot lots of (open) 3's, I think he keeps saying 30-35 3's because he wants teams to focus on stopping that, freeing up more baskets near the rim. And the high % rate on 2's suggest that may be happening. So I am agreement with you on that.
But I think any good coach, if he has the players to do it, will take what the defense gives you. If they give you open 3's take and make them, if they give you 1-on-1 under the basket, take and make those.

As for RP's early UK teams, yes they shot lots and lots of 3's, but they also got an unusually high number of back door cuts for baskets too. That last part was a thing of beauty, reminding you of the old Princeton offense.

 

[megablue]

Good questions. I think most agree that we should have shot more 3's last year, but we were just happy with the increase (by a stubborn coach) over prior years frequency. However, one would assume we shot them "when we were open", so to shoot more would have either required more attempts at screens or other ways to get guys open, OR shooting more guarded 3's, and I'm pretty sure if we had shot more guarded 3's the % would have dropped.
As for this year, while I do think Pope wants us to shoot lots of (open) 3's, I think he keeps saying 30-35 3's because he wants teams to focus on stopping that, freeing up more baskets near the rim. And the high % rate on 2's suggest that may be happening. So I am agreement with you on that.
But I think any good coach, if he has the players to do it, will take what the defense gives you. If they give you open 3's take and make them, if they give you 1-on-1 under the basket, take and make those.

As for RP's early UK teams, yes they shot lots and lots of 3's, but they also got an unusually high number of back door cuts for baskets too. That last part was a thing of beauty, reminding you of the old Princeton offense.

Yes. I agree with you. That's how I see it, too. THANKS for the exchange. GO CATS !!

COACH	SEASON	GAMES	3PTA/GM	3PT	3PTA	3PT%	OFF	DEF	MGN	WINS	LOSS	WIN%
PITINO	1989-90	28	28.9	281	810	0.347	88.8	87.9	0.9	14	14	0.500
PITINO	1990-91	28	25.5	242	715	0.338	85.9	78.1	7.8	22	6	0.786
PITINO	1991-92	36	24.7	317	888	0.357	85.7	74.4	11.3	29	7	0.806
PITINO	1992-93	34	25.4	340	862	0.394	87.5	69.8	17.7	30	4	0.882
PITINO	1993-94	34	25.2	301	857	0.351	86.9	74.6	12.3	27	7	0.794
PITINO	1994-95	33	22.3	276	736	0.375	87.4	69.0	18.4	28	5	0.848
PITINO	1995-96	36	18.6	266	670	0.397	91.4	69.4	22.0	34	2	0.944
PITINO	1996-97	40	19.4	287	777	0.369	83.1	62.8	20.3	35	5	0.875
SMITH	1997-98	39	17.5	250	681	0.367	80.1	67.0	13.1	35	4	0.897
SMITH	1998-99	37	18.3	226	676	0.334	75.4	62.7	12.7	28	9	0.757
SMITH	1999-00	33	19.5	188	643	0.292	69.1	62.8	6.3	23	10	0.697
SMITH	2000-01	34	20.8	245	707	0.347	79.8	70.6	9.2	24	10	0.706
SMITH	2001-02	32	21.6	219	692	0.316	76.9	68.2	8.7	22	10	0.688
SMITH	2002-03	36	16.3	208	585	0.356	77.3	64.1	13.2	32	4	0.889
SMITH	2003-04	32	17.9	204	572	0.357	73.9	63.6	10.3	27	5	0.844
SMITH	2004-05	34	18.7	218	635	0.343	73.6	62.6	11.0	28	6	0.824
SMITH	2005-06	35	21.7	265	758	0.350	70.8	66.2	4.6	22	13	0.629
SMITH	2006-07	34	19.1	231	651	0.355	73.4	67.7	5.7	22	12	0.647
GILLISPIE	2007-08	31	15.9	182	493	0.369	68.5	65.6	2.9	18	13	0.581
GILLISPIE	2008-09	36	15.9	202	573	0.353	74.1	66.3	7.8	22	14	0.611
CALIPARI	2009-10	38	18.3	231	697	0.331	79.3	64.9	14.4	35	3	0.921
CALIPARI	2010-11	38	18.6	281	707	0.397	74.9	63.5	11.4	29	9	0.763
CALIPARI	2011-12	40	14.9	225	595	0.378	77.4	60.6	16.8	38	2	0.950
CALIPARI	2012-13	33	16.1	184	532	0.346	72.6	64.5	8.1	21	12	0.636
CALIPARI	2013-14	40	15.3	203	611	0.332	74.8	66.6	8.2	29	11	0.725
CALIPARI	2014-15	39	14.9	203	582	0.349	74.4	54.3	20.1	38	1	0.974
CALIPARI	2015-16	36	18.5	244	666	0.366	79.5	68.1	11.4	27	9	0.750
CALIPARI	2016-17	38	19.9	267	756	0.353	84.9	71.5	13.4	32	6	0.842
CALIPARI	2017-18	37	14.8	195	546	0.357	76.8	70.2	6.6	26	11	0.703
CALIPARI	2018-19	37	16.4	215	607	0.354	75.8	64.7	11.1	30	7	0.811
CALIPARI	2019-20	31	14.8	157	458	0.343	74.4	66.1	8.3	25	6	0.806
CALIPARI	2020-21	25	19.0	160	475	0.337	70.4	70.2	0.2	9	16	0.360
CALIPARI	2021-22	34	17.5	207	596	0.347	79.4	66.6	12.8	26	8	0.765
CALIPARI	2022-23	34	18.0	213	613	0.347	74.5	67.7	6.8	22	12	0.647
CALIPARI	2023-24	33	24.2	327	800	0.409	89.0	79.7	9.3	23	10	0.697
PITINO	8 YRS	269	23.5	2310	6315	0.366	87.0	72.6	14.4	219	50	0.814
SMITH	10 YRS	346	19.1	2254	6600	0.342	75.1	65.5	9.6	263	83	0.760
GILLISPIE	2 YRS	67	15.9	384	1066	0.360	71.5	66.0	5.5	40	27	0.597
CALIPARI	15 YRS	533	17.3	3312	9241	0.358	77.3	66.4	10.9	410	123	0.769
	35 YRS	1215	19.1	8260	23222	0.356	78.5	67.5	11.0	932	283	0.767