I strongly believe having a high consistent jumper "inside"--

[CaliCuse]

--the arc is a winning player. The 3 point guys are all streak shooters which is fine when they are in a good streak the 2 point game is critical when they are not in the scoring streak. Tyus may be that kind of player for the offense . 2 points is better than a 3 miss with the ball going to the opposition 2 beats "0"

 

[skurey]

3 > 2 > 0

I've done the math and I can confirm the above.

 

[jncuse]

The high volume 2 point jump shot only works if you are a player that also is able to successfully drive often and draw a high number of fouls. Hence you are using the two, to create some more efficient opportunities, but realize you will not always be able to get that high % shot.

 

[CaliCuse]

3 > 2 > 0

I've done the math and I can confirm the above.

Yes and being a man who made his career numbers game,I agree but the coach needs to make this part of the game a reality. I guess my points that there is not enough emphasis on the 2>0 part of the game. I like that has been effective down low with some very skilled moves if the can get him the ball without a TO.

 

[Jack Hall]

Yes and being a man who made his career numbers game,I agree but the coach needs to make this part of the game a reality. I guess my points that there is not enough emphasis on the 2>0 part of the game. I like that has been effective down low with some very skilled moves if the can get him the ball without a TO.

I get the rationale that if your foot is just inside the 3 pt line, youd be crazy not to step back and take a 3. One step and fifty % more upside. But to then say any jumper might as well be a 3 makes little sense to me. I think JB just said that if TRob could hit that foul line jumper, it would completely change SUs offense. In so many ways, the 3 pt line can potentially be fools gold imo. But i would think any competitor is likely to be an optimist, ie they believe they can make it. The #s dont always back that up tho obviously

 

[SWC75]

I've always said that a two pointer that goes in is worth more than a three that doesn't. But the point has been made that in the modern game, players don't practice the two point shot the way they practice making three pointers so you can't just tell a three point guy who is missing to try to two pointers instead. You are good at what you practice.

It was a better game without the three point line, when players just worked to get open shots and practiced shooting from everywhere. Teams scored more points then, as well.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Steph Curry is by far the best shooter/scorer in the NBA and he doesn't even shoot 50% from outside of 3 feet to the three point line. FWIW he is about at 47% which is really good, but still below his 70 percent at the rim and 46 percent from three. He averages less points per shot at that distance than any other distance he shoots. Theres a reason advanced metrics say to shoot either layups/dunks or three pointers.

 

[Dave85]

--the arc is a winning player. The 3 point guys are all streak shooters which is fine when they are in a good streak the 2 point game is critical when they are not in the scoring streak. Tyus may be that kind of player for the offense . 2 points is better than a 3 miss with the ball going to the opposition 2 beats "0"

I think there are articles on this that confirm taking 3-point shots is more effective based on the number of trips or attempts teams get to shoot per game. I think some of the Orange brainiacs here have done the analysis. I would think scoring 2 point shots would be better because of the percentage. But it's actually more a function of have many shots you get per game. But I don't have any links and I don't know the real math.

 

[SWC75]

Steph Curry is by far the best shooter/scorer in the NBA and he doesn't even shoot 50% from outside of 3 feet to the three point line. FWIW he is about at 47% which is really good, but still below his 70 percent at the rim and 46 percent from three. He averages less points per shot at that distance than any other distance he shoots. Theres a reason advanced metrics say to shoot either layups/dunks or three pointers.

If I were coaching Steph Curry I'd encourage him to take three pointers, too. There aren't that many Steph Curry's, at least not in college. On our team , if that's the shot that is open, I'd like Cooney, Gbinje, Richardson and maybe Lydon taking three pointers. If the other team has denied that shot, they should look at two pointers. The rest of our players are better off taking two pointers than three pointers.

 

[Brooky03]

The advanced stats guys are going to hate this thread haha.

The key is how open you can get yourself for a midrange jumper. If you're shooting tough ones, obviously it's no bueno. But there are a couple factors to consider. I'd argue it's easier to get an open midrange jumper than it is to get an open 3. If you compare open 3's to open midrange shots, 3's will always win, but these shots don't exist in a vacuum. If you compare the relative difficulty of each, I'd venture a guess that proficient midrange shooters will score more points in a given sample size shooting open midrange jumpers than slightly contested 3 pointers (arguably looks of equal difficulty to get).

Also, being a scoring threat from every spot on the court is clearly going to make a player very dangerous. Even if a player doesn't rely on short jumpers, it's something that's worth developing. Defenses guard the paint and 3 point line. They don't care what you do between the two.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Basketball is not one size fits all. Go ask Tim Duncan.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The problem with our guys is they take 19 foot two's...not 15 foot 2's...except roberson..and he misses them anyway.

 

[pfister1]

I've always said that a two pointer that goes in is worth more than a three that doesn't. But the point has been made that in the modern game, players don't practice the two point shot the way they practice making three pointers so you can't just tell a three point guy who is missing to try to two pointers instead. You are good at what you practice.

It was a better game without the three point line, when players just worked to get open shots and practiced shooting from everywhere. Teams scored more points then, as well.

If I were coaching I would put a two point arc in bright yellow on my practice gym floor 15 feet from the hoop and have players concentrate on getting shots from "behind the arc". I think its largely psychological. The 3 point arc, the actual arc itself, not just the point value, gives you a goal or marker to aim for when setting up for shots.

 

[SBU72]

I think that Lydon is going to be among the best forwards that SU has had in a long, long time. He is the ideal guy to have what the commentators want at the logo around the foul line. He his tall and can pass in or out, shoot or drive. Plus he is so good that if he has to inch out past the foul pine, defenders are going to be obliged to follow him.