Why the lost art is lost.

[Scooch]

They probably don't have the numbers available, but I imagine that the overall shooting percentage of 2 point shots made from 15-18 feet have probably declined as the three pointer has become more popular over time. Everyone practices threes now. Not as many players practice the 15-18 footer. If you don't practice it, you won't be good at it.

The game now has been so influenced by analytics, some guys like Kevin Mchale don't want their players to shoot anything but shots at the rim, threes, or free throws. When I played in high school, and still when i play pickup, I've always been really good at the shot from 15-18 feet. I always thought shooting from three was too far out for me, but then again i never really practiced it.

Naturally if you practiced the 15-18 footer as much as a three point shot, I think everyone would agree you would shoot a higher percentage from 15-18 than you would from 20 plus. Since the shot has been de-emphasized people don't practice it as much, and analytics tell you it's really a terrible shot. I'm not saying either side is wrong, I think we need to look at historical data before 2000 to see what shooting percentages were from 15-18 feet, and it's not available on basketball reference.

Aside from practice though is that you gotta consider modern defenses, which I think everyone in the game admits are FAR superior to what existed 20+ years ago. The court in the 10-20 foot range is very crowded, getting shots off against good D's there has got to be much harder than from 23+ feet behind the arc. That has to be factored in.

 

[Millhouse]

Yeah, the math here is pretty unassailable. There's a reason why there's been a revolution in NBA analytics over the past decade that corresponds to the ever-declining amount of mid-range 2-pointers being taken. It's a terribly inefficient shot. That almost every NBA coach has bought into that should tell you something, since not all of those guys are big believers in analytics. But the case against mid-range 2s is about as open-and-shut as it gets.

people who don't like the way this game looks should look to rules changes

it would never fly but maybe we need a 2nd line. if you don't like the way the game looks because no one's shooting from a certain area, then change the scoring from that area. it would throw off all the scoring totals that we're used to but the game might appeal to those people more.

i wonder what the powers that be expected 3 point shooting percentage to be.

 

[Scooch]

people who don't like the way this game looks should look to rules changes

it would never fly but maybe we need a 2nd line. if you don't like the way the game looks because no one's shooting from a certain area, then change the scoring from that area. it would throw off all the scoring totals that we're used to but the game might appeal to those people more.

i wonder what the powers that be expected 3 point shooting percentage to be.

I love the NBA game right now, it's a blast to watch.

The college game is an epic disaster but not because of 2-pointers.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Pitt beat us because they had 14 points in what I call the "twilight zone" (between the paint and the arc) to our 2. Notre Dame tired to beat us with three pointers and went 3 for 22. Just two games, I know but those stats were important.

I agree it depends on the player. If a guy is a really good three point shooter there may be little difference in percentage between the 2 and the 3. But guys like Joseph are clearly better inside the arc. 3 is more than 2 but 2 is more than 0.

But my biggest points are two things the stats don't show. Because of those stats, defenses are geared to stop the 3 and the drive to the basket. Often the space between is more open than inside or far outside. Then there's my point about vertical basketball- nothing but three pointers and drives to the basket vs. horizontal basketball, where you move around and pass the ball around looking for an open spot, it gets the defenders moving following both the offensive players and thew ball. I think it opens up the game more. Our all-time leading scorer, Lawrence Moten played to just get open shots. I think we need more players like him. It makes for a better game. Ask yourself if basketball was better in his day than it is now. I think you'd have to answer "yes".

I like numbers because they provide an objective foundation for our discussions but the current state of basketball shows what can happen if you rely on the numbers exclusively.

Pitt kills us every year in that area. Dixon doesn't have many guys that can shoot the three usually, but man they kill us at the elbows and short corner.

 

[jordoo]

Perhaps a 3 point shot is worth more but in todays game a guy who is money from the midrange absolutely causes havoc for defenses and is in fact invaluable.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Perhaps a 3 point shot is worth more but in todays game a guy who is money from the midrange absolutely causes havoc for defenses and is in fact invaluable.

Charles Oakley and Horace Grant come to mind there. They were the pre-analytics power forwards. Now analytic's have Serge Ibaka and Kevin Love standing at the three point line.

 

[Millhouse]

I love the NBA game right now, it's a blast to watch.

The college game is an epic disaster but not because of 2-pointers.

I love the NBA because the players are so great but I can't say that I love watching Houston play and they're leading the pack on this. I don't love the NBA because of the shift to 3s and dunks even though it makes sense given the rules and scoring

 

[Scooch]

I love the NBA because the players are so great but I can't say that I love watching Houston play and they're leading the pack on this. I don't love the NBA because of the shift to 3s and dunks even though it makes sense given the rules and scoring

Eye of the beholder and all.

It's funny, I was watching the C's-Knicks game last night and thinking from a pure basketball aesthetics standpoint it was tons better than just about any college game I've seen this year. Now obviously pro ball should be better than college ball given the skill level, but at the same time (a) let's assume my brain controlled for that, and (b) how much aesthetically worse is college football than pro football? Not much, IMHO.

 

[Dave85]

Don't buy it, why? The numbers bare that out. Points per attempt, you're best off either shooting inside 6 feet, or from 3. Long 2's are garbage shots, barely easier than 3's, and worth much, much less. Yeah, you say that about Trevor because he's shooting below the threshold for 3pt shooters (33%, which would translate to a 50% 2pt shooter)

Maybe the way today's game is played. But the way Indiana played under Bobby Knight has to be factored in. You have to have some kind of plan of attack with a motion type offense to be able to consistently hit 15 foot jump shots. With the kids I coach they all want to bomb shots from the three point line. It's really hard to get players to drive, dish, set a pick, or do nice pick and roll or give and go. From an early age hitting a 3 is a big deal. The other parts of the game not so much. I try to over-emphasize praise when players make assists, rebounds, set picks, or cause a turn over.

I think CJ Fair's game was terrific. I wish we had some of that on the Orange. But I have to say Christmas has just been absolutely terrific this year. I love his post moves. His clockwise pivot and left handed shot is just awesome!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

and then you have the underutilized bank shot.
http://www.sciencecodex.com/the_physics_of_bank_shots

Over the years I've gotten decent at banking in threes from a couple of unusual spots behind the line. It's a fun shot. People don't know what to make of it. Is it that you suck and just bombed it up there and got lucky? Wait, are you really skilled enough to do that? Do we need to guard against that? How? Why?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Eye of the beholder and all.

It's funny, I was watching the C's-Knicks game last night and thinking from a pure basketball aesthetics standpoint it was tons better than just about any college game I've seen this year. Now obviously pro ball should be better than college ball given the skill level, but at the same time (a) let's assume my brain controlled for that, and (b) how much aesthetically worse is college football than pro football? Not much, IMHO.

This is the thing. I watched some of the Jazz and Lakes last night. These are not good teams. The level of play was awesome though.

 

[Millhouse]

Eye of the beholder and all.

It's funny, I was watching the C's-Knicks game last night and thinking from a pure basketball aesthetics standpoint it was tons better than just about any college game I've seen this year. Now obviously pro ball should be better than college ball given the skill level, but at the same time (a) let's assume my brain controlled for that, and (b) how much aesthetically worse is college football than pro football? Not much, IMHO.

college is unwatchable. i've turned into that guy i goof on who only watches Syracuse.

I TOTALLY BUTCHERED MY SENTENCE

I do love the NBA. But not because of the 3s and dunks - I love it because the players are so great.

ended up typing the opposite of what i meant to somehow

the NBA is amazing because the players are - i watch way more NBA than any college game not involving SU

 

[Coach Orange]

Just a few tidbits to throw into the discussion:

• Jeff Van Gundy says on his Pick and Roll DVD that long two-pointers are the worst shot any player can take. The percentage of makes isn't much better, if at all, than taking a three-pointer, and there is far less chance of drawing a foul than shots within five feet. He likes pick-and-roll offense better than any style of passing-based motion offense, in part, because it helps eliminate these shots.
• One of the most popular offenses of the last decade--the Dribble Drive Motion--was created by Vance Walberg specifically because he felt that modern players were more comfortable with three-pointers and drives to the hoop than they were with screening/cutting and with midrange shots. He felt that the design of his offense allowed players to do what they naturally do. He also emphasized that midrange shots should be a last resort, not a shot that players actively seek.
• Gary Williams's version of the Flex Offense did not include the traditional down screen for the flex screener. Instead, the screener "crabbed" back into the paint looking to receive a bounce pass as he posted up (Lonny Baxter was excellent at this move). Williams said that the reason he made this adjustment to the offense was that he grew sick of seeing players become bad midrange jump shooters after receiving the down screen.

By no means are these three coaches the end-all/be-all of this discussion. It is important, though, to note that some well-respected coaches in the game have purposefully designed offenses to remove or reduce midrange jumpers.

 

[SWC75]

Even the best shooters though don't shoot a great percentage from mid-range though. Steph Curry is pretty much the best shooter on the planet; from 3-10 feet his career % is 40.7%, from 10-16 feet he's at 44.9%, and from 16-23 he's at 46.7%. Those aren't terrible, but he's essentially the same (43.4%) from 3 point range and you get an extra point.

People talk about Melo and his mid range game, for his career he's below 40% from 3-10 and 10-16 feet, and 41.2% from 16-23. 34.5% from 3. He shoots a better percentage from 3 point range than from 3-10 feet.

That's fine for Steph and Melo but do you really want Kaleb, Buss or a even a struggling Cooney to base their game on what Steph and Melo are doing? And yet that's the kind of players most college guys are.

 

[Scooch]

That's fine for Steph and Melo but do you really want Kaleb, Buss or a even a struggling Cooney to base their game on what Steph and Melo are doing? And yet that's the kind of players most college guys are.

Why would college players shoot midrange 2s at a more efficient rate than 3s or 2s within 6 feet?

 

[SWC75]

Why would college players shoot midrange 2s at a more efficient rate than 3s or 2s within 6 feet?

Why not? It's closer than the 3s with fewer defenders than from 6 feet.

 

[Scooch]

Why not?

30 years of statistical evidence?

 

[sufandu]

My shooting stroke changed from beyond about 17 feet, so I was a lousy shooter from distance and never attempted them. Players should stay in their comfort zone.

I think this is the key. I think it's sometimes too easy to look at all of the the analytics and forget people aren't robots. You have to be comfortable with the shots your taking. MJ made a killing taking shots that modern analytics would characterize as garbage, especially during the second threepeat run, but he was a terrible three point shooter.

 

[SWC75]

30 years of statistical evidence?

About the NBA?

And should Kaleb, Buss and Trevor be making their decisions based on statistical evidence or an assessment of their own capabilities?

 

[Toga]

About the NBA?

And should Kaleb, Buss and Trevor be making their decisions based on statistical evidence or an assessment of their own capabilities?

To wit - what is the shot this board hopes Roberson can hit next year? The 14 footer. That would maximize his game. Not necessarily true for another player.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Pitt is an inefficient team. Their at rim/2pt jumper/3pter is 31/44/34. They are only making 43% of their 2pt jumpers for .85 points per shot. They are getting 1.15 pps at the rim and 1.03 pps from 3. Pitt is settling for bad shots.

The zone is successful because it gives up 2pt jumpers while defending at the rim and 3pt.

 

[SWC75]

Pitt is an inefficient team. Their at rim/2pt jumper/3pter is 31/44/34. They are only making 43% of their 2pt jumpers for .85 points per shot. They are getting 1.15 pps at the rim and 1.03 pps from 3. Pitt is settling for bad shots.

The zone is successful because it gives up 2pt jumpers while defending at the rim and 3pt.

The zone is successful when it forces teams to shoot 3 pointers instead of 2 pointers.

 

[SUMBA]

I think this is the key. I think it's sometimes too easy to look at all of the the analytics and forget people aren't robots. You have to be comfortable with the shots your taking. MJ made a killing taking shots that modern analytics would characterize as garbage, especially during the second threepeat run, but he was a terrible three point shooter.

For his career Jordan shot 51.0% on 2 point baskets. This ratio translates into 1.02 points per 2 point shot from the floor. His 3 point percentage of 32.7% resulted in .981 pps. No reasonable analysis would say that Mr. Jordan was taking bad shots. At roughly 1.0 pps from the floor it would seem that he was taking exactly the right amount of shots.

The 2 point shot is only bad if the shooter shoots below 50.0%. However, the greatest to ever play the game shot just above this mark.

 

[Toga]

Are folks suggesting that an average or better shooter decline to take an open 16 footer as opposed to a contested / somewhat contested 3?

 

[SUMBA]

Are folks suggesting that an average or better shooter decline to take an open 16 footer as opposed to a contested / somewhat contested 3?

A coach should be indifferent between a 3 point shot at 33 1/3% and a 2 point shot at 50%. The decision on which shot to take depends on the shooter's percentage from that point on the floor.

If a contested 3 results in a percentage higher than 33 1/3% it should be taken over an open 2 point shot if the open shooter shoots below 50.0%.