3 Point Shooting, Redux.

[SFHoya99]

Somewhere along the line I became a defender of our 3 point shooting, something I more or less despise in college basketball (it's too damn close).

I don't think our offense was well balanced, but I also think the 3 can be an effective weapon. That all said, there is some interesting evidence in regards to this.

Of the Top 30 teams in % of points from 3s, only three made the tourney, and only two were at larges: Louisville (17) and West Virginia (8). (GU was 24th, and there are quite a few bubble teams).

However, only 20% of DI teams make the tourney, and only 10% were at large, so what does this really tell us? Especially when we consider NC State, Duke and Illinois are in the next ten.

What about the other side? Four of the Ten least dependent are in the Tourney: Nevada, Iowa St., BC, and Texas Tech. There are four more in the next ten.

But only 8 in the Top Thirty, and 9 in the Top Forty. Still that's 40% of the Top Twenty Least Dependent, and still at 20% of the Top Forty.

-------------

There doesn't seem to be a huge argument either way. Though the teams that made the tourney shooting a lot of threes were good shooting teams - 35% or better, they weren't as good as I expected.

I would say the lack of tourney teams at the top has a lot to do with teams turning to the 3 for lack of better options. We don't want to be that team.

I guess I have no point, other than that we should get some more shooters if we're gonna keep this up. But right now we are a bit unbalanced.

[aggypryd]

we need to get some points in transition and in the paint...

most teams that rely on the 3 don't have an inside game...

[SFHoya99]

Once you count FTs, we shoot roughly 58% on two point shots but closer to 50% on 3 pt shots, if you state % as % of two point shots.

We probably should've taken less 3s.

[YB]

We hit a lot of inside-out 3s, but not so many pass-it-around and shoot 3s. To hit inside-outers, you have to have an inside. And with 2 froshes, abeit good ones, we were inconsistent on that front. I have to think next year will improve, especially with increased depth.

[SirSaxa]

SFHoya99 said:

I guess I have no point, other than that we should get some more shooters if we're gonna keep this up.

SF -- one of the most honest posts I've read on this board!

You are right though, we need better shooters AND better balance.
And the better balance will lead to higher shooting percentages too.

We are getting there. This was already a VERY successful year. A good run in the NIT would be a fitting end to the most positive season we've had in a very long time.

[HoyaChris]

SFHoya99 said:

Once you count FTs, we shoot roughly 58% on two point shots but closer to 50% on 3 pt shots, if you state % as % of two point shots.

We probably should've taken less 3s.

I'm not sure that the analytic approach that you are using to impute a 58% net shooting percentage on 2 point shots is correct. Leaving aside the very infrequent shooting fouls on three point shots, I would guess that at least a third of our free throws are a result of fouls on the floor when we are in the bonus shooting situation.

That said, it would be nice to not have to rely on the inherent inconsistency of the three point shot.

[SFHoya99]

HoyaChris said:

I'm not sure that the analytic approach that you are using to impute a 58% net shooting percentage on 2 point shots is correct. Leaving aside the very infrequent shooting fouls on three point shots, I would guess that at least a third of our free throws are a result of fouls on the floor when we are in the bonus shooting situation.

That said, it would be nice to not have to rely on the inherent inconsistency of the three point shot.

That's a good point. I guess I overassumed that FTs are always tied to 2 point shots. I doubt we got fouled on more than 1 three this year, but I suppose the fouls on the floor could be allocated otherwise.

While most floor fouls would have led to 2 point attempts, many are end of game hacks as we lead or silly touch fouls on the perimeter.

I still think we shot better than 50% from 2 this year with a barely breakeven 33% from three, but you're right that the real answer is probably much closer.

[NCHoya]

Let me first admit, I am a big fan of the three pointer. I love that if we shoot just 33% from three the other team needs to shoot 50% from two to match us. The fact is to run the Princeton offense you need shooters or else you get 2-3 zoned and the offense becomes a mess.

I feel like JT3 is definitely recruiting toward getting better shooters and more perimeter defenders so we can begin the press again and get some cheap transition baskets while also being able to run a motion offense. That combination can carry us very far.

Contrary to what JT2 said on ESPN, I would doubt that we actively recruit back to the basket seven footers under JTIII. We will be looking for versatile 6'9" Jeff Green-type guys that can pass out of the high post and shoot from beyond 15 feet.

The days of Mutumbo and Ewing type players are numbered under this offensive system. That said, I still think JT3 will use Roy as effectively as possible, likely 20-25 minutes a game.

[HoyaChris]

SFHoya99 said:

That's a good point. I guess I overassumed that FTs are always tied to 2 point shots. I doubt we got fouled on more than 1 three this year, but I suppose the fouls on the floor could be allocated otherwise.

While most floor fouls would have led to 2 point attempts, many are end of game hacks as we lead or silly touch fouls on the perimeter.

I still think we shot better than 50% from 2 this year with a barely breakeven 33% from three, but you're right that the real answer is probably much closer.

I think the other issue with your analysis, is that even if all of the free throws resulted from 2 point shots, you would need to increase the denominator (attempted shots) by one for each two free throws attempted (except in the case of and one situations.)

The impact of not doing this is clear in the situation where a team makes two trips down the floor, makes a two point bucket on the first trip and is fouled and makes both free throws on the second trip. Your formula (assuming I understand it correctly) would divide points (4) by two point shots (1) and imply a 200% shooting percentage.

[SFHoya99]

HoyaChris said:

I think the other issue with your analysis, is that even if all of the free throws resulted from 2 point shots, you would need to increase the denominator (attempted shots) by one for each two free throws attempted (except in the case of and one situations.)

The impact of not doing this is clear in the situation where a team makes two trips down the floor, makes a two point bucket on the first trip and is fouled and makes both free throws on the second trip. Your formula (assuming I understand it correctly) would divide points (4) by two point shots (1) and imply a 200% shooting percentage.

Actually, I did increase shots by FTs. The generally accepted multuplier for NBA games is somewhere between .42 and .44. The reason it is below .5 is and-one three point plays.

i.e. PPS = (Pts)/(FGA + FTA*.43)

Now, college has more off the ball fouls and the one and one, so I don't know what the multiplier would be. So I used .43.

My issue is that I gave ALL the foul shots to 2 point plays.

[HoyaChris]

SFHoya99 said:

Actually, I did increase shots by FTs. The generally accepted multuplier for NBA games is somewhere between .42 and .44. The reason it is below .5 is and-one three point plays.

i.e. PPS = (Pts)/(FGA + FTA*.43)

Now, college has more off the ball fouls and the one and one, so I don't know what the multiplier would be. So I used .43.

My issue is that I gave ALL the foul shots to 2 point plays.

Thanks for the clarification.

[3GenerationHoya]

My only issue with us shooting the 3 as much as we do, is that I felt like too many of our 3s came after little to no attacking of the basket. I don't have stats or anything to back this up - it is merely an observation, a gut feeling.

I would really prefer to see a guard penetrate and draw the defense and then kick the ball out from the paint to a spot up shooter. Or to see a guy like Jeff draw an extra defender in the post and pass out of the double team to the open guy - an inside-outside 3 as YB said.

I thought too often this year, we worked the ball around the perimeter in a windshield wiper motion - back and forth - and settled for a 3 as time wound down on the shot clock. I see that as a more passive 3. The shots might have been open, but I don't think they were the best shots that we could have found.

Unfortunately, this year I didnt think we had anyone who could really create open shots for his teammates. I believe we will struggle to outscore people until we can find a playmaker who can consistently break down defenses.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

Hoping for that breakdown ability in one Jessie Sapp this year.