Three Points vs. Two Points - This Is For My Guy Etomic

[tafkashfsee]

This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game.  This thread was inspired by my guy Etomic who believes, at least I think he believes, that the way the game is played today with teams jacking up threes is better for the game and better for each individual player. 

I personally don't believe so and I think this new style of basketball with guys running to that stupid three point line and waiting for the ball while watching another guy try to break down the defense so that they can get the chance to shoot the three is hurting the game.  Again, this thread was inspired by Etomic but all are welcome and encouraged to join in and give your thoughts and debate if you will.

I know my guy Etomic is going to bring his stat books should he wish to contribute to this feed, and I know I can't defeat his little stat book but I am sure as hell going to try.

[hoyaduck]

HFSEE?

[tafkashfsee]

Jan 6, 2022 15:50:01 GMT -5 hoyaduck said:

HFSEE?

The Artist Formerly Known As.....

[hoyaduck]

Jan 6, 2022 15:51:46 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

Jan 6, 2022 15:50:01 GMT -5 hoyaduck said:

HFSEE?

The Artist Formerly Known As.....

Welcome back 

[tafkashfsee]

Jan 6, 2022 15:54:20 GMT -5 hoyaduck said:

Jan 6, 2022 15:51:46 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

The Artist Formerly Known As.....

Welcome back 

Thank you sir.

[tafkashfsee]

Please watch my video.  Thanks!

[rhw485]

Jan 6, 2022 15:46:29 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game.  This thread was inspired by my guy Etomic who believes, at least I think he believes, that the way the game is played today with teams jacking up threes is better for the game and better for each individual player. 

I personally don't believe so and I think this new style of basketball with guys running to that stupid three point line and waiting for the ball while watching another guy try to break down the defense so that they can get the chance to shoot the three is hurting the game.  Again, this thread was inspired by Etomic but all are welcome and encouraged to join in and give your thoughts and debate if you will.

I know my guy Etomic is going to bring his stat books should he wish to contribute to this feed, and I know I can't defeat his little stat book but I am sure as hell going to try.

So I'm going to take the bait and engage here.  Although your derogatory comment about little stat books is belittling and insulting, and implies that you've already reached your conclusion.  Either way, here's a quote from the Tampa Bay Lightning GM (back to back stanley cup champs) that I find very powerful:

"If we didn't call it 'analytics', if we called it 'information', no one would say 'I wouldn't want as much quality information as I can'.  BriseBoise pointed out then that analytics is a useful source of information fi you have accurate data, sufficient sample size and it's relevant.  He'd often tell his guys, "Bad data is worse then no data, so make sure the data is good'
'Generally speaking, when people refer to analytics, the acceptance of that information being valuable is no longer in dispute', BriseBois said.  I'm sure every team is relying on statistics to a certain extent'.


To me the point on bad data is critical.  I hate when people on this board bring in analytics and talk about Malcolm Wilson being at a 300 O-Rating on 2 minutes and 1 game because he grabbed 1 rebound and had 1 dunk, it invalidates other useful analytical discussions in my opinion.

For me, the way I think about basketball for analytics is this...the one constant in basketball is that each team will have the same number of possessions in a game.  It doesn't matter whether you play fast or slow, man vs. zone, shoot 3s vs. 2s...you have the same number of possessions as your opponent and the goal is to score the most points per possession and give up the least points per possession.  Old school cumulative stats that don't factor in the number of possessions used completely miss the boat in my opinion. 

So now the question then becomes, what's the best way to maximize the amount of points you score in a possession.  Now when people talk about 3s vs. 2s, I don't think anyone is arguing that you should pass up a dunk to take a contested 3.  That's a strawman argument others make that I don't think anyone actually argues other than detractors.

Here's a simple example.  Let's say Yurtseven on average would score a basket every other time he scored on a post up.  So that means in 2 possessions, he's scored 2 points (0 on 1, 2 on the other).  A turnover in the post would also be a zero just fyi.  That means on average his points per possession on post ups would be 1. 

Now lets assume the other option is Jahvon Blair shooting a 3.  For that to be a better shot than having Yurtseven post up, he'd need to make 33% of his 3s, so on 3 possessions if he only made 1 three, he'd score 3 points on 3 possessions, and his points per possession would be 1.


So that's the simple math we're talking about.  Unfortunately these are always taken to extremes.  Of course, if a team only attempted 3s, a defense would adjust and the team would have a really hard time making any.  Also, when people talk about 2s vs. 3s, I generally focus on long 2 point jumpers being inefficient.  The difference in % between a long 2 and a 3 isn't enough to make up for the value of the extra point.  

And also, offensive rebounding is huge, extra shots allow you another chance to score in a possession.  So Yurtseven being around the basket to grab an offensive rebound is hugely valuable in the equation of where you station your players.  And if he gets fouled consistently and makes a lot of free throws, even better.

Lastly, I remember having this discussion with you (HFSEE) regarding Bile where you called him the MVP of game and you got push back because he was inefficient.  Turnovers are a HUGE part of this.  If Bile scores 20 points but was 5-22 from the field and had 6 turnovers, he used like 28 possessions to generate 20 points.  That's terrible.  Now those weren't his exact numbers but that's the idea.  Traditional counting stats in the box score might have that as a 20/10 awesome game, but think about what else we could've done in those possessions instead.  Measurements like Offensive Rating try to take this all into account and come up with one number that summarizes a players offensive impact.  They're not perfect and context matters, but as you get to 10+ games they start to show you trends.

Ok that's enough for today.  

[tafkashfsee]

Jan 6, 2022 17:59:46 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

Jan 6, 2022 15:46:29 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game.  This thread was inspired by my guy Etomic who believes, at least I think he believes, that the way the game is played today with teams jacking up threes is better for the game and better for each individual player. 

I personally don't believe so and I think this new style of basketball with guys running to that stupid three point line and waiting for the ball while watching another guy try to break down the defense so that they can get the chance to shoot the three is hurting the game.  Again, this thread was inspired by Etomic but all are welcome and encouraged to join in and give your thoughts and debate if you will.

I know my guy Etomic is going to bring his stat books should he wish to contribute to this feed, and I know I can't defeat his little stat book but I am sure as hell going to try.

So I'm going to take the bait and engage here.  Although your derogatory comment about little stat books is belittling and insulting, and implies that you've already reached your conclusion.  Either way, here's a quote from the Tampa Bay Lightning GM (back to back stanley cup champs) that I find very powerful:

"If we didn't call it 'analytics', if we called it 'information', no one would say 'I wouldn't want as much quality information as I can'.  BriseBoise pointed out then that analytics is a useful source of information fi you have accurate data, sufficient sample size and it's relevant.  He'd often tell his guys, "Bad data is worse then no data, so make sure the data is good'
'Generally speaking, when people refer to analytics, the acceptance of that information being valuable is no longer in dispute', BriseBois said.  I'm sure every team is relying on statistics to a certain extent'.


To me the point on bad data is critical.  I hate when people on this board bring in analytics and talk about Malcolm Wilson being at a 300 O-Rating on 2 minutes and 1 game because he grabbed 1 rebound and had 1 dunk, it invalidates other useful analytical discussions in my opinion.

For me, the way I think about basketball for analytics is this...the one constant in basketball is that each team will have the same number of possessions in a game.  It doesn't matter whether you play fast or slow, man vs. zone, shoot 3s vs. 2s...you have the same number of possessions as your opponent and the goal is to score the most points per possession and give up the least points per possession.  Old school cumulative stats that don't factor in the number of possessions used completely miss the boat in my opinion. 

So now the question then becomes, what's the best way to maximize the amount of points you score in a possession.  Now when people talk about 3s vs. 2s, I don't think anyone is arguing that you should pass up a dunk to take a contested 3.  That's a strawman argument others make that I don't think anyone actually argues other than detractors.

Here's a simple example.  Let's say Yurtseven on average would score a basket every other time he scored on a post up.  So that means in 2 possessions, he's scored 2 points (0 on 1, 2 on the other).  A turnover in the post would also be a zero just fyi.  That means on average his points per possession on post ups would be 1. 

Now lets assume the other option is Jahvon Blair shooting a 3.  For that to be a better shot than having Yurtseven post up, he'd need to make 33% of his 3s, so on 3 possessions if he only made 1 three, he'd score 3 points on 3 possessions, and his points per possession would be 1.


So that's the simple math we're talking about.  Unfortunately these are always taken to extremes.  Of course, if a team only attempted 3s, a defense would adjust and the team would have a really hard time making any.  Also, when people talk about 2s vs. 3s, I generally focus on long 2 point jumpers being inefficient.  The difference in % between a long 2 and a 3 isn't enough to make up for the value of the extra point.  

And also, offensive rebounding is huge, extra shots allow you another chance to score in a possession.  So Yurtseven being around the basket to grab an offensive rebound is hugely valuable in the equation of where you station your players.  And if he gets fouled consistently and makes a lot of free throws, even better.

Lastly, I remember having this discussion with you (HFSEE) regarding Bile where you called him the MVP of game and you got push back because he was inefficient.  Turnovers are a HUGE part of this.  If Bile scores 20 points but was 5-22 from the field and had 6 turnovers, he used like 28 possessions to generate 20 points.  That's terrible.  Now those weren't his exact numbers but that's the idea.  Traditional counting stats in the box score might have that as a 20/10 awesome game, but think about what else we could've done in those possessions instead.  Measurements like Offensive Rating try to take this all into account and come up with one number that summarizes a players offensive impact.  They're not perfect and context matters, but as you get to 10+ games they start to show you trends.

Ok that's enough for today.  

First, I like to say thank you for posting and you have made some great points. I hope you don't mind but I am going to respond to you first thing early tomorrow morning as I am too busy for now to post on Hoyatalk. Thank you so much and I will respond.

[tafkashfsee]

Jan 6, 2022 17:59:46 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

Jan 6, 2022 15:46:29 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game.  This thread was inspired by my guy Etomic who believes, at least I think he believes, that the way the game is played today with teams jacking up threes is better for the game and better for each individual player. 

I personally don't believe so and I think this new style of basketball with guys running to that stupid three point line and waiting for the ball while watching another guy try to break down the defense so that they can get the chance to shoot the three is hurting the game.  Again, this thread was inspired by Etomic but all are welcome and encouraged to join in and give your thoughts and debate if you will.

I know my guy Etomic is going to bring his stat books should he wish to contribute to this feed, and I know I can't defeat his little stat book but I am sure as hell going to try.

So I'm going to take the bait and engage here.  Although your derogatory comment about little stat books is belittling and insulting, and implies that you've already reached your conclusion.  Either way, here's a quote from the Tampa Bay Lightning GM (back to back stanley cup champs) that I find very powerful:

"If we didn't call it 'analytics', if we called it 'information', no one would say 'I wouldn't want as much quality information as I can'.  BriseBoise pointed out then that analytics is a useful source of information fi you have accurate data, sufficient sample size and it's relevant.  He'd often tell his guys, "Bad data is worse then no data, so make sure the data is good'
'Generally speaking, when people refer to analytics, the acceptance of that information being valuable is no longer in dispute', BriseBois said.  I'm sure every team is relying on statistics to a certain extent'.


To me the point on bad data is critical.  I hate when people on this board bring in analytics and talk about Malcolm Wilson being at a 300 O-Rating on 2 minutes and 1 game because he grabbed 1 rebound and had 1 dunk, it invalidates other useful analytical discussions in my opinion.

For me, the way I think about basketball for analytics is this...the one constant in basketball is that each team will have the same number of possessions in a game.  It doesn't matter whether you play fast or slow, man vs. zone, shoot 3s vs. 2s...you have the same number of possessions as your opponent and the goal is to score the most points per possession and give up the least points per possession.  Old school cumulative stats that don't factor in the number of possessions used completely miss the boat in my opinion. 

So now the question then becomes, what's the best way to maximize the amount of points you score in a possession.  Now when people talk about 3s vs. 2s, I don't think anyone is arguing that you should pass up a dunk to take a contested 3.  That's a strawman argument others make that I don't think anyone actually argues other than detractors.

Here's a simple example.  Let's say Yurtseven on average would score a basket every other time he scored on a post up.  So that means in 2 possessions, he's scored 2 points (0 on 1, 2 on the other).  A turnover in the post would also be a zero just fyi.  That means on average his points per possession on post ups would be 1. 

Now lets assume the other option is Jahvon Blair shooting a 3.  For that to be a better shot than having Yurtseven post up, he'd need to make 33% of his 3s, so on 3 possessions if he only made 1 three, he'd score 3 points on 3 possessions, and his points per possession would be 1.


So that's the simple math we're talking about.  Unfortunately these are always taken to extremes.  Of course, if a team only attempted 3s, a defense would adjust and the team would have a really hard time making any.  Also, when people talk about 2s vs. 3s, I generally focus on long 2 point jumpers being inefficient.  The difference in % between a long 2 and a 3 isn't enough to make up for the value of the extra point.  

And also, offensive rebounding is huge, extra shots allow you another chance to score in a possession.  So Yurtseven being around the basket to grab an offensive rebound is hugely valuable in the equation of where you station your players.  And if he gets fouled consistently and makes a lot of free throws, even better.

Lastly, I remember having this discussion with you (HFSEE) regarding Bile where you called him the MVP of game and you got push back because he was inefficient.  Turnovers are a HUGE part of this.  If Bile scores 20 points but was 5-22 from the field and had 6 turnovers, he used like 28 possessions to generate 20 points.  That's terrible.  Now those weren't his exact numbers but that's the idea.  Traditional counting stats in the box score might have that as a 20/10 awesome game, but think about what else we could've done in those possessions instead.  Measurements like Offensive Rating try to take this all into account and come up with one number that summarizes a players offensive impact.  They're not perfect and context matters, but as you get to 10+ games they start to show you trends.

Ok that's enough for today.  

Thanks again for posting and having patience with me as I am just now being able to respond.  Not to make any excuses but I was too busy this morning to reply this morning like I said I would.

Okay first thing first, did you watch the video?  Okay I'm going to take it that you didn't watch the video because had you watch the video, you would have found out that I'm not the only one who feels that the stat keepers or that fancy word you use "analytics" are a bunch of crock!  Go and watch the video and listen to what Isiah Thomas said about these little "group of individuals who haven't been schooled about the game of basketball". These are your little stat keepers who graduated from Harvard, Yale, hell even Georgetown with their little statistics degree who don't know anything about basketball but their daddies who are GMs gave them an opportunity to be a part of the NBA by convincing owners that this would be a great addition to the organization. 

The owners they've convinced the coaches of the PER, the Usage Rates, the Pi over P-Square and all this other foolishness.  Now in that example you use where Yurt makes one in lane basket and misses one while Blair makes one three point shot and misses two, I am going to explain where that strategy is faulty.  In your example the total amount of points is 5 points.  Okay, that might sound good except what about the rebound of the ball off the two misses of Blair?  Chances are the ball comes careening off the rim and one of the opposing guards gets it and starts a fast break and most likely the other team scores off the misses. 

Now as you pointed out each team has five possessions.  So chances are because Blair missed two shots, the other team is most likely going to score at least three out five possession and if they are layups that would mean the score would be at least 6 points to 5 and it could be as high as 8 to 5 depending upon if the other team is efficient with their other three possessions (meaning getting easy two point buckets).  You do that enough times and before you know it, your Georgetown is getting blown out the game.  

They say that men lie, women lie but numbers don't lie and I am here to tell you that, that's a damn lie.  I will talk about how numbers lie with my next post.

[hoyaatheart55]

I’ll chime in as a baseball guy (I like basketball but am admittedly not an X’s and O’s guy).

All of the best coaches in sports take data into account when making decisions. To say things like “stats and analytics are a bunch of crock” is so completely close minded.

People like to pit analytics vs. experience, gut feelings, and things like that but the truth is that anybody with an open mind should see you need both. Nobody is advocating to make decisions based off numbers 100% of the time. As stated in one of the above posts, big bad analytics are just information. To completely disregard analytics is to say you don’t want to be presented with new information.

[tafkashfsee]

Jan 7, 2022 16:34:58 GMT -5 hoyaatheart55 said:

I’ll chime in as a baseball guy (I like basketball but am admittedly not an X’s and O’s guy).

All of the best coaches in sports take data into account when making decisions. To say things like “stats and analytics are a bunch of crock” is so completely close minded.

People like to pit analytics vs. experience, gut feelings, and things like that but the truth is that anybody with an open mind should see you need both. Nobody is advocating to make decisions based off numbers 100% of the time. As stated in one of the above posts, big bad analytics are just information. To completely disregard analytics is to say you don’t want to be presented with new information.

Problem with the analytics is that first of all numbers lie and second of all analytics don't take into account emotions involved in the game and third of all people are not robots so their play aren't going to reflect the analytics 100% of the time (which is related to numbers lie).  For example, let's take Kaden Rice.  He's a great three point shooter, correct?  Well the analytics say that he is going to hit the three point shot 40% of the time.  Well if we go by that, we should win every game because that's damn near 50 % of three points shots made. 

Analytics do not take into account that Kaden is a very streaky shooter (at least up until this point he is.  Hopefully that will change going into the remainder of the season).  Kaden can have two games where he shoots and makes 6 out of 6 three point shots in one game and then the next game he can go 2 for 11 for threes.  Now if my math serves me correctly that is 8 out of 17 for 47%.  That sounds terrific!  We should all be celebrating!  Park the brakes! 

The first game we win and the second game we get blown out.  Now let's just say instead of missing 9 three pointers in that second game.  What if Kaden instead of taking those 9 three pointers, he took let's say 8 of those 9 shots as two point close in baskets and makes 5 of those shots?  Chances are he can make those 5 close in shots or at least 4.  Now chances are we win both games or at least have a better chance of winning because instead of Kaden ending up with 6 points in that second game, he ends up with 14 points and that 8 point difference can be the difference between Georgetown winning or losing that second game. 

[rhw485]

Jan 7, 2022 15:26:18 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

Jan 6, 2022 17:59:46 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

Thanks again for posting and having patience with me as I am just now being able to respond.  Not to make any excuses but I was too busy this morning to reply this morning like I said I would.

Okay first thing first, did you watch the video?  Okay I'm going to take it that you didn't watch the video because had you watch the video, you would have found out that I'm not the only one who feels that the stat keepers or that fancy word you use "analytics" are a bunch of crock!  Go and watch the video and listen to what Isiah Thomas said about these little "group of individuals who haven't been schooled about the game of basketball". These are your little stat keepers who graduated from Harvard, Yale, hell even Georgetown with their little statistics degree who don't know anything about basketball but their daddies who are GMs gave them an opportunity to be a part of the NBA by convincing owners that this would be a great addition to the organization. 

The owners they've convinced the coaches of the PER, the Usage Rates, the Pi over P-Square and all this other foolishness.  Now in that example you use where Yurt makes one in lane basket and misses one while Blair makes one three point shot and misses two, I am going to explain where that strategy is faulty.  In your example the total amount of points is 5 points.  Okay, that might sound good except what about the rebound of the ball off the two misses of Blair?  Chances are the ball comes careening off the rim and one of the opposing guards gets it and starts a fast break and most likely the other team scores off the misses. 

Now as you pointed out each team has five possessions.  So chances are because Blair missed two shots, the other team is most likely going to score at least three out five possession and if they are layups that would mean the score would be at least 6 points to 5 and it could be as high as 8 to 5 depending upon if the other team is efficient with their other three possessions (meaning getting easy two point buckets).  You do that enough times and before you know it, your Georgetown is getting blown out the game.  

They say that men lie, women lie but numbers don't lie and I am here to tell you that, that's a damn lie.  I will talk about how numbers lie with my next post.

Yup, I regret engaging.  Will probably stop it after here because it's really difficult to engage when you're countering arguments I'm not even making.

1. yes I watched the video...actually I think that video is an excerpt of a much longer ESPN discussion regarding the "Death of the big man".  I also never said you were the only one who dismisses analytics, Isiah Thomas also failed miserably as an executive so maybe not the best argument?  My response was broadly about analytics and the only thing I said on 3s vs. 2s was I hate long 2s. And I don't know what that has to do at all with your consistent insults at people you don't agree with on the topic.  Why am I incentivized to have a further dialogue when you categorize everyone who looks at analytics as little stat keepers who's daddy gave them a gig?  I dare you to come up with one example of a NBA GM who is analytics focused that is related to an NBA owner. 

2.You completely misunderstood my Yurtseven and Blair examples.  I was simply trying to highlight the math and thought process.  I didn't say one was better than the other, I intentionally made them worth the same 1 point.  I wasn't suggesting a team should take 3 threes and 2 twos...that was just so the math equaled 1 point per possession in both scenarios. I even defended Yurtseven being in positions for offensive rebounds as that being super valuable instead of him standing at the 3 point line.

3.I'm trying to follow your example, but it's really difficult.  So you're saying that every time we take a 3, the other team is going to score?  Furthermore you're assuming they're layups.  Every three leads to a fastbreak?  I'm not even sure what we're talking about.  There's actually some really cool articles discussing the NBA change in pursuing offensive rebounds but they probably have too much math so I'm not going to bother here.

Again, I'm not arguing all 3s are better than 2s.  Not all 3s and not all 2s are created equal.  NBA teams have done a very good job of creating open corner 3s, which have a high chance of going in.  The way they do that is by getting to the basket and threatening a layup.  That forces the defense to make a difficult decision between valuable shots.  I heard Nate Oats at Alabama use the term "paint 3s", which are 3s taken after a paint touch.  If the defense doesn't collapse, you gladly take the layup.

Have a good one

[tafkashfsee]

Jan 7, 2022 17:50:13 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

Jan 7, 2022 15:26:18 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

Thanks again for posting and having patience with me as I am just now being able to respond.  Not to make any excuses but I was too busy this morning to reply this morning like I said I would.

Okay first thing first, did you watch the video?  Okay I'm going to take it that you didn't watch the video because had you watch the video, you would have found out that I'm not the only one who feels that the stat keepers or that fancy word you use "analytics" are a bunch of crock!  Go and watch the video and listen to what Isiah Thomas said about these little "group of individuals who haven't been schooled about the game of basketball". These are your little stat keepers who graduated from Harvard, Yale, hell even Georgetown with their little statistics degree who don't know anything about basketball but their daddies who are GMs gave them an opportunity to be a part of the NBA by convincing owners that this would be a great addition to the organization. 

The owners they've convinced the coaches of the PER, the Usage Rates, the Pi over P-Square and all this other foolishness.  Now in that example you use where Yurt makes one in lane basket and misses one while Blair makes one three point shot and misses two, I am going to explain where that strategy is faulty.  In your example the total amount of points is 5 points.  Okay, that might sound good except what about the rebound of the ball off the two misses of Blair?  Chances are the ball comes careening off the rim and one of the opposing guards gets it and starts a fast break and most likely the other team scores off the misses. 

Now as you pointed out each team has five possessions.  So chances are because Blair missed two shots, the other team is most likely going to score at least three out five possession and if they are layups that would mean the score would be at least 6 points to 5 and it could be as high as 8 to 5 depending upon if the other team is efficient with their other three possessions (meaning getting easy two point buckets).  You do that enough times and before you know it, your Georgetown is getting blown out the game.  

They say that men lie, women lie but numbers don't lie and I am here to tell you that, that's a damn lie.  I will talk about how numbers lie with my next post.

Yup, I regret engaging.  Will probably stop it after here because it's really difficult to engage when you're countering arguments I'm not even making.

1. yes I watched the video...actually I think that video is an excerpt of a much longer ESPN discussion regarding the "Death of the big man".  I also never said you were the only one who dismisses analytics, Isiah Thomas also failed miserably as an executive so maybe not the best argument?  My response was broadly about analytics and the only thing I said on 3s vs. 2s was I hate long 2s. And I don't know what that has to do at all with your consistent insults at people you don't agree with on the topic.  Why am I incentivized to have a further dialogue when you categorize everyone who looks at analytics as little stat keepers who's daddy gave them a gig?  I dare you to come up with one example of a NBA GM who is analytics focused that is related to an NBA owner. 

2.You completely misunderstood my Yurtseven and Blair examples.  I was simply trying to highlight the math and thought process.  I didn't say one was better than the other, I intentionally made them worth the same 1 point.  I wasn't suggesting a team should take 3 threes and 2 twos...that was just so the math equaled 1 point per possession in both scenarios. I even defended Yurtseven being in positions for offensive rebounds as that being super valuable instead of him standing at the 3 point line.

3.I'm trying to follow your example, but it's really difficult.  So you're saying that every time we take a 3, the other team is going to score?  Furthermore you're assuming they're layups.  Every three leads to a fastbreak?  I'm not even sure what we're talking about.  There's actually some really cool articles discussing the NBA change in pursuing offensive rebounds but they probably have too much math so I'm not going to bother here.

Again, I'm not arguing all 3s are better than 2s.  Not all 3s and not all 2s are created equal.  NBA teams have done a very good job of creating open corner 3s, which have a high chance of going in.  The way they do that is by getting to the basket and threatening a layup.  That forces the defense to make a difficult decision between valuable shots.  I heard Nate Oats at Alabama use the term "paint 3s", which are 3s taken after a paint touch.  If the defense doesn't collapse, you gladly take the layup.

Have a good one

Even though we can be talking about a number of different things in this post and you chose to talk about analytics, I thought I was clear with my thesis.  My thesis statement was or is "This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game".  However, you spoke about analytics and so I tried to follow your logic. 

I don't know why you think I was insulting you just because I refer to the NBA analytics experts as " lil' stat book keepers".  How in the world does that effect you I don't even know and then you throw a shot at Isaiah because he doesn't like these stat keepers either.  The fact of the matter is they effed up the game because there is no longer any emotions involved, strategies as all you have to do is run to the line and wait for your team mate to penetrate the key to force the defense to break down so that he can pass the ball to you. 

This new way of playing basketball has made the game a game of checkers because there really any strategy to the game and it has taken the physicality out of the game, the big man out of the game and even taken out all the original positions out of the game.  How in the hell is this best for basketball?  It's predictable and boring and it has removed most all of the skillsets of a prototype basketball player from the game. 

Nowadays all you need to know how to do is shoot the ball (primarily a set shooter) to get a job in the NBA.  You're going to find out that the world is going to figure out that NBA basketball is boring and the game is going to go through another radical change.  That radical change is going to bring back real basketball at least the way James Naismith intended it to be. Well you made your point and all I can do is respect it.

[the_way]

Jan 7, 2022 16:34:58 GMT -5 hoyaatheart55 said:

I’ll chime in as a baseball guy (I like basketball but am admittedly not an X’s and O’s guy).

All of the best coaches in sports take data into account when making decisions. To say things like “stats and analytics are a bunch of crock” is so completely close minded.

People like to pit analytics vs. experience, gut feelings, and things like that but the truth is that anybody with an open mind should see you need both. Nobody is advocating to make decisions based off numbers 100% of the time. As stated in one of the above posts, big bad analytics are just information. To completely disregard analytics is to say you don’t want to be presented with new information.

Baseball is different, I would think. Analytics is more useful in baseball with choosing a starting lineup or a particular relief pitcher or pinch-hitter. Lefty vs righty, etc.

Information is key in anything. Doing your homework, scouting, etc.

The best coaches/managers make best use of information in their preparation. It could be from a heavy-dose of analytics or a smaller percentage (no pun). There are many ways to win, with varying approaches.

[EtomicB]

Jan 6, 2022 15:46:29 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game.  This thread was inspired by my guy Etomic who believes, at least I think he believes, that the way the game is played today with teams jacking up threes is better for the game and better for each individual player. 

I personally don't believe so and I think this new style of basketball with guys running to that stupid three point line and waiting for the ball while watching another guy try to break down the defense so that they can get the chance to shoot the three is hurting the game.  Again, this thread was inspired by Etomic but all are welcome and encouraged to join in and give your thoughts and debate if you will.

I know my guy Etomic is going to bring his stat books should he wish to contribute to this feed, and I know I can't defeat his little stat book but I am sure as hell going to try.

This is what having threats from the perimeter can get a team, it’s beautiful basketbal.

It’s not about 2 vs 3, it’s about getting as many good looks as possible in my view…

[prhoya]

Jan 10, 2022 22:49:11 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Jan 6, 2022 15:46:29 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game.  This thread was inspired by my guy Etomic who believes, at least I think he believes, that the way the game is played today with teams jacking up threes is better for the game and better for each individual player. 

I personally don't believe so and I think this new style of basketball with guys running to that stupid three point line and waiting for the ball while watching another guy try to break down the defense so that they can get the chance to shoot the three is hurting the game.  Again, this thread was inspired by Etomic but all are welcome and encouraged to join in and give your thoughts and debate if you will.

I know my guy Etomic is going to bring his stat books should he wish to contribute to this feed, and I know I can't defeat his little stat book but I am sure as hell going to try.

This is what having threats from the perimeter can get a team, it’s beautiful basketbal.

Wow! Looked like JT3’s FF team.

[tafkashfsee]

Jan 10, 2022 22:49:11 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

Jan 6, 2022 15:46:29 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

This thread is for debating the concept or philosophy of teams (particularly NBA teams) taking three point shots vs taking two point shots and the impact on the game.  This thread was inspired by my guy Etomic who believes, at least I think he believes, that the way the game is played today with teams jacking up threes is better for the game and better for each individual player. 

I personally don't believe so and I think this new style of basketball with guys running to that stupid three point line and waiting for the ball while watching another guy try to break down the defense so that they can get the chance to shoot the three is hurting the game.  Again, this thread was inspired by Etomic but all are welcome and encouraged to join in and give your thoughts and debate if you will.

I know my guy Etomic is going to bring his stat books should he wish to contribute to this feed, and I know I can't defeat his little stat book but I am sure as hell going to try.

This is what having threats from the perimeter can get a team, it’s beautiful basketbal.

It’s not about 2 vs 3, it’s about getting as many good looks as possible in my view…

Okay that actually looks good to me.  However, wouldn't that be a radical change in philosophy for Ewing since he runs a pro offense?  Or better yet, how can Ewing implement what looks a lot like Princeton offense basketball into what he is doing right now?

[rhw485]

Jan 11, 2022 0:16:10 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

Jan 10, 2022 22:49:11 GMT -5 EtomicB said:

This is what having threats from the perimeter can get a team, it’s beautiful basketbal.

It’s not about 2 vs 3, it’s about getting as many good looks as possible in my view…

Okay that actually looks good to me.  However, wouldn't that be a radical change in philosophy for Ewing since he runs a pro offense?  Or better yet, how can Ewing implement what looks a lot like Princeton offense basketball into what he is doing right now?

Not that Etomic set you up with a trap, but you can only run that type of offense if you have five threats to shoot the 3, as that lifts the defense to allow for backdoor cuts.  If we had Malcolm or Tim standing at the top of the key, their defender would be at the free throw line and there's no room for a backdoor cut etc.

I personally don't have a huge problem with our offensive system.  In theory the system is designed to get dribble penetration to the hoop and either get a layup / dump off to big or kick out for a 3.  People have so little faith in Ewing that they were legit worried in the preseason we were going to run the offense through Tim in the post because that's what we did with Yurt7 and Q.  That obviously hasn't happened and it really was insulting to suggest he would.  This board was fed up with the Princeton so to suddenly act like it's the savior we're missing seems disingenuous.

Now I do think there could be some work on helping the players understand what's a quality shot within a possession (and yes stats help inform that).  But to me the bigger issue is Aminu and Dante are the drivers but they're not threats from 3 off the dribble.  For Dante you're seeing more people play off, and he's then settling for jumpers.  For Aminu, he's just trying to bulldoze through the defender and the move takes so long that there's 3 guys waiting for him and he's struggling to find shooters when the D collapses (he had a nice find to Holloway in corner in last game but it's just not consistent). Carey showed flashes of being a facilitator but against better competition his driving ability hasn't held up.  And maybe that's a fair criticism in that the current system really does require a "Star" player like an NBA equivalent of Harden / Doncic etc and without those types of players you're better off with a more motion based system. 

But there's a reason Ewing is normally yelling move.  If you make quick decisions, attack closeouts, and really move the ball, you'll find cracks in the defense as its rotating.  That hasn't happened consistently with this squad.  

The defensive discussion is much more critical than the offensive one in my opinion.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Jan 11, 2022 8:29:18 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

Not that Etomic set you up with a trap, but you can only run that type of offense if you have five threats to shoot the 3, as that lifts the defense to allow for backdoor cuts.  If we had Malcolm or Tim standing at the top of the key, their defender would be at the free throw line and there's no room for a backdoor cut etc.

I personally don't have a huge problem with our offensive system.  In theory the system is designed to get dribble penetration to the hoop and either get a layup / dump off to big or kick out for a 3.  People have so little faith in Ewing that they were legit worried in the preseason we were going to run the offense through Tim in the post because that's what we did with Yurt7 and Q.  That obviously hasn't happened and it really was insulting to suggest he would.  This board was fed up with the Princeton so to suddenly act like it's the savior we're missing seems disingenuous.

Now I do think there could be some work on helping the players understand what's a quality shot within a possession (and yes stats help inform that).  But to me the bigger issue is Aminu and Dante are the drivers but they're not threats from 3 off the dribble.  For Dante you're seeing more people play off, and he's then settling for jumpers.  For Aminu, he's just trying to bulldoze through the defender and the move takes so long that there's 3 guys waiting for him and he's struggling to find shooters when the D collapses (he had a nice find to Holloway in corner in last game but it's just not consistent). Carey showed flashes of being a facilitator but against better competition his driving ability hasn't held up.  And maybe that's a fair criticism in that the current system really does require a "Star" player like an NBA equivalent of Harden / Doncic etc and without those types of players you're better off with a more motion based system. 

But there's a reason Ewing is normally yelling move.  If you make quick decisions, attack closeouts, and really move the ball, you'll find cracks in the defense as its rotating.  That hasn't happened consistently with this squad.  

The defensive discussion is much more critical than the offensive one in my opinion.

Good post. To me, the biggest weakness on offense is shot selection. Our guys often settle for long twos (Harris is a big offender on that one) or other poor shots without working to get a better one. But, ultimately, I agree with you that defense is much more critical. If Ewing ends up not being successful enough to continue, it will be rooted in defense (and roster retention), not offense.

[EtomicB]

Jan 11, 2022 8:29:18 GMT -5 rhw485 said:

Jan 11, 2022 0:16:10 GMT -5 tafkashfsee said:

Okay that actually looks good to me.  However, wouldn't that be a radical change in philosophy for Ewing since he runs a pro offense?  Or better yet, how can Ewing implement what looks a lot like Princeton offense basketball into what he is doing right now?

Not that Etomic set you up with a trap, but you can only run that type of offense if you have five threats to shoot the 3, as that lifts the defense to allow for backdoor cuts.  If we had Malcolm or Tim standing at the top of the key, their defender would be at the free throw line and there's no room for a backdoor cut etc.

I personally don't have a huge problem with our offensive system.  In theory the system is designed to get dribble penetration to the hoop and either get a layup / dump off to big or kick out for a 3.  People have so little faith in Ewing that they were legit worried in the preseason we were going to run the offense through Tim in the post because that's what we did with Yurt7 and Q.  That obviously hasn't happened and it really was insulting to suggest he would.  This board was fed up with the Princeton so to suddenly act like it's the savior we're missing seems disingenuous.

Now I do think there could be some work on helping the players understand what's a quality shot within a possession (and yes stats help inform that).  But to me the bigger issue is Aminu and Dante are the drivers but they're not threats from 3 off the dribble.  For Dante you're seeing more people play off, and he's then settling for jumpers.  For Aminu, he's just trying to bulldoze through the defender and the move takes so long that there's 3 guys waiting for him and he's struggling to find shooters when the D collapses (he had a nice find to Holloway in corner in last game but it's just not consistent). Carey showed flashes of being a facilitator but against better competition his driving ability hasn't held up.  And maybe that's a fair criticism in that the current system really does require a "Star" player like an NBA equivalent of Harden / Doncic etc and without those types of players you're better off with a more motion based system. 

But there's a reason Ewing is normally yelling move.  If you make quick decisions, attack closeouts, and really move the ball, you'll find cracks in the defense as its rotating.  That hasn't happened consistently with this squad.  

The defensive discussion is much more critical than the offensive one in my opinion.

Wasn't trying to trap anyone, just pointing out how perimeter threats can open up an offense.

I was never down on the PO, I was down on JT3 insisting on playing/recruiting players who weren't suited for it.

I also believe the folks who were down on it were so because it "didn't value or prepare guards for the NBA" which at the time was very PnR heavy.

I agree that the O isn't a big problem except in transition where they are terrible & terribly selfish but I do think its harder to run with this talent level