Quick Thought on 3 Pt Shooting

[SFHoya99]

There's a been a comment thrown out expressing some dislike of the fact that the team is taking so many threes. We're taking a huge number of threes for a GU team -- I assume we'll break the GU record, whatever it is (or at least as % of total FGs). And we're simply not getting to the line as a consequence.

But is that a bad thing? I've always hated the Duke/mid-major style of play. It's essentially to either get an easy shot or throw up a three. It's not the greatest offense to watch. But it is darn effective because it takes advantage of a ridiculously close three point line. If you are going to throw up a bad shot, it might as well be a three, because the reward is higher.

So I'm not sure what we're doing now is a bad thing. But is the team taking too many threes?

I assumed that all the FTs we've taken have been on two-point attempts (I know Wallace got fouled on a 3, but can't remember any others). Then, living up to my title, I calculated the Points Per Shot (PPS) for 3 pointers and 2 pointers taken, assuming .42 shots per FT. (I didn't adjust anything for turnovers or offensive rebounds, assuming those have an equal chance of 3's and 2's).

If we're taking too many threes, you'd expect that the 2 pt PPS would be higher, and vice versa. If we're sitting at a nice balance, they'll be about equal.

PPS on 2 pointers: 1.15
PPS on 3 pointers: 1.14

That's pretty close. And that's including offensive putbacks in the 2 point section, which probably unfairly inflates the PPS on 2-pointers.

Of course, this doesn't mean as we get into the Princeton, that we shouldn't take less threes (since 2s should get easier). And it doesn't mean we can sustain the fantastic 38% we're shooting from three.

But it does mean that so far, we've taken about the right number of 3s relative to our success with 2s.

Considering that 33% from 3 is the rough equivalent to 50% from 2, Brandon, Ashanti, Wallace and DJ should have free reign. (BTW, Ashanti at 40% from 3 is pretty sick for a guy who was nowhere near that last year).

----

As an aside, we're actually shooting more FTs per 2 pt attempt this year than last. We're just taking many less shots and more 3s as a % of total shots.

[HoyaFanNY]

duke style of play? duke routinely makes more free throws than their opponents take. duke takes the ball to the basket and goes to the line just as much as they chuck 3's. in fact, we've attempted 41 more 3's than duke. you point out that wallace and cook shoot over 40% from 3, which is true, but they have the same % for total field goal attempts. cook is shooting 40.6% from the field and 40% from 3. wallace 44.4% from both the field and 3. 54% of cooks shots are 3 pt shots, while an amazing 71% of wallaces shot are 3's. we are a team that shoots 3's at an alarming rate and does not play defense or rebound. how is that a good thing?

[SaxaCD]

I think the bad rebounding isn't a positive, of course, but I have to agree with SF that I don't think we're necessarily taking too many 3s. That shot is ridiculously close in college, and if, as you point out, there are guys on the team whose percentages are the same from 2 and 3, shouldn't they be shooting the 3 as much or MORE than they are now, since they earn one more point for every made shot?

I think we'll get a much better balance once guys are comfortable with more of the actual plays, but one early advantage of JT3's offense is that even when nothing else is working, it frees shooters up for very open three pointers. In today's college game, that can give a team a real advantage, especially against teams with better talent.

As he gets his own recruits in, I expect GU to become even a BETTER outside shooting team, as I believe JT3 will put more of an emphasis on that facet of the game than his dad did. You're right about defense and rebounding, and I'd like to see us get a few bulky guys who can manage not to get pushed off the blocks for rebounds like our current guys do too often, but until then, I think the three point shot will be one of our most potent weapons (in small part because we've earned such a reputation as a terrible shooting team over the years, and some teams still don't play us honestly out to that range).

[nodak89]

Using SF's calculations, here's a little comparison to last year's cumulative data.

3pt: 152/440 = .345
456 pt/ 440 attempts = 1.036 pts per attempt

2 pt: 509/1173 = .434
plus 573 FT's which would net additional 240 shots yielding 409 more points (409/573 FT)

"total" estimated 2 pt shooting: 1427 pts/509+240= 1.010 pts per shot

Both of this year's numbers to date are better than the cumulative morass that was last year.


What's this? They are huge grains of salt. Take 2 and call me Thursday morning.

And the odd thing is, that although the Hoyas of last season were not to be confused with a great 3 pt shooting team, they were still slightly more efficient from a points per shot standpoint last year from 3 than from 2.

[1803]

The key to three point shooting in college, is as same as the key to two point shooting, and that of course is getting an open look.

If you get Ashanti Cook or Bowman open from the top of the key, or the wing beyond the arc, that is a good shot, and one we should take.

If you have Hibbert double teamed in the corner and he chucks it, then that is a bad shot.

I don't really care how many threes we take, as long as they are in the flow of the offense, and are coming from the guys who have a chance to knock it down. The proliferation of the three is a fact of life in college basketball, and we are making the best of it.

Here is a question I will throw out, when was the last time that a team won the National Championship, or made the Final Four without being able to get it done from long distance?

[JimmyHoya]

Whaddya mean? Maryland, for example, didn't have a great deal of shooters, but htey got it done with Dixon hitting key shots.

Same with Michigan St. Cleaves was more of a driving and dishing threat than a hsooter himself, and Mo Pete would go for the dunk 9 times out of 10 if he had that or a 3 available.

10 years ago Arkansas was all about "40 Minutes of Hell", yet they won on a 3 by Scotty Thurman. I don't remember him or their other PG being necessarily huge outside threats, rather (and this is what all the Championship teams have in common really) players who can step up and make big shots, no matter where they come from.

Duke, Arizona, the Kentucky teams, UConn, Syracuse, etc. all had great shooters....

UCLA had meh'ish shooters...Tyus Edney was out, and his sub stepped it up and hit 4 3's or something I think I remember....

[Fan Of The Game]

I'm not sure what the definition of "getting it done" is, but Marquette was the only Final Four team from 2003 that consistently made their 3 pointers. Texas and Syracuse were fair and Kansas was on the low side. That Kansas team finished the season ranked #221 in Division 1-A 3pt percentage for 2002-2003 with 33.5%.

[SFHoya99]

HoyaFanNY said:

duke style of play? duke routinely makes more free throws than their opponents take. duke takes the ball to the basket and goes to the line just as much as they chuck 3's. in fact, we've attempted 41 more 3's than duke. you point out that wallace and cook shoot over 40% from 3, which is true, but they have the same % for total field goal attempts. cook is shooting 40.6% from the field and 40% from 3. wallace 44.4% from both the field and 3. 54% of cooks shots are 3 pt shots, while an amazing 71% of wallaces shot are 3's. we are a team that shoots 3's at an alarming rate and does not play defense or rebound. how is that a good thing?

I'm not sure how our defense and rebounding are in any way related to 3s.

Saxa made my point best: if Cook and Wallace shoot the same from 2 and 3, why not take the 3?

[Cambridge]

Can't argue with that logic.

[YB]

If it's in the flow of the offense and not just jacking up tough 3s, then they are fine. We will need to shoot well from 3 to break 2-3 zones like the one Pitt promises to play against us.

In a sense, our defense and 3pt shooting sets up the Princeton offense and backdoor cuts. That's why I don't mind them.

[jerseyhoya34]

SF, I think you are probably right here. Let's remember that we don't even have the world's best shooters right now. Bowman is inconsistent from deep, and Cook can be pretty streaky. Owens and Wallace seem to be the guys who are more reliable from deep, discounting for the fact that Owens disappears from time to time. Once we are able to bring in Thornton et al., I think our shooting ability will be dramatically improved, which should tip your stats in the favor of the three point shooting even further.

[HoyaFanNY]

and i don't get how you compare us to duke or a mid major? rebounding and defense are related becuase if you defend and rebound it creates fast break opportunites. layups on fast breaks are much higher % than the chucking of 3 point shots you advocate. your stats are like pam anderson with hep C, nice to look at but otherwise useless.

[SFHoya99]

HoyaFanNY said:

and i don't get how you compare us to duke or a mid major? rebounding and defense are related becuase if you defend and rebound it creates fast break opportunites. layups on fast breaks are much higher % than the chucking of 3 point shots you advocate. your stats are like pam anderson with hep C, nice to look at but otherwise useless.

That's a decent about the fast breaking, but it's a little hard to break out. Many of our fast breaks this year have ended in 3 point shots.

I'm not advocating "chucking" three pointers. A 19 ft three pointer is NOT a bad shot.

I'm not advocating that we don't get fast break points. Nor am I advocating abadnoning shooting 2s. I just like this offense.

We work the offense for an easy shot. Whether that's a three or two, it doesn't matter. Wide open threes are good shots.

When the shot clock wears down and we don't have a good shot, you might as well jack up a three, because the reqard is greater. An 18 ft shot is the worst shot in basketball.

We're taking what the defense gives us, and that's a GOOD thing. People are still stuck in the days when we had Mike Sweetney or when we couldn't hit an outside shot to save our lives.

As for Duke and the mid-majors, I think it is pretty simple. Mid-majors have used threes for years as the great equalizer against teams that have more size and talent. The shot is too easy in college. We are a team without a lot of size, and at a definite natural talent disadvantage to many of our Big East brethren. But this year, we're 2nd or 3rd in the BE in 3 PT %. That's an advantage we can you to counteract the size and talent advantage other teams have -- just like Princeton does year in and out.

As for Duke, their offense is not similar to ours, except in this. GU now works screens and picks and cuts for a good shot, and if we don't get one, we jack a three. Duke's strategy is to dribble drive and dish (which we would do if we had a penetrator -- see Will Venable at Princeton), but when they get in trouble, it's Trajan Langdon or Jason Williams or JJ Redick or Daniel Ewing with a long three.

Wallace and Ashanti are filling that role this year, and I expect Josh Thornton to join them next year. Making sure you have a bail out college shooter is a successful strategy in college ball.

[SaxaCD]

I'd like to see a lot more, but i think we've actually finished more breaks this year than the last 2 years combined, when I can hardly remember any.

[EasyEd]

Look at how the Europeans used the three to beat our Olympic team or keep the score tight.

[HoyaFanNY]

sf, i like the idea of using ball movement to create open looks, 2's or 3's. my point is i'd like to see someone, anyone, take the ball to the basket every once in a while.

listen, i was amazed as anyone when i saw the team for the first time this year and improvement in ball movement on offense compared to the fire drill that esh preached. i like wallace and cook, but i'd just like to see more penetration in the paint to create open shots from 3 or for layups.

[YB]

No one just stands around for a fire drill.

I think that you are right in that you want to have a well-rounded team: pass, shoot, post, and drive. But our personnel right now don't lend itself very well that way.

BB gets called for offensive fouls 1/2 the time he drives. Cook drives well but doesn't do it often. Wallace isn't quite quick enough.

So, we make do with the folks we've got.

[SFHoya99]

HoyaFanNY said:

sf, i like the idea of using ball movement to create open looks, 2's or 3's. my point is i'd like to see someone, anyone, take the ball to the basket every once in a while.

listen, i was amazed as anyone when i saw the team for the first time this year and improvement in ball movement on offense compared to the fire drill that esh preached. i like wallace and cook, but i'd just like to see more penetration in the paint to create open shots from 3 or for layups.

Oh, I agree with you. We're lacking a real penetrator, no doubt. And to be a well-rounded offense, we need more than one.

But, I do think that the offense is still working pretty well. And I think that people get frustrated at the 3s without realizing that you don't need to hit 50% for it to be a good shot.

My opinion is that the 19 ft 3 point shot is too easy of a shot to be worth 3 points. With good shooters -- and Wallace/Ashanti/DJ are qualifying this year (and Brandon as well), it's a shot that should be taken a lot.

On the other hand, it is inconsistent. When we're contending for a BE Title, that will be an issue. For now, I don't really mind living and dying by the three.

At least until we go cold.

[HoyaFanNY]

i like the 3's also, as long as they come in the flow of the offense and off open looks. what i don't like is the 3 taken in desperation with the shot clock at 1, but i guess it's all part of the process. i agree we need true point to penetrate and a banger inside.

[SaxaCD]

You're not the only one. The coaches yell for guys to move, cut, dribble and drive all the time, but right now the players seem to be hesitating, either because they aren't sold on their own driving ability, or because they just don't know when they should do it. I like the guys we're bringing in, because they seem to be versatile guys who can score a few different ways. I read in some game recap that even Thornton is showing new wrinkles with more drives to the hoop, so I do think the staff understands the value of that kind of play.