NBA coaches and GMs have literally hundreds of thousands of pages of research backing up their strategies, you have a hunch.

You also seem confused about what analytics is. It's literally just 'having evidence for things instead of going by gut feel'. It's not a specific strategic implementation of that data, it's just the data.

As for the rise in threes, the discovery isn't just that 3 is more than 2, it's that 3 is more than 2 by enough to offset the lower shooting percentage. Back in the day, sure 3 is more than 2 but you're going to hit a 15-foot jumper at a higher percentage than a 3-point shot. The difference is now we've done the math and know that in the long run, the lower-percentage shot is still going to score more points.

As a former nbl centre I know used to say, they get three points out there easy while only two points where all the hard work is done.

Well said, kr.

And I'd add that defences are so good these days that it’s becoming just too hard to get good 2-pointers (which aren’t layups or dunks) whereas spacing means it’s still easier to take 3-pointers.

From what I’ve read, the shooting % between 2 and 3 pointers is becoming close enough to justify taking a 3 rather than a 2 whenever a team does have a shot.

It's probably easier to get a 3 pointer with a 33% chance of success than a 2 pointer with a 50% chance of success

Ideally however you have a well balanced team with complementary skillsets such that you can space the floor and seek opportunities for both high percentages threes and high percentage twos

I would assume it's slightly easier to get an O board off a missed 3. Perhaps only fractionally but you'd think with the ball likely to bounce fractionally further from the hoop, the defensive rebounder bring close to the basket has less advantage

I think we are talking past each other.
I am not doubting the maths.
Maths is objective.
My issue is, the math does not translate to people.
Players have all different skill sets, not everyone is Curry and Thompson. They can practice all they want, but they will never be as good as them.

As i said, my gripe is, why are teams who do not have strong 3 point shooters just keep on jacking up 3s?

Why not take advantage of the skill set of your team?

Its just become copy cat.

This thread kind of reads like you came up with a conclusion and want people to validate it. Feels kind of off?

Might be worth considering that there's a bit of an illusion/sleight of hand.

It’s not "don’t take threes vs twos as they are harder" it’s really “don’t take a bad shot” and “don’t take a bad shot again and again and again”.

But if you’re a weaker NBA side, you’ll be crap anywhere in comparison. That’s the benefit of being crap!

In that perspective when you consider all shots and the way NBA is so open, driving the ball or going for a mid ranger against super athletic 7fters isn’t necessarily “easier” than a wide open three that they get ad-nauseum.

What’s the analytics of a contested midrange shot vs a contested three? Probably not all that different?

I don’t think “shoot less threes and go closer to the basket” would necessarily deliver better returns. Probably wouldn’t shift the ticker.

Working on the perimeter gives teams spacing, makes the defence work and allows players more space for their shot whilst giving them a consistent spot against the line to shoot and use muscle memory. There’s multiple benefits there including increasing the space instead by drawing the defence out.

If they don’t do that, it probably decreases their scoring inside because opposition will be able to focus in on clogging and contesting those shots.

So, move away from the three and perhaps your “higher percentage shots” become lower percentage?

You talk corner threes being closer - but they’re a tougher shot, it’s really more about spacing. You talk about history vs now, but there’s more space than ever and players (of all sizes!) are better at shooting then ever. Game style has changed as well.

You’ve talked analytics in a super simple way but haven’t fleshed out value of game style and shot selected and how it alters other shot percentages throughout the game. The value of a shot in the first Q is different to later on as the style changes, fatigue sets in and you deliver strategic wins (ie. causing foul trouble or forcing a player to the bench or forcing mismatches or forcing a change in game style to compete that’s unnatural).

You haven’t really considered how those things are valued or the concept of loss-leading and sunken costs apply in a basketball sense.

Because a team is inferior at the three doesn’t mean they’re necessarily going to be superior somewhere else. Maybe they’re just less talented and tanking for victor!

Lets look at say the 2000s.

You had teams like the Warriors, Suns, Mavericks and Sac Kings who would play very fast, shoot 3s, score plenty etc.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, you had the Pistons, Spurs, Pacers etc who would be the opposite, play very slow, use the clock, pound the ball inside the post and put a real emphasis on defense.

These teams had varying levels of success because they played the style that suited the skillset of there teams.

Sure there are some teams that suck, but they would be more successful if they adopted an approach that suited there skillset than if they just kept on doing something they were not that good in.

But the Spurs became a 3pt shooting team in order to compete plus because players coming in post 000s have substantially different skill set and style over pre 000s.

It was a specific change by Pop and delivered their final championship.

What teams do you believe should shoot less threes and tell us why those teams are structured such that they should? And what would be your proposition of dealing with the athletic 7fters that exist these days?

Yes, I'm sure you know more about how to play basketball based on your own hunches than people who research this for a living and have reams of data backing up their decisions.

There used to be a saying that defence wins games, these days its three point shooting wins games.

If you're not a good three point shooting side, you can maximise whatever other strategy you like whilst aiming for a high lottery pick.

There are some game styles that just won’t win, and if your team isn’t good at shooting threes, then you are well and truly screwed in the NBA.

That’s why teams shoot excessively from the arc, because it’s the only way to win.

Plus personalities. Lots of personalities. But you need those personalities to win. That’s why they have personality.

Surely they need to change their username to Don'tJacket

I don't think this OP understands what analytics actually is if they think teams just copycat just because.
They’d have the data the backs up that their style gives them the best chance of winning.

That’s the beautiful thing about data, you can’t deny the numbers.
Even some high level junior teams are starting to think about this stuff.

Good discussion topic, Jacket, even if we don't all agree with your thoughts.

If I interpret your original comments correctly, you’re asking why teams don’t focus on the analytics which suit their team, rather than those across the board or which might suit other teams. Perhaps they do. Perhaps their risk x reward calculations tell them that they’ll get more points in the long run by shooting easier 3s at an average % than harder 2s at a slightly higher %. (And that’s just one example amongst hundreds considered these days.) Perhaps they’re forced into poor strategies because they see no better ones for their team.

Did you ever read "The Book of Basketball" by Bill Simmons? He was analysing teams and players before Moneyball even came along.

"Did you ever read "The Book of Basketball" by Bill Simmons? He was analysing teams and players before Moneyball even came along."

Do you mean this as in Simmons' book came out before Moneyball? Because it didn't. If you mean it in the sense that Simmons was giving insightful analysis before analytics were being used in basketball, then I think you're a) giving Simmons a lot more credit than he deserves (he's not the sporting savant he thinks he is), and b) completely ignoring pretty much everything that teams do off the court...

---

Jacket, you mention that different teams have different skillsets which don't get used. In the NBA we've had Milwaukee win a title recently led by a player who isn't a good three point shooter; Phoenix rely on Chris Paul taking shots off the dribble from the elbow and have Ayton who doesn't shoot threes; teams like Denver and Philly succeed in large part due to having big men who can score from all over the floor, the post included (and Philly were probably an unlucky bounce away from the Finals a few years ago with Ben Simmons on their team).

So obviously teams still utilise their players skillsets, it's just that the last decade or so has seen the mid range game largely disappear, because teams have figured out that long twos from their forwards being made at 40% are not as good a looks as threes from players who can shoot at roughly 35%. This has then led to the development of more players who are good shooters, meaning that their skills can be best utilised by shooting more threes...

The teams that suck and shoot too many threes would still suck if they shot too many long twos and threw it down to players who had limited post moves. It's just now there's an easily identifiable thing you can complain about.

"1.They will say, 3 points are worth more than 2. Well, no $hit it is. The people who are selling this are acting as if this is some mathematical discovery that was not known before.

Did people in basketball 20 years ago not know that 3 points was worth more than 2 points? Were they all mathematically illiterate back then?"


That's not the entirety of the premise.

The premise is

A) If you have 100 possessions, if you shoot all of them from 3, and shoot 35%, you'll get 105 points.

B) If you have 100 shots and shoot all of them from 2, and shoot 49%, you'll get 98 points.

Th analytics part not only reinforces why you would pick option A), but also pay attention to fluctutations.

You can have games where you shoot 25% from 3, and you'll get blown out. However if you understand this is an anomaly, and revert to 35%(or more) over many games.. such as 82 games .. you will tend to have a winning season.

This aspect has to do more with a season, and to stop having you change your tactics after a bad game.


"2. The corner 3. Analytics have made coaches and players absolutely obsessed with the corner 3. This is because it is the closes shot for 3 points.
I mean, was this only just discovered? Did players and coaches not know this 20 years ago? When they were on the court, did they not know this?
Could they not tell that the top of the arc was further away from the basket than the corner"

No, the 2 corners will virtually always be occupied for spacing reasons.

So it's a case of this is always an option. Motion will see 3 or 4 players players move around the post, elbows and wings... but you will then see someone once again move into a vacant corner.

Previously we would have a dish out the the corner as an outlet, hoping for a baseline drive or a mid range 2....

The above analytics have now just changed this shot to a corner 3.

Twenty four

Moneyball came out in 2011 (IMDB), my edition of The Book of Basketball is dated 2010 and wasn't the first edition.

Your comments on Bill Simmons - let’s agree to disagree

Your other comments I’ll agree with

You're thinking the movie that’s based on a 2003 book

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

Agree with McBlurter.

Reality is we are talking about how the NBA is officiated + players with skills that grew up using the 3pt line, and now you're talking a game style requiring good perimeter shooting if you want to succeed.

If you’re styling your team in a different way, you’re really just making a losing style and throwing the white flag in.

I completely get with the NBA it almost becomes a boring pisstake with players chucking up triples like no tomorrow, along with the anger inducing iso plays and stars standing dribbling out the clock.

How do you fix it? Do all the things that the NBA will never ever do.

Thanks, KET. I stand corrected.

There's a paragraph in Simmons's book where he admits to placing someone lower on his hall of fame list because a different player made a lucky shot in a game once.

We are also in an era where we track Points per Shot "PPS", Points per Possession "PPP" and even Points per Location "PPL". For most basketballers you can look up online how much they score PPS, from any Location PPL and work out their output PPP when shooting.

We know over a large sample size that you want to get more PPP + PPS and based on PPL the 3 creates this in spades.

It's not 20 years ago they didn't understand 3 is less than 2 it's just the idea wasn't measurable and now it is and it has been proven.
It's not even 3s, FTs are factored in. It has been proven that a Post up leads to fewer foul calls than a player driving from the 3 pt line. This is because Offence usually starts the "Physical play" leading to the refs letting more go.
So if I post up 50 times, my post player could potentially get fouled 40 times and it not be called. Meanwhile, if I space 5 guys around the 3-point line and drive for 50 possessions I'm more likely to get a foul call leading to fts.
and if you aren't a threat to score a 3 then the D can stand and wait for your drive to take a charge.

SO you need to shoot 3s to increase your potential output, which also causes less likelihood of help D because if they space you make 3s, so therefore when you drive the key will be open and not with a 2 big guys standing there. which then means help D has to move to beat the driving player to the ball, increasing the likelihood of Fts. so 5 out with 5 shooters = higher output of points, less chance of good help D, increased rate of Fts.

There are more mathematical/tactical layers to this than just "I shoot 3, you shoot 3, we all shoot 3"