If you're left wide open then a good shooter should be able to shoot at least 50%. With a bit of D that might drop back to 35%

Foreman is, for my money, the greatest spot-up 3pt shooter in the history of the league.

My view:

Less than 32% is a poor three point shooter - should not be putting up too many shots, but may need to put them up occasionally to keep defences honest. That said, defences may be happy to gamble/sag off the player.

33% to 37% is an acceptable/average clip. Not a game breaker, but keeping the scoring going. Often volume shooters fall in this category.

38% to 42% is good shooting, a really dangerous outside threat, requires close guarding and you don't leave them open.

43% and above is elite shooting, especially across a career. You can bet those guys have also had defensive strategies put in place to make sure there is always a hand up for their shots.

Then you have to factor in the difficulty of the shot. A catch and shoot 3pt shooter has a far lower difficulty than Stephen Curry dribble step back fade away over a 7 footer. So you still need to compare apples with apples.

Hitting a 3pt shot at 33% is roughly equivalent to 50% from inside the arc, but creates twice as many rebound opportunities and less prospect of an And-1. Additional rebounds create more opportunities for fast break transitions as defensive teams don't have to fish the ball out of the bottom of the net. But that also needs to be weighed up against additional offensive rebounds and second chance points.

So if say that for a good inside target who plays in the paint you want them to be shooting 55%+ (preferably 60% plus), you really want a designated 3pt shooter to be putting up percentages of at least 38%+ (preferably 40%+)

Beal - he is a volume shooter, and takes his shots under constant defensive pressure. His percentages aren't amazing, but he hurts you with his game in so many other ways.

3 point shooting has to be considered in context of a player's overall game. If player A shoots 45% from 3 but only takes 2 shots per game when he’s wide open, that isn’t half as impressive as say, Player B who puts up 10 shots a game but manages to hit 35%. Player B stretches the defence more, for one thing.

Also, a guy who can shoot off the dribble OR spot up (Players in the mould of Goulding, Beal, Holt) is, for my money a more dangerous overall "shooter" than someone who mostly just catches and shoots but doesn’t have as much ability to create their own 3 point shot (Players in the mould of Barlow, Forman, Kickert), but my point is we need to compare apples and oranges. From an overall team perspective you’d want both types of players. I like the balance that United has right now, with Goulding and Holt liable to pop one at any minute, and Kickert just waiting in the shadows for an open look. And of course, it depends on the percentages too- Forman is pure catch and shoot, but he’s consistently hit 40% + over many years and puts up a lot of shots.

Having said all that, 28-30% is probably what I consider a minimum benchmark. If you can’t hit very close to 30% of your 3’s then you obviously should start shooting less of them, and only taking better looks than you’ve been getting.

Anyone who shoots over 40%- especially if they put up 3+ 3’s a game is a heads up shooter that I want on my team.

It’s great that we have so many good 3 point shooters in the league this season, and we’ve already been treated to some elite individual shooting performances. I expect both Illawarra and Melbourne will come close to the record of 22 3 pointers at some point this season.

apples and apples* I meant!

Having said all that, 28-30% is probably what I consider a minimum benchmark.

Kickert's actually at 47%, after shooting 51% last season. I'm very happy with that, thanks :-)

And don't worry about Goulding, no way he'll still be under 30% at season's end!

LV, their stats must have not updated.

Anon, not saying they won't be, just saying that I've read enough of LV over the years to know that 28% is a specific enough number that he's probably chosen it for a reason!

That's hilarious, you thought I was saying 28% cos Goulding Kickert were a touch over.

I love your work Isaac!

Honestly though, do keep up, I'm not half as parochial as I used to be. I've tried to like United but they're a bit bland for my liking. The history is gone. I don't mind if they win this season; well, ok, I'd like them to win but the main reasons are 1. Because I've bet some $$$ on them. 2. Because I dislike Perth and Sydney and I don't want to see them win. And 3. Because it is always more fun to go along to a game and be a part of the energy when the home team is winning.

But no, I don't bleed United blue like I bled Tigers red.... no chance. Kestleman is Jekyl and Hyde to me. Hyde is doing great work with the NBL, Jekyll killed the Tigers.

OOps- got that the wrong way around. I always thought Jekyll was the evil one! You get my drift though.

Plus, 28% (over an appropriate sample size of course) is way too low for a credible three point shooter. Better off banging down low to a 42% shooting big man (

That was the one criticism of Anstey's game, in his later years his three point shooting was well below par (25% in 2009 from 160 attempts) when he should have been getting inside more where he was still shooting a great percentage. That said, before 2009 Anstey was shooting at well more than 28%!

Last season United had the highest percentage at 37% and Hawks were last with 33%. Judging by that, anything above 35% is good.

Forman is IMO the best 3 point shooter the league has ever seen..perhaps maybe tied with Penney (funny that both of them now play on the same team..+ Lisch!)

Here's Formans' last 6 3-point shooting seasons - remembering he takes a helluva lot.

52%
40%
46.5%
47.6%
52.1%
41.6%

Crazy stats really. Especially considering 1) he takes a lot of contested ones/really difficult ones 2) he is heavily scouted so rarely given free space and time

The weighted comparison between taking a three point shot and a two point shot (ignoring And-1s and rebounds) is as follows:

3pt 2pt
28% 42%
30% 45%
32% 48%
33.3% 50% - 1 point per possession pass mark
35% 52.5%
38% 57%
40% 60%
45% 67.5%
50% 75%

If you expect at least 50% shooting from a bigman in the key, no reason to expect less than 33% from a 3pt shooter.

Yup, which is why in the NBA world especially, 33.3% is really the golden number as far as what is considered an average 3pt shooter vs a bad/good 3pt shooter.

The evidence suggests a team of high percentage high volume shooters is the way to go these days (see Golden State Warriors)

Anon, who are you arguing against in saying that a team needs a mix of scorers, defenders, etc? No one's arguing for volume shooters, or saying that one elite shooter will win championships.

Iguodala was key because he's a team player, who defends, and can contribute in a number of ways. But he didn't win a championship before hooking up with a good coach, elite shooters, other great defenders (Green, Bogut), etc.

Anon, I would say United and Hawks are 'the NBL's version' of GSW this year. Will be interesting to see how they go.

United especially. Multiple guys who can shoot off the dribble (Holt/Goulding) and a bunch of others who can spot up (Kickert/Blanchfield).

Really difficult to focus on Goulding as you normally would, because it creates so many looks for Kickert in particular.

Points: 8,941 (17.0 pg)
Free Throws: 1,499 / 1,764 (85.0%)
Field Goals: 3,140 / 7,072 (44.4%)
3 Points: 1,162 / 2,835 (41.0%)
Rebounds: 2,313 (1,593 def, 720 off - 4.3 pg)
Steals: 703 (1.3 pg)
Assists: 2,267 (4.3 pg)

not bad...

anyone guess or know whose stats these are? (i do know)

44% and 41% in an NBL career is pretty impressive!

I'd guess Brett Maher? Points, rebounds, assists sound about right. And he was a good FT shooter.

correct isaac

trying to find gaze and heal for comparison of other known 3 point shooters of the same era...

Haha someone really trying to troll the best spot up 3 point shooter potentially of all time over how any titles he won.... c'mon now.

Beal - he is a volume shooter, and takes his shots under constant defensive pressure. His percentages aren't amazing, but he hurts you with his game in so many other ways.

Anon, and three point shooters clear space for players to work inside. You may have noticed, it's a team game. Playmakers, defenders, interior players, shooters, etc.

Still, the reigning NBA champs benched their centre when everything was on the line and gunned away. The trends point towards an increase in three point shooting. Coaches who deny it cop ridicule in the NBA.


Al Jefferson just made a comment about big men needing shooters around them:

"I think people don't realize, 3-point shooting is what makes me who I am. Last year, we didn't have that. That's why guys were able to sit down on me. Now we have guys who can spread the floor and make shots. You double me, bang — we've got an open shot."

#487 above. The 3 pointer has turned the game away from a game that was completely focused on size. Now smaller players can damage oppositions by shooting 3's and spreading the floor.
You no longer have to be freakishly tall. Basketball has changed and all teams now need legitimate 3 point shooters. There is now a spot for exceptional shooters on teams whereas previously they would have been overlooked and considered too small.
The three point line (and the current extra emphasis on it) has turned into the great equaliser. Basketball is no longer a game about being massively tall - If you want to work hard and develop your shooting to an elite level - then there is now oppurtunity for you. Superior three point shooters are now just as important big guys.

Anon #556619, you misunderstand what the 50/40/90 club is. That is a player who has to hit those percentages in all categories. It has only been achieved by six players in the NBA all of whom could play inside and outside.

50% is not the benchmark for elite 2 point shooting, and therefore is not a comparison to 40% three point shooting.

Comparable elite 2 point shooting would be 60% plus. For example, Shaq achieved this in a season 4 times.

What about a 7'9" guy with athleticism, defensive strength, shot-blocking ability, ability to shoot the three, great post game and the ladies love him? That'd beat the short guy who only shoots the three too.

2 posts above - you are both 100% correct - your only problem is that there are just not that many of them around. Tell me - how many Kevin Durants are there?
Your problem is very simple - there are just not that many big guys who can shoot at an acceptable 3 point %. Maybe you can dream them up on XBOX!!!

Who said that 30% three point shooting was elite. Have you even read any part of this thread?

By the way, out of the 492 players in the NBA last year, only 21 players averaging at least one three a game shot 40% or better from beyond the arc. Does that mean every other player in the NBA should not be shooting from outside the three point line?

You said: "Take better shots if you aren't hitting 40%. 4 of 10. If you're getting paid to play you should be good at what you do shouldn't you"

I pointed out that only 21 players in the whole NBA shooting a sufficient volume of shots to count reached your cut off. I apologise for offending you for calling you on your nonsense.

Nothing in your next post responds to my post. Changing topics does not amount to an argument.