Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabe
Teams did the elementary math that 33% shooting on 3s is equal to 50% shooting on 2s. And 33% shooting on 3s is very, very easy for NBA players. So now they shoot 3s.
|
It's actually not as simple as that though. Everyone has known for a long time that the expected value of a 3 from a 40% 3 point shooter is 1.2 points per attempt, which is equivalent to a 60% 2 point shot from inside the paint. But the analysis that enabled widespread changes in strategy came about through the discovery of the fact that 3 point shots offered 3 additional benefits that were previously overlooked. The most obvious of those is that it creates longer rebounds which are grabbed by the offense more often than shorter rebounds. But it also spreads the defense out wider because they have to defend against the 3 point threats. This opens up the lane, making it much easier for players like Russell Westbrook, Zach Lavine, or a Kobe type slasher to drive to the hoop without having to navigate a clogged paint with a bunch of big men. And the other value add which took a fair amount of convincing at first was that there is a great benefit to also just having your players be physically further back on the court when you miss a shot and the other team grabs the rebound. You're in a better position defensively at the start of the possession than you would be if you were down in the paint. It allows you to defend against what would have otherwise been a fast break, and fast breaks are extremely efficient scoring opportunities.
This opened the door for even much weaker shooters to be launching 3s than before. Guys who shoot 32% from 3 are now given the green light, whereas before, they rarely ever shot from long distance. Guys like Ray Allen and Reggie Miller always shot 3s because they could make them at a high enough percentage, but now we understand the added benefits even when you miss, so they shoot even more of them than before.
11-24-2021, 06:16 PM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
