- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,874
- Reaction score
- 16,683
Jason Kidd. And that was before the NBA went 3 point crazy. It used to drive me nuts to watch him get to the rim and kick it out (and not always to the 3 point line either).Ben Simmons
Jason Kidd. And that was before the NBA went 3 point crazy. It used to drive me nuts to watch him get to the rim and kick it out (and not always to the 3 point line either).Ben Simmons
100% chance of 2 points vs 35% chance of 3.Right, especially since there's no way that can be a percentage play. I've seen players pass up uncontested dunks in order to pass to a teammate behind the arc.
This is the only thread I have read in a month. I agree. I am not interested in the NBA much anymore. If the Suns do well, I will watch because the Suns are just in my blood. But now I only really watch if they are playing well. That's why I haven't posted here in so long.
This is the only thread I have read in a month. I agree. I am not interested in the NBA much anymore. If the Suns do well, I will watch because the Suns are just in my blood. But now I only really watch if they are playing well. That's why I haven't posted here in so long.
You need to account for the fact that the guys shooting .546 from two are probably getting to the line more than the guys shooting .383 from three.I agree wholeheartedly that the game is bastardize now and hardly watchable.
But from an analytics standpoint, the 3 point attempts per game are 39.7. If you multiply that by the successful shooting percentage (38.3%) then by the points made per successful basket (3 points), you get 45.6153 points for those 39.7 attempts.
Now if you take those same 39.7 attempts and use the two point successful shooting percentage (54.6%) then by the points made per successful basket (2 points), you get 43.3524 points for those attempts.
So you get roughly 2.26 more points for those attempts by shooting threes instead of two point shots. Which is unfortunate.
You need to account for the fact that the guys shooting .546 from two are probably getting to the line more than the guys shooting .383 from three.
Probably accurate but I don't think anyone factors in the extra turnover risks of that corner 3. So often they step out of bounds or they travel trying to evade the closeout.I don't have the stats, but not as much as you would think. More contact is allowed inside and the referees protect the three point shooters more, especially how they land.
Probably accurate but I don't think anyone factors in the extra turnover risks of that corner 3. So often they step out of bounds or they travel trying to evade the closeout.
Sure but do they factor in the extra turnovers? I don't know, maybe I focus too much on that and fail to recognize that turnovers might occur at a similar rate even when the corner 3 isn't involved but it doesn't seem that way.Stepping out of bounds is a big one. I hadn't factored that into the equation.
However, so-called experts push the philosophy of taking more 3-point shots, so the math must favor it.
Sure but do they factor in the extra turnovers? I don't know, maybe I focus too much on that and fail to recognize that turnovers might occur at a similar rate even when the corner 3 isn't involved.
I can spell CBA, haven't gone much further than that though.I would think so. These analytic guys are pretty thorough, but I'm not one of them.
It's hard enough for me to learn all the nuances of the new CBA.
I can spell CBA, haven't gone much further than that though.
For an unguarded corner 3 it is much closer to 50%, and it's even better than that if you have numbers and a good chance at being able to get the offensive long rebound.100% chance of 2 points vs 35% chance of 3.
Unless you are down 3 with 10 seconds, never a reason to.
Yup. Same here.Jason Kidd. And that was before the NBA went 3 point crazy. It used to drive me nuts to watch him get to the rim and kick it out (and not always to the 3 point line either).
So far this season the experts who count are choosing to take about 42% (a record) of their shots from 3, which suggests they see the two kinds of shots about on a par.Stepping out of bounds is a big one. I hadn't factored that into the equation.
However, so-called experts push the philosophy of taking more 3-point shots, so the math must favor it.
I am for the changes to the three point line. I would like to see the corner 3 eliminated and possibly have the arc pulled back. Superstar players could still shoot logo 3's. but the run of the mill catch and shoot guy that specializes in defense is not going to be able to camp in the corner or a specific spot and jack up 3 point shots all day. I'm ok with those being 2 point shots.
That said I still think the game is exciting in the playoffs, but watered down because of all the corner 3's and 3's in general.
But the other thing not counted is the long rebounds. Much better chance of getting an offensive rebound from a 3.Probably accurate but I don't think anyone factors in the extra turnover risks of that corner 3. So often they step out of bounds or they travel trying to evade the closeout.
There is no question 90's and 2000's NBA was a much better product.I am for the changes to the three point line. I would like to see the corner 3 eliminated and possibly have the arc pulled back. Superstar players could still shoot logo 3's. but the run of the mill catch and shoot guy that specializes in defense is not going to be able to camp in the corner or a specific spot and jack up 3 point shots all day. I'm ok with those being 2 point shots.
That said I still think the game is exciting in the playoffs, but watered down because of all the corner 3's and 3's in general.