PDA

View Full Version : Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting



Putnam
01-04-2010, 05:35 PM
One of the best-known and most widely accepted truths around here is that Jim O'Brien makes the Pacers take too many 3pt attempts. I don't remember hearing that about Carlisle or any previous coach, but O'Brien gets hatred because the Pacers shoot "too many" 3s. Well, lookee:



http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae193/Putnam7777/image003.gif



This is the Pacers' 3pt Attempts (the bars, scaled on the left side) and 3pt percentage (the line, scaled on the right axis.) for every season since 1981. Note the strike-shortened year in 1999.

It doesn't take a genius to see that 3pters have increased steadily over the years. The Pacers' use of the 3 has grown with every coach except Irvine and Thomas. Even Rick Carlisle raised the team to a new high in 3s. And with his slow tempo, that is saying something!

Yes, O'Brien has pushed the team to new heights, too, but you can see a big boost in the percent made under O'Brien, too. He definitely did something right in his first two seasons.

I would be curious to hear comments about how high the number of attempts can go in the future. Reasonably, as long as the eFG of 3pt attempts is high enough, the team should continue taking more. (Note, when I say the future, I'm not talking about the rest of this season, but beyond that.)


To refresh your memory, here the Pacers coaches since 1981:

O'Brien
Carlisle
Thomas
Bird
Brown
Hill
Versase
Ramsey
Irvine
McKinney


.

McKeyFan
01-04-2010, 06:34 PM
Nice work.

Frankly, I didn't like all the jump shooting by the Bird/Carlisle coached teams with Reggie/Jalen/Mullin, etc. I thought that team lived and died by the J as well. I yearned for the return of Larry Brown.

They just really happened to live it up by the J in 2000.

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 08:33 AM
MckeyFan - I agree with you. I often say my perfect offense would be if the pacers shot 50 free throws a game. And in order to do that you have to get the ball inside. But with zone type defenses now allowed it is harder to get the ball inside

Putnam - I would be interested in the number of 3-pt shots attempted for the league overall. I suspect it goes up every year. The only time it might have dropped is when they moved the line back where it was I beleive after the '96 season.

Carlisle was a big believer in the three point shot, so was Bird - they liked it as a means to space the floor. Most coaches agree with that. Larry Brown and Jerry Sloan don't like the three.

Jim O'Brien discussed on his radio show a couple of weeks back about how poor the midrange shot was. He believes in either getting the ball and shooting it 5 feet from the basket and in or shot the three.

Pacers currently are 7th in 3-pt attempts, but are tied for 5th worst in %, but all the other 5 teams all shoot the three many fewer times than the pacers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics?stat=teamstatoff&sort=3pa&league=nba&season=2010&seasontype=2&avg=pg&order=true&split=0

Bball
01-05-2010, 09:04 AM
I hate quick 3's.... I think Jim O'Brien loves them. I believe quick 3's are nothing more than bad basketball that lead to FB's going the other way, losses of momentum, and a way to totally lose a lead or thwart a comeback....

graphic-er
01-05-2010, 09:12 AM
I hate quick 3's.... I think Jim O'Brien loves them. I believe quick 3's are nothing more than bad basketball that lead to FB's going the other way, losses of momentum, and a way to totally lose a lead or thwart a comeback....

Its no secret that once this team gets a lead they like to chuck the 3 ball at will, and pretty much everytime they end up losing the lead in a matter of minutes because they are chucking up shots too early in the shot clock giving up extra possessions. Instead of using up the shot clock and rebounding the ball. Nothing kills another teams momentum for a comeback like denying possession of the ball.

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 09:22 AM
I hate quick 3's.... I think Jim O'Brien loves them. I believe quick 3's are nothing more than bad basketball that lead to FB's going the other way, losses of momentum, and a way to totally lose a lead or thwart a comeback....

Carlisle would agree with you there. he likes the three, but hates the quick three because the offense isn't set.

I don't mind quick open threes by excellent shooters. Reggie Miller, Ray Allen - shooters at that level. Pacers really don't have a shooter like that currently, although if Granger is hot - I don't mind him taking a quick three

Naptown_Seth
01-05-2010, 09:57 AM
Even Rick Carlisle raised the team to a new high in 3s. And with his slow tempo, that is saying something!
I've infamously ranted about this very thing, not against Rick but in his defense. Detractors said he was a slog ball coach determined to feed the post, drag the game down and constrict the offense.

My counter is specifically how he dealt with the post-brawl/injury era. He went small because that's all he had and they went to a bomb and pray style to keep up with bigger or more talented rosters, and to some degree it worked. Certainly they still made the playoffs and were at .500 at the time of the GSW trade.

However that doesn't mean I support that style as an intentional goal. It's one thing to make the best of things and another to target that approach. When your main players are Reggie, Fred Jones, and Jackson, this is what you do to survive.

I mean right now Granger, Rush and DJones are all much better dribble attack players than the post-brawl group was. There are options now, back then there weren't any.

Naptown_Seth
01-05-2010, 10:03 AM
Nice work.

Frankly, I didn't like all the jump shooting by the Bird/Carlisle coached teams with Reggie/Jalen/Mullin, etc. I thought that team lived and died by the J as well. I yearned for the return of Larry Brown.

They just really happened to live it up by the J in 2000.
They were extremely good at it though. That's why they played that way, it was a serious strength AND they had an all-star rebounding specialist PF on the squad, someone who was good at getting OFFENSIVE rebounds.

If you're jump shooting around 50% or better you're doing a lot more living with it than dying. Plus that team was running designed plays to get shots in rhythm, repetitive plays that they honed with years of play and practice. Not just Reggie's baseline curl but the plays for Rik, Mullin, etc.



We see this now. We all know that Troy wants to step into the top of the arc 3 as a trailer. If you get him that shot it's pretty reliable. The issue is that it's very simple for the defense to take that away, there is no complexity to force the defense to make a choice or read. And that's one of the most complex plays they run for a jump shot, or the optional TJ/Troy high PnFade with Troy slipping back out behind the arc.

At crunch time those plays get removed by the defense. Then what do you do?

Brad8888
01-05-2010, 10:53 AM
At crunch time those plays get removed by the defense. Then what do you do?

Get crunched while continuing to shoot jumpers and drive inside into traffic rivaling Castleton at Christmas?

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 01:02 PM
The Pacers, for several seasons, had two guys that are ranked in the top 30(ish) for 3FGA and 3FGM for their careers.

And with Chuck and Reggie on the roster together, the team averaged 9(ish) 3FGA per game. 20% of Chuck's FGAs were 3's and about 1/3 of Reggie's FGAs were 3's. The three was a WEAPON, not a GAMEPLAN. Just under 11% of that team's FGAs were 3's.

Reggie averaged 4 3FGAs/ game, Chuck was at 2.5, McCloud (who shot a decent percentage) was at 1.7 and rest of the team shot 1.

And that season is the gold standard in playing offense, at least in the Pacers' history. They were only 41-41 because the players wouldn't commit to playing hard on defense, but they were certainly effecient offensively. Even our guys that only watch the defensive side of the ball will admit that team was very good on offense.

In my opinion, that team took a lot of 3FGAs but it made sense because they had two legit weapons from that distance.

Fast foward to last season (I'm not sure the current season - while in progress and with a depleted roster - is meaningful.

That team averaged 21 3FGA's per game. More than double. Yes, Granger is a legit threat from outside the arc and Murphy hits a high percentage from out there whether I think the PF should be at the arc or not. 24% of that teams FGAs came from behind the arc.

So look at this crap:

TJ Ford: 104 attempts, 33%.
Marquis Daniels: 90 attempts in 54 games, 20%.
Stephen Graham: 66 attempts in 52 games, 30%.
Dunleavy shot 90 in only 18 games and only hit 35%.
Jarret Jack also shot 35% on his 221 3FGAs.

These guys all shot a lower % out there than Detlef did during the 1990-91 season, but Detlet only attempted 40 3FGAs.

Vern Fleming and Mike Sanders were comparable to those five guys, and they shot 38 3FGAs combined, for the season. That's what those guys do in a week.

The blame is not solely on Jim O'Brien. But good gracious, we should keep in mind that the 90-91 team shot a boatload of 3's. Granger and Murphy should both be allowed to shoot 4 3FGAs per game and if they happen to be hot (at least 2-4) then maybe the team can ride the hot hand. But that would get this team back to ~10 3FGAs per game. There's no way this roster should be jacking up the shots from outside the arc like they are doing.

What's so bad about taking a high percentage 2-point shot? The 1990-91 team figured out how to do it (similar -- but not as effecienct of course -- as the Showtime Lakers did it.) You don't have to solely play low-post, shot-clock eating isolation ball to get a good 2-point shot attempt.

Hicks
01-05-2010, 01:12 PM
If you're referring to the 90-91 season:

The team shot .493 from the field and .332 from 3.

Reggie was .512 and .348
Chuck was .504 and .340
McCloud was .373 and .347
Detlef was .520 and .375 (best on the team at both)

I don't know how that looked then, but by today's standards those 3 point % don't exactly wow.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/1991.html

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 01:48 PM
They were 3201 - 6245 on 2FGAs. 52%. EDIT - they were 9th in 3FG% and 8th in 3FGA. The league average was 32%.

Last year's team was 2568 - 5355 on 2FGAs. 48%. EDIT - they were 8th in 3FG% and 4th in 3FGA. In 2007-08, they were also 8th in 3FG% and third in 3FGA. I guess you could say they got a little bit "better" in 2008-09 since they dropped a spot in 3FGA with the same 3FG% ranking. The league average was 36%.

- - - - - - - -

That was one of Chuck's worst seasons at shooting the 3-point shot, as his percentage went back up to the 37%-38% range until the arc was shortened. And Chuck shot >50% in the playoffs, which is what everybody remembers about that team anyway.

That was Reggie's second-lowest 3FG% season (only 2004-05 was lower). And that's probably why he shot forty fewer 3FGAs than he did the previous season (played 82 games both season, a difference of 0.5 3FGA/ game.)

So we had two guys that were very legit threats out there but knew the difference between "use it as a weapon" and "Plan A is jack up a lot of three's and see if we can hit enough to make up for not shooting the higher percentage, closer shot (where we also have a chance to get an "And-1" situation.

Nowadays, too many players think that shot is "in their range". On the 1990-91 team, if you weren't Reggie, Chuck or McCloud, you did not have a "green light". And Detlef's 3FG% was all over the board until the arc was shortened (and the new line was within his shooting range.)

If O'Brien, Carlisle or Bird were coaching them, Detlef, Kenny Williams, Micheal Williams, Vern, and perhaps Mike Sanders would probably all be firing them up, with disappointing results.

Putnam
01-05-2010, 02:54 PM
So we had two guys that were very legit threats out there but knew the difference between "use it as a weapon" and "Plan A is jack up a lot of three's and see if we can hit enough to make up for not shooting the higher percentage,


Is this statement justified, do you think, by the difference in the 3pt%?

You describe 3s as "a weapon" in the hand of the '91 team, but you disparage it with last year's team. The actual difference in 3pt% isn't all that different.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 03:26 PM
Then use it as a weapon... strategically, selectively.

Not the centerpiece of the entire gameplan.

Given the relative same %, I'm questioning the increased use of it.

Reggie and Chuck (and later Byron) did not launch a bunch of bombs throughout the game. But they were ready to crush your spirit with a big one at a critical time. Unless they had a heat check and determined that there was sufficient temperature. And then they just let you have it until they cooled off or your took the shot away from them.

Sort Chuck's 90-91 game log by 3FGAs. 9 games with 5 3FGAs or more. Of those nine, there is a dreadful 0-5 game (that also has a dreadful 4-11 from inside the arc. Ouch). 1 1-5 game (7-14 inside the arc, that's better), 2 2-5 games. The other five games are > 50% 3FG%.

Sidenote, its also interesting to note that all but one of those >5 3FGA games came before the coaching change (December 20). You've got to blame Cotton-Ball-Head for that, not Bo Hill.

Similar for Reggie... he had thirty games with more than 5 3FGAs. He aslo had 18 games where he took two or less, and was a combined 3-19 in those games.

If you're telling me we can expect either Granger or Murphy to limit themselves to 2 3FGAs in a game because they "don't pass the heat check" then I'll just shut up about it.

Peck
01-05-2010, 03:31 PM
Meh, if I had my way the NBA would do away with the three point line.

Putnam
01-05-2010, 03:32 PM
You've got to blame Cotton-Ball-Head for that, not Bo Hill.

Props for Bob Hill!

Now I know there was a good reason to start this!

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 03:44 PM
Meh, if I had my way the NBA would do away with the three point line.

When it first started, I really liked it mainly because it allowed a team that was down by 3 points with very little time left in the game to have a chance to tie or win the game if they were down 2 points. And while it is hard to believe now that was generally what the shot was used for back when it first was introduced into the NBA. Hard to believe the huge difference today.

Edit - Here is an interesting NY Times article about the evolution of the three point shot and a quote from Donnie Walsh
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDF1F3BF93BA25753C1A96F9C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


I've been trying to locate three point shot attempts per game for every year since 1980 when the shot was put in. - I can't find it

Hicks
01-05-2010, 03:46 PM
Meh, if I had my way the NBA would do away with the three point line.

I think the 3-ball balances the game.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 03:48 PM
Props for Bob Hill!

Now I know there was a good reason to start this!

Well... since I'm the only one around here that will say anything good about Bo, you've got to expect it. :tongue:

:buddies:

duke dynamite
01-05-2010, 03:54 PM
Meh, if I had my way the NBA would do away with the three point line.
I have started a Petition for David Stern. Here is what I am working out for Peck:



Make all the players wear short-shorts with belts.
Each basket is made from a milk crate stolen from Maplehurst.
Allow no noise besides the dribble of a ball on the hardwood floor. Not even the players can speak.
Only lead-based paint on the floor, and without a three point line.
Chuck Taylor's can only be worn on the floor.
Crew cuts!
No mascots, but there will be a line dance at every halftime.
There can only be tobacco and hair care products sponsoring each game.

Please throw out any other ideas, guys.

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 03:56 PM
Well... since I'm the only one around here that will say anything good about Bo, you've got to expect it. :tongue:

:buddies:

I'll say something good about him. He was a much better coach than Versace, Irvine or isiah Thomas - the three worst coaches in Pacers NBA history.

McKeyFan
01-05-2010, 04:05 PM
Meh, if I had my way the NBA would do away with the three point line.

College and high school as well.

I think it has hurt the game. Used to be the coach and players had to be very creative to work for a high percentage shot. Now it's drive to the hoop or kick it out for a three. Gets boring after a while.

Back in the day, we got to watch artists in action: Gervin, McHale, Jabaar, Dantley, Aguire, Bird, Magic, and many others.

(Yeah, the three was around then, but the league hadn't quite moved everything in that direction, based on the pure math.)

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 04:14 PM
College and high school as well.

I think it has hurt the game. Used to be the coach and players had to be very creative to work for a high percentage shot. Now it's drive to the hoop or kick it out for a three. Gets boring after a while.

Back in the day, we got to watch artists in action: Gervin, McHale, Jabaar, Dantley, Aguire, Bird, Magic, and many others.

(Yeah, the three was around then, but the league hadn't quite moved everything in that direction, based on the pure math.)

I think college has a higher % of three point shot attempts than does the NBA. Not sure about H.S.

Since86
01-05-2010, 04:22 PM
I think college has a higher % of three point shot attempts than does the NBA. Not sure about H.S.

I would imagine because college is so guard dominate.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 04:22 PM
UB, that's a great link.

...



The most ideal shot, Nets Coach Lawrence Frank said, is from the free-throw line because it almost always results in at least a point. The next-highest-percentage shot is at the rim. Three-pointers are next. But a team would have to shoot 60 percent on 2-pointers to match the offensive output of a team that shoots 40 percent from beyond the arc.

Two major flaws with this. I'm not sure if Lawrence Frank or the article's author are at fault for these assertions. That's an interesting use (or lack thereof) of quotation marks.

The league average 3FG% is

08-09: 36.7%
07-08: 36.2%
06-07: 35.8%
05-06: 35.8%
04-05: 35.6%
03-04: 34.7%

Etc.

So the 40% number that is assumed is bogus.

Here are the teams that have shot >40% from three:

Sacremento (03-04, with Peja leading the way). But they "only" took 1498 3's.

That's it.

The Suns have a couple of seasons > 39.5%, and the Celtics have one.

So lower the 3FG% in that calculation to 36% and you get a "breakeven" 2FG% at 54%.

But part II of the flaw is this:

Teams score about 15-20% of thier points at the FT line. About the same amount of points that they score from behind the arc.

I'm not sure where to find the ratio of FGAs that are attributed to fouls outside the arc vs. inside the arc. But we all instinctively know that the ratio is very heavily tilted toward interior shoots. The revised FG% above still assumes no contribution from the FT line.

Let's assume, and this is quite generous to the 3-point shot, that 15% of points from FTs come from 3FGAs and 85% of points from FTs come from 2FGAs.

In rough numbers, last season teams scored an average of about 5,000 points per season from "2", 1,600 points per season from "3", and 1,500 points per season from the FT line.

1,500 * .85 = 1,275.

1,275/ 5,000 = ~25%.

36% * 3 = (x% * 2) * 1.25
1.08 = 2.5x
x = 43%.

And teams shoot better than 43% on 2 FGAs.

CORRECTION to the last five lines:

1,500 * .15 = 225
225 / 1600 = 14%. I think this number is completely overstated but I have no idea how to get an accurate number.

(36% * 3) *1.14 = (x% *2) * 1.25
1.23 = 2.5x
x = 49%.

And teams shoot better than 49% on 2 FGAs. (And teams don't get 15% of their points from the FT line attributed to shooting fouls behind the arc.) So the 85%/15% split needs better support.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 04:24 PM
I think college has a higher % of three point shot attempts than does the NBA. Not sure about H.S.

I can hit shots from the college three-point line. That's in the range of nearly every kid in Indiana with a hoop in the driveway or on the barn.

Now, 23'9" is a different story.

Since86
01-05-2010, 04:24 PM
I can hit shots from the college three-point line. That's in the range of nearly every kid in Indiana with a hoop in the driveway or on the barn.

Now, 23'9" is a different story.

That's very true.

Hicks
01-05-2010, 04:29 PM
Has anyone come up with solid numbers on how many extra possessions your opponent gets when you focus too much on taking 3-pointers (relative to the league average)?

Hicks
01-05-2010, 04:32 PM
Also, J, is the league average FT% really 85? That sounds high to me. Don't make the same mistake the 3P% article did.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 04:37 PM
I'll say something good about him. He was a much better coach than Versace, Irvine or isiah Thomas - the three worst coaches in Pacers NBA history.

That's not something "good", that's either neutral or useless.

He was also better than McKinney, the NBA version of Slick Leonard (but clearly not the ABA version of Slick), better than O'Brien, and equal to (but with vastly inferior rosters) Bird and Carlisle. Better than Dr. Jack.

Even if you give Bird and Carlisle credit for having better rosters and thus more success, he's no worse than fourth.

And unlike Brownie, things were not drastically worse when he left. Bo rescued a 9-19 team that was going downhill fast, got them to basically play 0.500 ball immediately, and plateaued. Brownie took them from 0.500, made a lot of changes to the roster/ rotations because he realized it was just a 0.500 roster, and with a lot of help from Byron, Derrick, Antonio, and other new players got them to the ECFs twice and ended up below 0.500 shortly thereafter.

Bird took Brownie's improved roster, gave them confidence again, and was a big-time winner. He couldn't have gotten anything more out of the 90-93 Pacers than Bo Hill did, and by then Bo was winning 59 (or 62, but who's counting) with the Spurs and taking them to the WCFs. Even before they had all the injuries that netted them Tim Duncan in the draft.

Could Rick have gotten more out of the 90-93 teams than Bo did? I don't know. I do believe Bo could have gotten more out of the 2004-07 teams than Rick did, however. Not the first (61-win) season, but the other three.

EDIT - I apologize for this tangent.

Signed,

President and sole member of the Chuck Person and Bo Hill fan clubs.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 04:38 PM
Also, J, is the league average FT% really 85? That sounds high to me. Don't make the same mistake the 3P% article did.


I used FTM. The league average of FTM is 100%, by defintion.

I'm only trying to figure out how many FTs are attributed to shots behind the arc.

Peck
01-05-2010, 04:41 PM
That's not something "good", that's either neutral or useless.

He was also better than McKinney, the NBA version of Slick Leonard (but clearly not the ABA version of Slick), better than O'Brien, and equal to (but with vastly inferior rosters) Bird and Carlisle. Better than Dr. Jack.

Even if you give Bird and Carlisle credit for having better rosters and thus more success, he's no worse than fourth.

And unlike Brownie, things were not drastically worse when he left. Bo rescued a 9-19 team that was going downhill fast, got them to basically play 0.500 ball immediately, and plateaued. Brownie took them from 0.500, made a lot of changes to the roster/ rotations because he realized it was just a 0.500 roster, and with a lot of help from Byron, Derrick, Antonio, and other new players got them to the ECFs twice and ended up below 0.500 shortly thereafter.

Bird took Brownie's improved roster, gave them confidence again, and was a big-time winner. He couldn't have gotten anything more out of the 90-93 Pacers than Bo Hill did, and by then Bo was winning 59 (or 62, but who's counting) with the Spurs and taking them to the WCFs. Even before they had all the injuries that netted them Tim Duncan in the draft.

Could Rick have gotten more out of the 90-93 teams than Bo did? I don't know. I do believe Bo could have gotten more out of the 2004-07 teams than Rick did, however. Not the first (61-win) season, but the other three.

EDIT - I apologize for this tangent.

Signed,

President and sole member of the Chuck Person and Bo Hill fan clubs.

Admitting it is the first step in recognizing you have a problem.:D

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 04:43 PM
That's very true.

Back when I worked at AUL, my gym membership also got me into NIFS when the Pacers practiced there. I remember the first time I stepped onto the practice court (which was an old MSA court) and tried to shoot from behind THAT arc. I jumped, cocked my wrist, looked at how far away the rim was and landed on the court, still holding the ball, laughing at how absurd it was. I then dribbled in two steps, rose up, and shot a jumper... that just barely made it to the rim.

I eventually settled down and could hit my shots, but wow, when you're used to 19'6" or whatever that was... that's a huge difference.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 04:43 PM
Admitting it is the first step in recognizing you have a problem.:D

Its not a problem.

:punch:

MagicRat
01-05-2010, 05:08 PM
I've been trying to locate three point shot attempts per game for every year since 1980 when the shot was put in. - I can't find it

Here are some unofficial calculations:

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 347pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="458"><col style="width: 40pt;" width="53"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 32pt;" width="42"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 32pt;" width="42"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 37pt;" width="49"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 38pt;" width="51"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 53pt;" width="71"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 40pt;" height="17" width="53">Year</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 32pt;" width="42">3P</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 32pt;" width="42">3PA</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 37pt;" width="49">Games</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 38pt;" width="51">Pct</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 53pt;" width="71">3PA/Game</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1967-68</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1223</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4285</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">858</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.54%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 4.99 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1968-69</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1515</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5060</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">858</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.94%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 5.90 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1969-70</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1702</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5842</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">924</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.13%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.32 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1970-71</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1697</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5675</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">924</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.90%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.14 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1971-72</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1443</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4857</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">924</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.71%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 5.26 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1972-73</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">914</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3160</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">840</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.92%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.76 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1973-74</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">995</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3512</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">840</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.33%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 4.18 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1974-75</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">911</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3108</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">840</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.31%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.70 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1975-76</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">706</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2395</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">614</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.48%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.90 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1979-80</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1403</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5003</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1804</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.04%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.77 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1980-81</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">936</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3815</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">24.53%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.02 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1981-82</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1129</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4308</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">26.21%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.28 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1982-83</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1011</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4248</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">23.80%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.25 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1983-84</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1120</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4484</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">24.98%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.38 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1984-85</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1671</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5917</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.24%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.14 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1985-86</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1774</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">6293</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.19%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.34 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1986-87</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">2687</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">8913</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">30.15%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 4.73 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1987-88</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">2979</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">9421</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">31.62%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 5.00 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1988-89</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">4332</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">13431</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2050</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">32.25%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.55 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1989-90</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">4829</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">14608</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.06%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.60 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1990-91</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">5055</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">15812</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">31.97%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 7.14 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1991-92</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">5587</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">16898</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.06%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 7.63 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1992-93</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">6668</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">19824</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.64%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 8.95 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1993-94</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">7301</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">21907</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.33%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 9.89 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1994-95</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12153</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">33889</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.86%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 15.31 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1995-96</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14000</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">38161</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.69%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 16.05 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1996-97</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14383</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">39943</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.01%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 16.80 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1997-98</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">10450</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">30231</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.57%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 12.71 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1998-99</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">6463</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">19080</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1450</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.87%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 13.16 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1999-00</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">11513</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">32614</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.30%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 13.71 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2000-01</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">11524</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">32597</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.35%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 13.71 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2001-02</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12402</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">35074</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.36%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 14.75 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2002-03</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12200</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">34912</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.95%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 14.68 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2003-04</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12321</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">35492</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.71%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 14.93 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2004-05</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">13777</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">38748</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.56%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 15.75 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2005-06</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14086</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">39313</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.83%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 15.98 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2006-07</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14926</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">41671</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.82%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 16.94 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2007-08</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">16124</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">44544</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.20%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 18.11 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2008-09</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">16352</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">44583</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.68%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 18.12 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2009-10</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">6167</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">17693</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">994</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.86%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 17.80 </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Note that the line was shortened before the '94-95 season.....

BillS
01-05-2010, 05:12 PM
Without the 3-pt shot the NBA turns into a game of "who has the biggest bruiser in the paint". Since it spreads the floor when used successfully, it allows for the athletic drives to the basket that would otherwise simply run into a wall.

Why defend way out on the perimeter if the shot is both lower percentage and the same as the easier layup/dunk/short jumper?

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 05:20 PM
I think the three-point shot serves a purpose and I'm quite happy for the other 29 teams to over-rely on it... to their detriment.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 05:20 PM
There's a mistake in my previous calculation that I need to fix.

Peck
01-05-2010, 05:20 PM
Without the 3-pt shot the NBA turns into a game of "who has the biggest bruiser in the paint". Since it spreads the floor when used successfully, it allows for the athletic drives to the basket that would otherwise simply run into a wall.

Why defend way out on the perimeter if the shot is both lower percentage and the same as the easier layup/dunk/short jumper?

Where do I sign up?

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 05:28 PM
Where do I sign up?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16168203090

count55
01-05-2010, 06:12 PM
UB, that's a great link.

...



Two major flaws with this. I'm not sure if Lawrence Frank or the article's author are at fault for these assertions. That's an interesting use (or lack thereof) of quotation marks.

The league average 3FG% is

08-09: 36.7%
07-08: 36.2%
06-07: 35.8%
05-06: 35.8%
04-05: 35.6%
03-04: 34.7%

Etc.

So the 40% number that is assumed is bogus.

Here are the teams that have shot >40% from three:

Sacremento (03-04, with Peja leading the way). But they "only" took 1498 3's.

That's it.

The Suns have a couple of seasons > 39.5%, and the Celtics have one.

So lower the 3FG% in that calculation to 36% and you get a "breakeven" 2FG% at 54%.

But part II of the flaw is this:

Teams score about 15-20% of thier points at the FT line. About the same amount of points that they score from behind the arc.

I'm not sure where to find the ratio of FGAs that are attributed to fouls outside the arc vs. inside the arc. But we all instinctively know that the ratio is very heavily tilted toward interior shoots. The revised FG% above still assumes no contribution from the FT line.

Let's assume, and this is quite generous to the 3-point shot, that 15% of points from FTs come from 3FGAs and 85% of points from FTs come from 2FGAs.

In rough numbers, last season teams scored an average of about 5,000 points per season from "2", 1,600 points per season from "3", and 1,500 points per season from the FT line.

1,500 * .85 = 1,275.

1,275/ 5,000 = ~25%.

36% * 3 = (x% * 2) * 1.25
1.08 = 2.5x
x = 43%.

And teams shoot better than 43% on 2 FGAs.

The implication here is that you're forgoing FTA's (and FTM's) by shooting more Three's, and that you're doing at a pretty high rate. If it's 85-15, then you'd get almost 6 times as many FT's out of 100 2's than out of 100 3's. And, as you note, that may be generous.

However, using the two years we've been talking about - 1991 vs. 2009 - there doesn't appear to be any evidence of such a huge drop.

In 1991, 8.2% of the shots in the league were 3 pointers. For every 1,000 FGA's (both 2's & 3's), teams shot 320 FT's, making 245 of them.

In 2009, 22.4% of the shots in the league were 3 points. For every 1,000 FGA's (both 2's & 3's), teams shot 306 FT's, making 236 of them.

So, for every 1,000 shots, the league substituted 143 3PA's for 2PA's at the cost of only 14 FTA's, and only 9 FTM's. If you use 1991's much lower 3PCT of .319, then the league would have added 46 made 3's. However, because the league has learned to use the line much more effectively than the "only in the case of emergency" approach employed back then, the accuracy has gone up to .367, so that mean's 52 more points scored from the field at a cost of only 9 points from the line, or a net 43 point pick up for every 1000 shots from the floor.

BTW...not all 2pt shots are created equal. You note that teams shoot higher than 43% on 2's, which is true. They shot .485 on 2 pts attempts last year. However, that's largely raised by shots at the rim, which teams hit at about a .605 clip. Once you move away from the basket, the efficiency drops precipitously. Shots inside 10 feet under 43%, 10-15 at 39%, and shots from 16-23 feet only 40%. These numbers have been consistent for the last three season (all the data I have.)

So, between say 5 and 23 feet, teams only shoot about 40%. Meanwhile, the average team has an eFG% of about 55% from 3, and the Pacers last year had 56%. If you can't get to the rim, a team like the Pacers is better off trying to get an open, standstill three, preferably from the corner.

cordobes
01-05-2010, 06:55 PM
Here are some unofficial calculations:

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 347pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="458"><col style="width: 40pt;" width="53"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 32pt;" width="42"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 32pt;" width="42"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 37pt;" width="49"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 38pt;" width="51"> <col style="width: 23pt;" width="30"> <col style="width: 53pt;" width="71"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 40pt;" height="17" width="53">Year</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 32pt;" width="42">3P</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 32pt;" width="42">3PA</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 37pt;" width="49">Games</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 38pt;" width="51">Pct</td> <td style="width: 23pt;" width="30">
</td> <td style="width: 53pt;" width="71">3PA/Game</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1967-68</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1223</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4285</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">858</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.54%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 4.99 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1968-69</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1515</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5060</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">858</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.94%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 5.90 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1969-70</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1702</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5842</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">924</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.13%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.32 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1970-71</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1697</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5675</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">924</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.90%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.14 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1971-72</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1443</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4857</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">924</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.71%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 5.26 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1972-73</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">914</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3160</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">840</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.92%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.76 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1973-74</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">995</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3512</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">840</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.33%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 4.18 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1974-75</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">911</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3108</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">840</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.31%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.70 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1975-76</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">706</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2395</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">614</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">29.48%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.90 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1979-80</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1403</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5003</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1804</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.04%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.77 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1980-81</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">936</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3815</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">24.53%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.02 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1981-82</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1129</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4308</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">26.21%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.28 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1982-83</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1011</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4248</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">23.80%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.25 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1983-84</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1120</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4484</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">24.98%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 2.38 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1984-85</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1671</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">5917</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.24%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.14 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1985-86</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">1774</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">6293</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">28.19%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 3.34 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1986-87</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">2687</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">8913</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">30.15%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 4.73 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1987-88</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">2979</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">9421</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1886</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">31.62%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 5.00 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1988-89</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">4332</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">13431</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2050</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">32.25%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.55 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1989-90</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">4829</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">14608</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.06%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 6.60 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1990-91</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">5055</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">15812</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">31.97%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 7.14 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1991-92</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">5587</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">16898</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.06%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 7.63 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1992-93</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">6668</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">19824</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.64%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 8.95 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1993-94</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">7301</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">21907</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.33%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 9.89 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1994-95</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12153</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">33889</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2214</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.86%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 15.31 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1995-96</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14000</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">38161</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.69%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 16.05 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1996-97</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14383</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">39943</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.01%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 16.80 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1997-98</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">10450</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">30231</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.57%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 12.71 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1998-99</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">6463</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">19080</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">1450</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">33.87%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 13.16 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1999-00</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">11513</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">32614</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.30%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 13.71 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2000-01</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">11524</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">32597</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.35%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 13.71 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2001-02</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12402</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">35074</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.36%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 14.75 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2002-03</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12200</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">34912</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.95%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 14.68 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2003-04</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">12321</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">35492</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2378</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.71%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 14.93 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2004-05</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">13777</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">38748</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.56%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 15.75 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2005-06</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14086</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">39313</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.83%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 15.98 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2006-07</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">14926</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">41671</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">35.82%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 16.94 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2007-08</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">16124</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">44544</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.20%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 18.11 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2008-09</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">16352</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">44583</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">2460</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">36.68%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 18.12 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">2009-10</td> <td class="xl65">
</td> <td align="right">6167</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">17693</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">994</td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl67" align="right">34.86%</td> <td class="xl67">
</td> <td class="xl66"> 17.80 </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Note that the line was shortened before the '94-95 season.....

http://basketballprospectus.com/news/images/418_05.jpg

http://basketballprospectus.com/news/images/418_06.jpg

Source (http://basketballprospectus.com/)

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 06:55 PM
But that is the point. Fouls are not occurring further out on the court. You don't need to foul most jumpshooters -- just close out on them and they'll only hit 30%-40% of those attempts. But inside, there are a long list of players that you really need to mug or else you're giving up a much higher 2FG% than just 50%. Let Duncan go in the paint and close out on the perimeter shooters. I dare you. I'll take Duncan shooting 80% in the paint over anybody at the arc. I'll even take Hibbert shooting 70% in the paint over anybody at the arc. Opponents, just let him go. Worry about the guys on the perimeter. Please??!?

The defensive strategies being employed tell me that most teams still "fear" the high percentage interior shot much more than the long 3FGA.

- - - - - - - - -

The problem statistically is that a foul on a shot that is not made (and thus is not an And-1) is not a missed shot so we need a completely different way to track those possessions to figure out how much to gross up the 3FGMs and 2 FGMs.

What we need are just the three-shot fouls and any And-1's on a 3FGA.

And there is no way that accounts for 15% of the free throws. So the break-even FG% goes down even further than the caculation you quoted (and I subsequently revised it upwards by giving additional "and-1" credit to the 3FGMs that is unrealistically high.)

Now, there is a decent number of non-shooting fouls as well that result in FTAs. I continue to assume, though, that those fouls are associated with trying to get a high-percentage two-point shot out of the possession instead of a low-percentage three. Maybe not in O'Brien's or SVG's or D'Antoni's world. But everyone else's.

cordobes
01-05-2010, 06:59 PM
Without the 3-pt shot the NBA turns into a game of "who has the biggest bruiser in the paint". Since it spreads the floor when used successfully, it allows for the athletic drives to the basket that would otherwise simply run into a wall.

Why defend way out on the perimeter if the shot is both lower percentage and the same as the easier layup/dunk/short jumper?

Unless the rules were changed, wouldn't it become a game of jump-shots? If even with the spacing there's today, it's difficult for bruisers to find space to score down low consistently, how would they beat defences that would need to defend a smaller area?

Putnam
01-05-2010, 07:00 PM
Thanks to MagicRat for posting the numbers and cordobes for charting them.

Now...what happened in '95 through '97? Those are some serious outliers. Not just a higher number of shots, but a higher made rate to go with it. League-wide!

I see this explanation:


Note that the line was shortened before the '94-95 season.....



But I don't understand why it lead to a temporary boost that fell back again.

cordobes
01-05-2010, 07:05 PM
Thanks to MagicRat for posting the numbers and cordobes for charting them.

Now...what happened in '95 through '97? Those are some serious outliers. Not just a higher number of shots, but a higher made rate to go with it. League-wide!

I see this explanation:



But I don't understand why it lead to a temporary boost that fell back again.

Because they reverted the line to its original distance for the '97/'98 season.

Btw, I'm not the author of those charts, they come from the source indicated in the post (basketballprospectus.com).

Putnam
01-05-2010, 07:31 PM
Because they reverted the line to its original distance for the '97/'98 season.
Sheesh, I'm probably the only person on this forum who needed to be told that.

I was out of the country when it happened, but I'm still sort of :blush:

count55
01-05-2010, 07:38 PM
Unless the rules were changed, wouldn't it become a game of jump-shots? If even with the spacing there's today, it's difficult for bruisers to find space to score down low consistently, how would they beat defences that would need to defend a smaller area?

Yes, it would. Check out the eFG% from the '70's:

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2564/efgs.jpg (http://img39.imageshack.us/i/efgs.jpg/) http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/efgs.jpg/1/w638.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img39/efgs.jpg/1/)

The circled area shows the time frame before the 3 point line was added to the NBA. As you can see, it was well all the years that followed, (though the lockout year was close, and the timeframe between Jordan leaving and LeBron/Wade/Melo/Howard, etal coming was a time of some truly crappy basketball.)

McKeyFan
01-06-2010, 09:54 AM
Yes, it would. Check out the eFG% from the '70's:

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2564/efgs.jpg (http://img39.imageshack.us/i/efgs.jpg/) http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/efgs.jpg/1/w638.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img39/efgs.jpg/1/)

The circled area shows the time frame before the 3 point line was added to the NBA. As you can see, it was well all the years that followed, (though the lockout year was close, and the timeframe between Jordan leaving and LeBron/Wade/Melo/Howard, etal coming was a time of some truly crappy basketball.)

I need an interpreter here.

Are you saying the eFG% in the 70's is a good thing or bad thing?

count55
01-06-2010, 10:37 AM
I need an interpreter here.

Are you saying the eFG% in the 70's is a good thing or bad thing?

Sorry...bad thing.

Ballpark, it was about 46%. cordobes point being (I think) that without the three, teams will still end up taking jump shots, and potentially taking more, because there is really no penalty for packing the defense around the paint.

BillS
01-06-2010, 10:54 AM
What I saw in the NBA prior to the 3-point era was that even when packing the paint offenses relied on physical play to get the ball into the middle, forcing defenses to respond, creating a game that was often physical to the point of being confused with football.

At this point, it probably diverges into opinion and how you were raised with basketball, but I really prefer my basketball to be more than just a fight between behemoths under the basket where referees swallow the whistle in order to keep from just having a game of H-O-R-S-E from the free throw line.

I really prefer games where the middle is opened up enough to allow the athletic weaving of a smaller and faster offensive player, where it takes some skill to get into position to prevent that kind of basket because you will get well and truly burned by leaving folks who can shoot alone at the 3-pt arc.

McKeyFan
01-06-2010, 11:12 AM
What I saw in the NBA prior to the 3-point era was that even when packing the paint offenses relied on physical play to get the ball into the middle, forcing defenses to respond, creating a game that was often physical to the point of being confused with football.


Well, is it this, or is it lots of jump shots?

count55
01-06-2010, 11:23 AM
Well, is it this, or is it lots of jump shots?

Both. Kind of a "worst of both worlds" thing.

The possessions become a rugby scrum, culminating in a crappy jump shot.

The fun part that there were actually fewer free throws taken back then, under 300 per 1000 FG attempts during the '70's.

My basketball upbringing is probably similar to BillS', ABA into the '80's NBA. I like space, movement, passing and I like some tempo to the game as well.

Putnam
01-06-2010, 09:00 PM
Most of you already know this. But I thought I add this bit of information to the discussion:


Below is points-per-attempt for 2pointers and 3-pointers for all Pacers teams since 1981.

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae193/Putnam7777/2n3.jpg



The thread has turned to aesthetics of the inside versus the outside game and whether jumps shots are things of beauty or cop outs. That is OK. But the chart shows that a coach who just wants his team to score has a solid basis for urging his players to take three-pointer attempts. As long as the players can shoot threes at a rate not less that 66% of their two-point scoring percentage, more threes are always better. And that has been the case for every team since 1994.

Ozwalt72
01-06-2010, 10:04 PM
Though I doubt the statistic is around, nor would anyone actually put forth the ridiculous amount of research for it....I would absolutely love to see the % of offensive rebounds/total from a 3 point shot versus a two point shot.

ChicagoJ
01-07-2010, 12:05 PM
Most of you already know this. But I thought I add this bit of information to the discussion:


Below is points-per-attempt for 2pointers and 3-pointers for all Pacers teams since 1981.

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae193/Putnam7777/2n3.jpg



The thread has turned to aesthetics of the inside versus the outside game and whether jumps shots are things of beauty or cop outs. That is OK. But the chart shows that a coach who just wants his team to score has a solid basis for urging his players to take three-pointer attempts. As long as the players can shoot threes at a rate not less that 66% of their two-point scoring percentage, more threes are always better. And that has been the case for every team since 1994.

Where do FTMs go in this chart? I realize that not every FTA is attributed to a shooting foul, but the contribution of FTAs from shooting a three point shot is close to de minimus and it is a material part of a two point shot. That's a lot of points that disappear with a doughnut offense and I believe the points-per-attempt on the 2FGA is understated.

Keep in mind that a shooting foul that results in a missed shot is not tracked as an FGA so somebody would have to go back through lots and lots of game film or play-by-play logs to quantify this and avoid the garbage-in-garbage-out problem. A shooting foul only counts as a FGA if the shot is made and it becomes an "and-1" situation.

Putnam
01-07-2010, 12:47 PM
Good points, Jay.

Is there any way to measure the question?

I suppose you are asking if free throw attempts vary inversely to 3ptA. With a large sample of game data, you could see if the number of free throw attempts varies inversely to three-point attempts. To control for pace you'd have to use three-point attempts as a percentage of all field goal attempts. Would that measure the right thing?


I don't understand this part:


I believe the points-per-attempt on the 2FGA is understated.

How come? How and why is it understated?

Hicks
01-07-2010, 12:57 PM
I guess a big question would be: When the 3PA rose, were they at the expense of attacks to the basket, close shots, medium shots, or long 2's?

Maybe long 2's are what got the axe?

ChicagoJ
01-07-2010, 01:01 PM
Where are the And-1 FTs put?

How do know the amount of times there is a four-point play (which we all know is rare) and the amoutn of times there is a "conventional" three-point play (which we all know happens a few times per quarter).

And getting points from a shooting foul is completely ignored if you base the analysis off FGAs. That's a postive possession (0, 1, or 2 points depending if Dale Davis or Reggie Miller gets fouled... :devil: ) that falls out of the FGA stats.

ChicagoJ
01-07-2010, 01:08 PM
I guess a big question would be: When the 3PA rose, were they at the expense of attacks to the basket, close shots, medium shots, or long 2's?

Maybe long 2's are what got the axe?

Well... the worst shot you can take is a two-point jump shot. Although accuracy percentages really start to decrease from about 20' (usually still a very high percentage shot for a pro or any kid in Indiana) out to the three-point line (36%).

I saw somewhere that teams shoot closer to 40% from the deep corner. That is a closer shot. So that probably puts the rest of the arc in the low thirties to get to a 36% average.

Clearly the mid-range shot is the one that has totally disappeared. If someone is open to take a midrange shot, they're probably looking to pass the ball out to someone who can miss a three.

But post play is not what it used to be.

We're ranting and raving about a guy like Hibbert -- not because he's Wilt-like/ Shaq-like/ Kareem-like/ McHale-like in the paint. But because there are only a dozen or so good post players in the league anymore so just having one "should be" a tremendous advantage.