Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    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.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      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.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        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.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          Admitting it is the first step in recognizing you have a problem.
          Its not a problem.

          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            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:

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

            Note that the line was shortened before the '94-95 season.....
            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

              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?
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                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.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                  There's a mistake in my previous calculation that I need to fix.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    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?


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Where do I sign up?
                      http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16168203090
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        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.
                        Last edited by count55; 01-05-2010, 06:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                          Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                          Here are some unofficial calculations:

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

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




                          Source

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                            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.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              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?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting

                                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.
                                And I won't be here to see the day
                                It all dries up and blows away
                                I'd hang around just to see
                                But they never had much use for me
                                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X