Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
3 point shot
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Muskrat Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 803
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Kent State
Location:
Post: #1
3 point shot
Somewhere a while back several of us were talking about the pros and con of the 3-point shot. I couldn't find the thread, though. Anyway, last night one of my local channels was re-running a high school regional semi-final game from way back in 1982. Why, I don't know. It was a few years before the 3-point shot. I enjoyed watching the teams work to get jump shots from 8', 10', 12', 15'. You don't see much of that anymore. What a difference.
03-19-2020 06:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


fallsdog Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,951
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Kent State
Location:
Post: #2
RE: 3 point shot
My father used to drill me in the art of the bank shot from just off the elbow. So with the three point shot in mind, somebody help me out as I admit I was drifting in and out of a Tito's induced sleep as I watched Survive and Advance for the 40th time last night.

Is it true that during that regular season 82/83 there was a three point shot but NOT during the tournament?
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2020 04:35 PM by fallsdog.)
03-20-2020 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Muskrat Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 803
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Kent State
Location:
Post: #3
RE: 3 point shot
Right, Fallsdog. It was a conference by conference thing from 1980/81 until the NCAA adopted a uniform national standard for the 1986/87 season, so 1987 was the first time it was used in the NCAA tournament. I remember one conference, the ACC, had an absurdly short 3-point line the was closer than the top of the key.

Ah, the bank shot. I recall well one of my coaches would holler at me when I DIDN'T use a bank shot within a certain range. If I made the jump shot anyway, he would yell, "It's lucky for YOU that it went in!" Whether one likes things such as the 3-point line and the shot clock or not, they have to admit it's a VASTLY different game then it used to be, for better or for worse.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2020 06:13 PM by Muskrat.)
03-20-2020 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cleveland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 10
I Root For: basketball
Location:
Post: #4
RE: 3 point shot
(03-20-2020 04:26 PM)fallsdog Wrote:  My father used to drill me in the art of the bank shot from just off the elbow. So with the three point shot in mind, somebody help me out as I admit I was drifting in and out of a Tito's induced sleep as I watched Survive and Advance for the 40th time last night.

Is it true that during that regular season 82/83 there was a three point shot but NOT during the tournament?

I'm not sure if that's ABSOLUTELY true or not ... but it sounds right considering in those days new rules usually had an introductory or discovery period for a year before full implementation. Usually just a couple of conferences would try out the rule, then go into full effect in a year or two. If I'm not mistaken, I think the ACC tried the 3-point shot first because I remember screaming at the TV to Sam Perkins for shooting such a dumb*** shot instead of posting up.

Who knew he was the first stretch four ....
03-20-2020 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Muskrat Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 803
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Kent State
Location:
Post: #5
RE: 3 point shot
Actually, Cleveland, it was the Southern Conference, in the 1980/81 season, that used it first. I THINK that MAC first used in it 1982/83, but it could have been a little earlier. Dave Ziegler was Kent State's first 3-point threat.
03-20-2020 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fallsdog Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,951
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Kent State
Location:
Post: #6
RE: 3 point shot
Cleveland now that’s funny.
03-21-2020 04:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
anti-zip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,017
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: kent state!
Location:
Post: #7
RE: 3 point shot
This is a topic I've been meaning to write about for a while now. Since I'm shut in I've got some time so here it goes... this is going to be long but hey, there's no sports so hopefully someone enjoys this.

The recent trend in basketball all around the country is going with the Analytics approach of prioritizing threes and layups because they yield the highest points per attempt compared to mid range jumpers which yield the lowest. This trend started in the NBA with teams like Houston fully embracing it, and has trickled down through college and we're seeing it in the MAC. So to start, I'll say I'm a big time believe in analytics. However, I think we haven't been seeing this strategy applied properly in the MAC and that's part of why a lot of fans feel that, while the league is very competitive, the games are often frustrating and unenjoyable to watch.

Let's start by looking at the points per shot on 2 point attempts vs. 3 point attempts. Free throws also need to be incorporated into this of course. That's the tough part about this type of study. Just saying "if you can shoot 33% from three that's as good as shooting 50% from two" is dangerously inaccurate because 2 point attempts yield more free throws so the true points per 2-point attempt needs to factor in free throws. To start I break it into four categories. Points per 3 point attempt (3*3PM)/3PA. Points per 2 point attempt (2*2PM)/2PA. Points per FT tuple (2 * FTM * Conversion Factor)/(Conversion Factor * FTA). So this would be an estimate of 2 point shooting fouls and on the floor fouls in the bonus. The Conversion Factor is a multiplier to convert number of free throws to number of possessions. For the NBA the accepted factor is 0.44. For college it is 0.475. Finally the 4th category is the points off free throws that doesn't fall into the FT tuples. These are assumed to be and-ones.

So the trick is to take the last three categories and come up with a "true" points per 2 point possession. First calculating the points scored. 2 PT FGM + And-Ones obviously all count here. And some portion of the FT tuples need to count here as well. For this I'm just going to say an arbitrary 90% of these count. This is just an educated guess to try to get "close". Crediting all of these doesn't feel right because we know fouls occur outside the arc especially at the end of games. Calculating the possessions I'll use the same logic. 2 pt FGA + 90% of the FT tuples. Now let's look at the data for the NBA because that's where these trends started.

The splits below are Points Per 3 Pt Pos / True Points per 2 Pt Pos / Actual Points Per Pos.

Starting with the NBA for this season the league averages look like this:
* 1.072 / 1.150 / 1.127

These are the top 5 teams in three point attempts this year:
* HOU: 1.045 / 1.236 / 1.157
* DAL: 1.108 / 1.195 / 1.162
* MIN: 1.007 / 1.155 / 1.102
* MIL: 1.067 / 1.221 / 1.166
* BKN: 1.020 / 1.143 / 1.100

Average of the top 5:
1.051 / 1.189 / 1.138

These are the bottom 5 teams in three point attempts this year: NOTE: The New York Knicks were actually 3rd fewest here, but their numbers are so abysmal across the board they drag the average down significantly. So I removed them because they are a dumpster fire that clouds the results. In statistics talk, I'm removing an outlier. In real talk, the Knicks are an outlier in terms of being an actually NBA franchise.
* LAL: 1.065 / 1.193 / 1.159
* IND: 1.088 / 1.141 / 1.130
* SAS: 1.113 / 1.140 / 1.137
* OKC: 1.064 / 1.186 / 1.153
* DEN: 1.073 / 1.147 / 1.128

Average of the bottom 5:
1.080 / 1.161 / 1.140

Looking at spots 13-18 in three point attempts (the middle) it looks like this. (SAC, UTA, BOS, DET, LAC, WAS)
1.108 / 1.150 / 1.140

So my takeaways are these:
Teams that shoot the most threes:
1. Significantly lower yield per three pointer than league average.
2. Significantly higher yield per two than league average.
3. Overall, score more per possession than league average. Three of the 5 teams were over league average at least.
4. So while the increase in 3 point shooting is lowering the teams yield per three, in general the teams are more efficient than league average.

Teams that shoot the fewest threes:
1. Slightly higher yield per three pointer than league average.
2. Actually a higher yield per two pointer than league average as well.
3. Overall, they score significantly more per possession than league average and slightly more than the top 5. EVERY single team here scored more per possession than league average.
4. So they shoot less threes and across the board put up better efficiency than league average.

Teams that shoot an average amount of threes:
1. Significantly higher yield per three pointer than league average.
2. Exactly the same yield on two pointer as league average.
3. Overall, score significantly more points per possession than league average. The same score as the teams shooting the fewest threes.
4. So they are the most balanced teams in the league and they're offense is performing every bit as efficiently as the teams that are most imbalanced one way or the other.

Of the 16 teams that fall into these categories 11 would be in the playoffs right now.
4 of the 5 that shoot the fewest threes would be in.
4 of the 5 that shoot the most threes would be in.
3 of the 6 balanced teams would be in.

So I guess I would say the conclusion I draw from this is simple. You don't need to shoot a lot of threes to be successful. Rather you need to maximize your points per possession. If you build your team to shoot threes, then go all in and shoot threes you'll be successful. If your team isn't built on strong three point shooting, then you need to identify this (analytics can help) and go strong the other way, and you can still be successful and it can actually help you be better when you do shoot threes.

So what does this mean for the MAC? Well, in my opinion the influx of analytics and three point shooting in the NBA is why we're seeing so much three point shooting in the MAC. The problem is MAC teams don't have a team of analytics professionals telling them how to run their team. So what you get is teams that shoot more threes than their three point shooting ability warrants.

Here's the number of threes the average MAC team attempts per conference game by year, as you can see three point shooting is clearly on the rise across the MAC.
* 19/20 - 22.75
* 18/19 - 22.26
* 17/18 - 22.20
* 16/17 - 21.04
* 15/16 - 20.40
* 14/15 - 18.33
* 13/14 - 18.15
* 12/13 - 17.69

So now, let's come back and just focus on Kent last year. I have all the play logs in a SQL DB so I went ahead and ran some queries to see how Kent scored per possession, on the different types of shot. The playlogs categorize shots as DUNK, LAYUP, JUMPER, and 3PTR.

In conference games...
Kent shot 59.8% on Dunks & Layups which comes to 1.197 points per possession.
Kent shot 43.7% on 2 point jumpers which comes to 0.873 points per possession.
Kent shot 34.2% on 3 point jumpers which comes to 1.025 points per possession.

So now, if we put 2 point jumpers, dunks, and layups together, Kent averaged 1.054 points per possession on two's, which is significantly better than their yield on three pointers.

In total Kent attempted 439 threes vs. 681 twos. So 39.2% of Kent's shots were three pointers. Think about that... Kent was scoring more efficiently on two's than threes but they still attempted nearly 40% of their shots from three. And this is WITHOUT even factoring in the bump two pointers get when you include free throws. So very clearly, Kent shot way too many threes this year. WAY too many. To put that in perspective, the average NBA team shoots from three 38.2% of the time. So we shoot threes at a rate higher than the average NBA team despite the importance placed on three point shooting skyrocketing in the NBA in recent years.

So is this a Kent problem, or a MAC problem? In conference games the MAC averaged 39.1% of their shot attempts coming from three this year. Nearly identical to the rate that Kent fired them up.

Looking at individuals here's the top 5 in threes attempted in conference play:
* Simons (141 attempts): 1.128 points per three. So Simons efficiency was phenomenal especially for the volume. He deserves the neon green light he had.
* Pippen (95 attempts): 0.947 points per three. This was a massive drag on our team's offensive efficiency.
* Roberts (75 attempts): 1.120 points per three. Also phenomenal. Would've been interesting to see if he could keep that up if we increased his volume.
* Williams (46 attempts): 0.978 points per three. Not very good, but for someone who played as much as Williams I'm content with this number of attempts. He's an elite slasher and needs to keep them honest.
* Williamson (37 attempts): 0.973 points per three. Not an extremely high volume so tough to get on him too much.

I know there's a lot here to digest, but I think the conclusions are this. The MAC as a whole is trying to buy into the "analytical approach" of shooting more threes because threes are more efficient than mid range shots. MAC teams don't get the top prospects so we're not loaded with guys that can hit volume threes at an efficient rate. There's more of a premium on three point shooting than ever, so that's probably hurting the MAC in terms of how good of shooters we're getting too. But we're still shooting it at an insanely high rate. No team should EVER average more points per 2 point attempts than 3 point attempts WITHOUT FACTORING FREE THROWS into the 2 point attempts. But we did that this year. And we still shot 39.2% of our shots from three.

So I guess to sum it all up. I'm a big believer in analytics. You should use analytics on the national level to determine what direction you want to go when building your team. Then you should use analytics specifically on your team to help determine how to game plan with what you have. I fear what's happening is MAC coaches see the national analytics and are trying to apply them to their game planing which DOES NOT WORK, period. Once you have a team of 8-10 guys the national numbers don't matter. It only matters what those 8-10 guys are capable of. So national analytics may tell you that a three pointer is more efficient than a two pointer but that's not true if that three is being taken by a 31.6% three point shooter. So that shooter shouldn't have a license to shoot 95 threes in conference.
03-21-2020 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Muskrat Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 803
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Kent State
Location:
Post: #8
RE: 3 point shot
Thanks for all the work you put into that, anti-zip. I can't disagree with anything. You really do have to consider the extra free throws you get when you work the ball inside. I'm not really a big fan of either the shot clock or the three-point shot But, they are here to stay so I would like to see Kent State utilize the 3-point shot better, like decrease the total number somewhat, but increase the percentage of shots attempted by the best shooters. Of course, any coach and especially a mid-major coach should take into consideration the skills of the players he is able to sign.
03-21-2020 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cleveland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 10
I Root For: basketball
Location:
Post: #9
RE: 3 point shot
(03-21-2020 03:33 PM)Muskrat Wrote:  Thanks for all the work you put into that, anti-zip. I can't disagree with anything. You really do have to consider the extra free throws you get when you work the ball inside. I'm not really a big fan of either the shot clock or the three-point shot But, they are here to stay so I would like to see Kent State utilize the 3-point shot better, like decrease the total number somewhat, but increase the percentage of shots attempted by the best shooters. Of course, any coach and especially a mid-major coach should take into consideration the skills of the players he is able to sign.

Hey Zip ....

Just to keep you busy, why not take the same look at Kent State's 2017 NCAA Team, and maybe even the Elite 8 team ... or (heaven forbid) all of KSU's NCAA teams. See if there are any common benchmarks.

If you need some liquid inspiration, or some medicinal herbs to see you through the process, perhaps some of us on here could help you out.
03-21-2020 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
anti-zip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,017
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: kent state!
Location:
Post: #10
RE: 3 point shot
Sure, simple enough (but don't call me Zip).

So I went ahead and incorporated the FT's into the 2 point numbers (which is why the 39.2% of shots being 3's dropped a bit). But here's the numbers per year dating back to the Elite 8 run. This is conference games only. I figure conference only is the best thing to look at because the competition level doesn't fluctuation significantly game to game.


Season: 3PTA Rate: PTS/3: PTS/2: PTS/Pos
19-20; 34.5%; 1.025; 1.132; 1.099;
18-19; 32.7%; 0.944; 1.070; 1.033;
17-18; 34.2%; 1.009; 1.092; 1.069;
16-17; 30.5%; 0.934; 1.083; 1.042;
15-16; 25.1%; 0.977; 1.072; 1.053;
14-15; 31.9%; 1.070; 1.064; 1.071;
13-14; 32.9%; 1.005; 1.040; 1.032;
12-13; 30.8%; 1.161; 1.063; 1.099;
11-12; 26.6%; 1.133; 1.109; 1.120;
10-11; 23.2%; 1.031; 1.060; 1.058;
09-10; 25.1%; 0.975; 1.080; 1.058;
08-09; 26.7%; 1.011; 1.042; 1.038;
07-08; 27.0%; 1.103; 1.148; 1.142;
06-07; 27.4%; 0.958; 1.058; 1.033;
05-06; 29.9%; 1.011; 1.128; 1.101;
04-05; 29.9%; 1.040; 1.052; 1.053;
03-04; 34.0%; 1.135; 1.077; 1.102;
02-03; 28.7%; 1.150; 1.115; 1.129;
01-02; 24.4%; 1.276; 1.125; 1.167;


So this year we attempted threes at a higher rate than any season dating back to 01-02 at least (likely ever). You'll notice the JC era did actually have some remarkably high three point rates (considering the era was different). In my opinion the difference there is three's weren't prioritized around the country as much, so it meant JC had better shooters slipping to him. This season we likely attempted threes at the highest rate in school history, but really we only had 2 guys on the team that would be considered shooters. That's where I see the problem.

It should also be noted that this season we had our second highest 'true points per 2 attempt' over this period.

Lastly, I'll add, if Pippen's three point attempts were cut back a bit I think our balance would look a lot better. So in Sendy's defense allowing Pippen the green light may have been necessary to keep him from leaving which unquestionably puts us in a better position for next year. That's part of the unfortunate reality that coaches have to deal with today and I'm sure Pippen thinks that proving he can hit threes helps his chances of getting to the next level.[/quote]
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2020 07:23 PM by anti-zip.)
03-21-2020 06:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


cleveland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 10
I Root For: basketball
Location:
Post: #11
RE: 3 point shot
(03-21-2020 06:15 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  Sure, simple enough (but don't call me Zip).

So I went ahead and incorporated the FT's into the 2 point numbers (which is why the 39.2% of shots being 3's dropped a bit). But here's the numbers per year dating back to the Elite 8 run. This is conference games only. I figure conference only is the best thing to look at because the competition level doesn't fluctuation significantly game to game.

Code:
Season:     Rate Of 3PTA:        Points Per 3:    True Points Per 2:
19-20        34.5%                1.025            1.132
18-19        32.7%                0.944            1.070
17-18        34.2%                1.009            1.092
16-17        30.5%                0.934            1.083
15-16        25.1%                0.977            1.072
14-15        31.9%                1.070            1.064
13-14        32.9%                1.005            1.040
12-13        30.8%                1.161            1.063
11-12        26.6%                1.133            1.109
10-11        23.2%                1.031            1.060
09-10        25.1%                0.975            1.080
08-09        26.7%                1.011            1.042
07-08        27.0%                1.103            1.148
06-07        27.4%                0.958            1.058
05-06        29.9%                1.011            1.128
04-05        29.9%                1.040            1.052
03-04        34.0%                1.135            1.077
02-03        28.7%                1.150            1.115
01-02        24.4%                1.276            1.125

So this year we attempted threes at a higher rate than any season dating back to 01-02 at least (likely ever). You'll notice the JC era did actually have some remarkably high three point rates (considering the era was different). In my opinion the difference there is three's weren't prioritized around the country as much, so it meant JC had better shooters slipping to him. This season we likely attempted threes at the highest rate in school history, but really we only had 2 guys on the team that would be considered shooters. That's where I see the problem.

It should also be noted that this season we had our second highest 'true points per 2 attempt' over this period.

Lastly, I'll add, if Pippen's three point attempts were cut back a bit I think our balance would look a lot better. So in Sendy's defense allowing Pippen the green light may have been necessary to keep him from leaving which unquestionably puts us in a better position for next year. That's part of the unfortunate reality that coaches have to deal with today and I'm sure Pippen thinks that proving he can hit threes helps his chances of getting to the next level.
[/quote]

Damnnnnn ....

You're good, 'Anti.'

Interesting that 08 team had the best combined efficiency (if I'm reading this right) which makes some sense as that team was very specialized with Q and BP inside, Mincy-Fisher outside, and Mike Scott as a pretty selective 3-point shooter. Plus that 3-point transfer (can't remember his name) off the bench when he was hot.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2020 06:32 PM by cleveland.)
03-21-2020 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
anti-zip Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,017
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: kent state!
Location:
Post: #12
RE: 3 point shot
I updated it to include the overall Points per possession. Can't figure out a good way to make tables look good on this site. I don't think they have a table feature. Anyways, 07-08 was second 01-02 is unsurprisingly the most efficient team.
03-21-2020 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GFlash68 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,042
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Kent State
Location: Ohio

Crappies
Post: #13
RE: 3 point shot
To my naked eye, Dev Manley was our best 3 pt shooter.
03-22-2020 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


cleveland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 10
I Root For: basketball
Location:
Post: #14
RE: 3 point shot
(03-22-2020 12:07 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  To my naked eye, Dev Manley was our best 3 pt shooter.

Ric Blevins and Nate Mears ...

Blevins played the first few years of the rule ... at 6-6/6-7 he would be an absolutely lethal MAC stretch 4 now. ... Mears was the perfect yang to Trevor Huffman's Ying ... if he had played four years ... wow.

Few remember his suspension probably cost Kent a trip to New York in the NIT.
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2020 12:34 PM by cleveland.)
03-22-2020 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Muskrat Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 803
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Kent State
Location:
Post: #15
RE: 3 point shot
Those three were great at that. I wish I could find stats on Dave Ziegler. He was awesome behind the arc, too.
03-22-2020 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.