I will never understand coaches who make the three point

[UConn Hoops1]

shot the focus of their offense; and, presumably, recruit predominantly athletes who can shoot that shot consistently. Mount Saint Mary's just lost 71-64 to Albany with an overall FG% of 36.7% and while the three kept them in the game, the 3point FG% was only 32.4% . The use of that shot and the fact that they are a horrible rebounding team(eliminating 2nd chance opportunties), it's no wonder that they had 16 losses coming in. Albany's offense was balanced; and while they allowed a big first half run(21-2) that got Mt. St. Mary's back in the game, they never lost their poise. If the guy(Jamion Christian,former VCU assistant in his 2nd year) coaching Mt. St. Mary's thinks he can build a successful program with that philosophy good luck!

GO HUSKIES!!!
BEAT THE HAWKS!!!

 

[JellyBean]

It is not for everybody. To me, I love it. Nothing like trading 3-point shots for a 2 point shot. Because when you are hot, fans love it. It backs the gym. And when the other team is trying to make that come back, you come down the court and nail a 3-pointer to just crush their momentum; nothing better. Again it is not for everybody. I grew up on UNLV Runnin Rebels basketball with the Shark, Jerry Tarkanian. That program lived and died by the 3 pointer. It is something that excites the fans, packs the gym, gets you noticed, and just makes the game more exciting.

 

[Dove]

One shot that really excites a crowd is a trey that answers the other guy's trey. I still would hate to live by it.

 

[BugsyCT]

It definitely keeps it exciting - gives the smaller schools a shot against the heavyweights come tourney time. Get a low seed that's red hot from beyond the arc and they can hang with the big boys for 40 minutes. Whether it's good strategy for a whole season is another story.

 

[kobe]

Shooting 33% from three is like shooting 50% from two. As long as you have the right guys shooting, there is nothing wrong with high number attempts from three. You'll see more NBA teams adapt this strategy as they are finally coming around to the analytical evidence...

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Shooting 33% from three is like shooting 50% from two. As long as you have the right guys shooting, there is nothing wrong with high number attempts from three. You'll see more NBA teams adapt this strategy as they are finally coming around to the analytical evidence...

Houston's trying this out right now with their D-League affiliate.

 

[intlzncster]

Shooting 33% from three is like shooting 50% from two. As long as you have the right guys shooting, there is nothing wrong with high number attempts from three. You'll see more NBA teams adapt this strategy as they are finally coming around to the analytical evidence...

Got to determine how it affects rebounding stats too though. Definitely does, I just don't know exactly how.

 

[champs99and04]

There's a reason guys like Rip Hamilton (as much as I love the guy) can't get a job. Nowadays, you either have to be a good three point shooter, or you have to be a good finisher around the rim. Rarely are there players who can hit enough mid-range jumpers to offset sub-par percentages from three and at the rim. I guess another trait that the market used to under-value is the ability to get to the line. A guy who shoots only 42% from the field and low 30's from three is great to have around if he gets to the line ten times a game (see Russell Westbrook). There is probably some truth to the "live by the three, die by the three" mantra, but at the same time there is a reason practically every NCAA champion over the last 25 years has been in the area code of 40% from three - it's a vital part of offense, and unless you have a bunch of guys who are freaks of nature, it's usually necessary.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

There's a reason guys like Rip Hamilton (as much as I love the guy) can't get a job. Nowadays, you either have to be a good three point shooter, or you have to be a good finisher around the rim. Rarely are there players who can hit enough mid-range jumpers to offset sub-par percentages from three and at the rim. I guess another trait that the market used to under-value is the ability to get to the line. A guy who shoots only 42% from the field and low 30's from three is great to have around if he gets to the line ten times a game (see Russell Westbrook). There is probably some truth to the "live by the three, die by the three" mantra, but at the same time there is a reason practically every NCAA champion over the last 25 years has been in the area code of 40% from three - it's a vital part of offense, and unless you have a bunch of guys who are freaks of nature, it's usually necessary.

I just think that once you hit the NBA, pretty much everybody is an excellent shooter, period. And that tends to be from 2, 3, wherever. In college, you can get by with scrappy rebounding, dribble penetration, step-backs, etc. But everybody in the NBA is a bit taller and a lot more talented so just rebounding and boxing out and having good fundamentals will only get you so far.

 

[dogfan96]

I just think that once you hit the NBA, pretty much everybody is an excellent shooter, period. And that tends to be from 2, 3, wherever. In college, you can get by with scrappy rebounding, dribble penetration, step-backs, etc. But everybody in the NBA is a bit taller and a lot more talented so just rebounding and boxing out and having good fundamentals will only get you so far.

This is true. And it's the overwhelming difference between college and the NBA. In the NBA, pretty much everybody can hit a 17-foot jumper consistently. And if you can't, you better be REALLY good at some other part of the game to get minutes.

 

[Waquoit]

Pitino mades his bones with the 3. Considering the risk/reward ratio, the jumper from the top of the arc is the most desireable in the game. It's an easy shot with a 50% bonus attached.

 

[7774]

I'm sure if you did the math the optimal strategy in basketball would be to shoot nothing but 3 pointers, as long as you can shoot decently as a team. You get 50% more points than a 2 pointer, and the shot isn't 50% harder than your average 2 pointer.

 

[Huskybass]

There's a reason guys like Rip Hamilton (as much as I love the guy) can't get a job. Nowadays, you either have to be a good three point shooter, or you have to be a good finisher around the rim. Rarely are there players who can hit enough mid-range jumpers to offset sub-par percentages from three and at the rim. I guess another trait that the market used to under-value is the ability to get to the line. A guy who shoots only 42% from the field and low 30's from three is great to have around if he gets to the line ten times a game (see Russell Westbrook). There is probably some truth to the "live by the three, die by the three" mantra, but at the same time there is a reason practically every NCAA champion over the last 25 years has been in the area code of 40% from three - it's a vital part of offense, and unless you have a bunch of guys who are freaks of nature, it's usually necessary.

Rip cant get a job because he isn't Rip anymore. Rip in his prime would start for just about any team.

 

[djct1999]

I feel this way about college coaches who only play zone defense.

 

[Husky25]

Hamilton is on the wrong side of 35. Teams can get younger players with more upside for less than what he would be looking for, even if it were the veteran minimum (Approximately $1.5 mil for a 10 year vet.).

 

[intlzncster]

There's a reason guys like Rip Hamilton (as much as I love the guy) can't get a job. Nowadays, you either have to be a good three point shooter, or you have to be a good finisher around the rim. Rarely are there players who can hit enough mid-range jumpers to offset sub-par percentages from three and at the rim. I guess another trait that the market used to under-value is the ability to get to the line. A guy who shoots only 42% from the field and low 30's from three is great to have around if he gets to the line ten times a game (see Russell Westbrook). There is probably some truth to the "live by the three, die by the three" mantra, but at the same time there is a reason practically every NCAA champion over the last 25 years has been in the area code of 40% from three - it's a vital part of offense, and unless you have a bunch of guys who are freaks of nature, it's usually necessary.

I agree with much of what you post there. But Rip doesn't have a job because he's on the wrong side of 35 and not a superstar. If Rip is 23, he's playing no problem. Could being a crack 3pt shooter extend a career? Absolutely.

Also, you don't have to be able to shoot at all if you can defend. Great defensive players can always find work in the NBA.

 

[intlzncster]

I'm sure if you did the math the optimal strategy in basketball would be to shoot nothing but 3 pointers, as long as you can shoot decently as a team. You get 50% more points than a 2 pointer, and the shot isn't 50% harder than your average 2 pointer.

More complicated than that though. Depends if it changes the percentage of rebounds you concede on missed shots. If taking more threes leads to a lower number of possessions (not inconceivable), then you'd have to figure out how exactly the numbers balance out. Also, it depends if missed threes lead to more/less breakaways or not.

 

[caw]

More complicated than that though. Depends if it changes the percentage of rebounds you concede on missed shots. If taking more threes leads to a lower number of possessions (not inconceivable), then you'd have to figure out how exactly the numbers balance out. Also, it depends if missed threes lead to more/less breakaways or not.

Not to mention foul shots are probably going to dip.

 

[intlzncster]

Not to mention foul shots are probably going to dip.

And it's not just the points for that metric. The follow on effect of that is hard to quantify as well. How many fouls you draw on opponents, affecting how they play defense or whether a player is even in the game or not. Then the impact of the bonus. Etc, etc.

The big thing people are discounting is the potential impact of 3pt reliance in a single elimination tournament format. Those 3pt percentages average out over time. Obviously, that % doesn't come in every game, and ebbs and flows over time. If you rely on 3pt %, and have a bad shooting night, you are finished. If you can manufacture points in a number of ways, you have more chances to have sustained (consistent) success in a single elimination format.

 

[Husky25]

More complicated than that though. Depends if it changes the percentage of rebounds you concede on missed shots. If taking more threes leads to a lower number of possessions (not inconceivable), then you'd have to figure out how exactly the numbers balance out. Also, it depends if missed threes lead to more/less breakaways or not.

Not necessarily. Unless the ball just grazes the rim each time, the shot is flat, or has an abnormally high arc, long range shots on the whole produce long rebounds. It's physics. If a defensive team boxes out the traditional way (a couple feet outside the rim), rebounds have a tendency to bounce over the defensive block out.

Still the theory remains far outside the box at this point and for good reason. It is a great equalizer and a hot lower seed can certainly ride it deep into March, but eventually talent wins out the numbers don't support its use as a primary point accumulator like it would on the PlayStation...and there is no reset button.

It is true that all things being equal a 3 pointer is worth 50% more than a 2 pointer and that (shots being equal) shooting 33% from 3 = 50% from inside the arc. But those shots have to go in for the points to count. Say Doug McDermott has a clear lane to the rim and he has made 80% of past shots in a similar situation. Should he kick out to Ethan Wragge (47.3%, 3rd in nation) for a 3? In other words, would you give up a high percentage 2 point chance for a shot at an open 3? The answer is no, because on average, McDermott's shot in the lane yields 1.6 points where Wragge's shot yields 1.42 points. The percentages work both ways.

By the way, Creighton is among the national leaders in 3 point attempts as well as 3 pointers as a percentage of Field Goal Attempts at 44.7% (and they hit 42% as a team), followed by Villanova (44.6%/36.1%), but those are the only teams in the top 10 of this statistic in the NCAA Tournament. MSMU's rate is just under 43% 3pt/FGA (16th) and hit 35.6%, which is exactly average of the top 50 3 point shooting teams in terms of volume. Princeton leads the country with almost 49% of its shots being 3 pointers (but only hit 35.6%) and I doubt you will find a percentage much higher than that in any given year.

 

[intlzncster]

Not necessarily. Unless the ball just grazes the rim each time, the shot is flat, or has an abnormally high arc, long range shots on the whole produce long rebounds. It's physics. If a defensive team boxes out the traditional way (a couple feet outside the rim), rebounds have a tendency to bounce over the defensive block out.

Still the theory remains far outside the box at this point and for good reason. It is a great equalizer and a hot lower seed can certainly ride it deep into March, but eventually talent wins out the numbers don't support its use as a primary point accumulator like it would on the PlayStation...and there is no reset button.

It is true that all things being equal a 3 pointer is worth 50% more than a 2 pointer and that (shots being equal) shooting 33% from 3 = 50% from inside the arc. But those shots have to go in for the points to count. Say Doug McDermott has a clear lane to the rim and he has made 80% of past shots in a similar situation. Should he kick out to Ethan Wragge (47.3%, 3rd in nation) for a 3? In other words, would you give up a high percentage 2 point chance for a shot at an open 3? The answer is no, because on average, McDermott's shot in the lane yields 1.6 points where Wragge's shot yields 1.42 points. See? The percentages work both ways.

By the way, Creighton is among the national leaders in 3 point attempts as well as 3 pointers as a percentage of Field Goal Attempts at 44.7% (and they hit 42% as a team), followed by Villanova (44.6%/36.1%), but those are the only teams in the top 10 of this statistic in the NCAA Tournament. MSMU's rate is just under 43% 3pt/FGA (16th) and hit 35.6%, which is exactly average of the top 50 3 point shooting teams in terms of volume. Princeton leads the country with almost 49% of the shots being 3 pointers (but only hit 35.6%) and I doubt you will find a percentage much higher than that in any given year.

All this was in keeping with what I was saying. I wasn't trying to claim that more 3pt shots definitively lead to a certain possession outcome, simply that it would affect possession on some level. And that there are a number of other factors that would impact scoring/winning as well, were a team to rely on a 3pt strategy. You'd have to quantify all of them, which would be tough to do, in order to determine if all 3pt all the time is an optimum strategy.

My gut feeling is that it is not an optimum strategy. Balance is usually the best approach. Having a few dead eye 3pt shooters is a huge benefit, but having them shoot all the time means you are one dimensional, and can be defended as such (easily schemed against).

 

[Husky25]

Is the inclusion of the Giffey photo after he hit a 3 supposed to be ironic? Because I find it to be just that...

Teams need the 3 point shooter just like they need the inside presence, just as they need the penetrator. Good teams can score from all over the court. MSMU is not a well rounded team...yet, hence a 16 seed in the tournament. But it is a testament to Coach Christian's coaching ability to get the Mount into the Tournament with 9 underclassmen (presumably his recruits) and only 1 Jr. He's going to have a young experienced team next year and an even more experienced team in 2016, which could be his payday year if he did it right.

Albany is going to get crushed by Florida tomorrow anyway, so the point is moot.

 

[Husky25]

All this was in keeping with what I was saying. I wasn't trying to claim that more 3pt shots definitively lead to a certain possession outcome, simply that it would affect possession on some level. And that there are a number of other factors that would impact scoring/winning as well, were a team to rely on a 3pt strategy. You'd have to quantify all of them, which would be tough to do, in order to determine if all 3pt all the time is an optimum strategy.

My gut feeling is that it is not an optimum strategy. Balance is usually the best approach. Having a few dead eye 3pt shooters is a huge benefit, but having them shoot all the time means you are one dimensional, and can be defended as such (easily schemed against).

I was really responding to your rebounding point (% of conceded rebounds). The rest of my post was really just a brain dump. I looked up stats at NCAA.com and got on a roll. I generally agree with what you wrote above.

 

[tdrink]

This may be low percentage distance, but its undefended and allowed for absolute shot clock control. How often do you see a team in that situation not even get a shot off? If the same shot gets made early in the game the defense has to extend to guard it.

My question is how low of a percentage does it have to get to not make sense to have someone who can hoist some up?

 

[champs99and04]

Rip cant get a job because he isn't Rip anymore. Rip in his prime would start for just about any team.

I agree with much of what you post there. But Rip doesn't have a job because he's on the wrong side of 35 and not a superstar. If Rip is 23, he's playing no problem. Could being a crack 3pt shooter extend a career? Absolutely.

Also, you don't have to be able to shoot at all if you can defend. Great defensive players can always find work in the NBA.

Oh yeah, Rip was definitely a really good player in his prime, don't get me wrong. There are just certain skill sets that are more valuable than others, hence why Ray has a job and Rip doesn't.

 

[dogfan96]

Oh yeah, Rip was definitely a really good player in his prime, don't get me wrong. There are just certain skill sets that are more valuable than others, hence why Ray has a job and Rip doesn't.

Rip also has had injury problems (and he was never as good of a pure athlete as Ray to begin with), whereas Ray is pretty much the picture of health for a guy approaching 39 (in NBA terms).. almost superhuman

 

[intlzncster]

Rip also has had injury problems (and he was never as good of a pure athlete as Ray to begin with), whereas Ray is pretty much the picture of health for a guy approaching 39 (in NBA terms).. almost superhuman

Or just compulsively neurotic about his routine/regimen. He's one of those guys that's scary about that sort of thing. Pays dividends though. Ray's had a few problems too (ankle).

 

[dogfan96]

Or just compulsively neurotic about his routine/regimen. He's one of those guys that's scary about that sort of thing. Pays dividends though. Ray's had a few problems too (ankle).

Yeah that's what I mean.. usually when a guy is older and has lower extremity injuries (knee, ankle, foot), they usually go downhill fast and linger but Ray bounced back and is just as good as he was 3 years ago... think Kobe with his knee problems now.. we've probably seen the last of him playing at an elite level..