Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="NycUcWbbFan, post: 5078922, member: 13453"] The extra possibility of making 3 straight free throws #2 seems to tilt the calculus to the 3-pt shot. [LIST] [*]UConn seems to get around 11 FTMs / game; even if 8 FTMs were due to 2-pt attempts, 8 vs 3 is not so different from 2 vs 1 (2FGA vs 3FGA in UConn’s schemes); [*]UConn’s 2015-16 team shot 60% from 2 and 38% (not 40%) from 3, and that was optimal #2 (see below); [/LIST] === The binary decision to go for a two or for a three at a granular level is straightforward: [LIST] [*]Note that not all two’s are the same level of difficulty (e.g. an uncontested layup is generally easier than an uncontested jumper); [*]also note that almost all three’s are the same level of difficulty, without regard to contestabilty; [*]for the same player, a step-back three is better than the closest long two; [*]KML would take an uncontested 3 vs driving to the basket; [*]Azzi for 3 is probably better than Ayanna for two at the foul line but not necessarily better than Sarah near the basket (the Pomeroy feature you highlighted); [I]note that paint opportunities are not always available[/I]; [*]and so on. [/LIST] With UConn’s versatile (all mostly 3-level) players in a read-and-react motion offense to find the best shot: [LIST] [*]practices will tell the coaches the relative team efficiency in two’s vs. threes; [*]with such knowledge, coaches can set the percentages of threes vs twos, as a way to optimize the offense — generally 31-33% although it dipped (28%) in the [URL='https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/connecticut/women/2010.html']2009-10 team (Maya-Tina)[/URL]; [*][I]if UConn, as a (homogeneous — sort of) team can make two’s at a [/I][B][I]60% rate[/I][/B] #1, make free throws at an 80% rate, gets fouled with FTs awarded (mostly in the act of shooting a two) 10% of the time and gets fouled in the act of shooting a three 10% of the time, [I]the team must be making three’s close to [B]38.00%[/B][/I] #2, for such fact pattern to be optimal; [*][B]the fact-pattern above matches the [/B][URL='https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/connecticut/women/2016.html'][B]2015-16 team[/B][/URL], with 64.6 FGA/game at 1.32 pts per FGA (modeled points of 85 pts / game vs 88 pts / game (actual)); [*]This episodic optimization will apply to this hypothetical situation and mostly not necessarily apply to others. [/LIST] For teams with similarly well-defined two’s vs three’s profile, the binary decision team optimization could be well-defined: [LIST] [*]Teams with various credible 3-point threats but with a measly post offense will most often prefer the three to a two; [*]And vice versa (e.g. pre-Tehina Pao Pao/Tessa Johnson South Carolina years). [/LIST] [URL='https://the-boneyard.com/threads/what-is-an-acceptable-3-point-percentage-for-a-p-5-team.202158/']Another thread[/URL] also attempted to discuss this. #1 At 50% 2-pt accuracy, 3-pt accuracy must be close to 31% to be optimal. Counter intuitively, 31% is lower than 33%. [B]The possibility of making 3 straight FT’s tilts the calculus towards the 3-point shot.[/B] #2 Comparing Bayesian means of 2-pt attempts vs 3-pt attempts: made FGA with no foul, made FGA with foul, missed FGA with foul. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,443

Messages: 4,396,435

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl