What is an acceptable 3 point percentage for a P-5 Team

[visitingcock]

Yes, I said P-5, not 4. The Big East usually has several teams in the tournament and UConn is always at least a threat to make the Final Four. Indeed, more than just a threat. They are almost always IN the Final Four.

So, what is the minimum 3 point percentage that a team should shoot to make the top half of their conference and get a tournament. I've read some who claim that 33% is a decent percentage but the number I always hear on the internet is closer to 40%. However, no team shot 40% last year. Only 42 teams shot 35% and over.

You are a coach. If you have a player who shoots around 33 percent while your team averages 35%. Do you give the 33% shooter a green light to shoot open threes?

At what point does a team shoot 3s so poorly that you strongly discourage the team to even shoot them?

 

[GamecockFam]

I think the 40% mark should be aspirational for individuals who are 3-point specialists, but it isn't realistic as a team goal. That's the equivalent of shooting 60% from 2 assuming the same amount of shots.

I would have to know how good the team is at shooting 2s to know where the line would be drawn to ever discourage 3s. For example, let's say a team takes about 100 shots in a game. If they took all 100 from 3 and average about 30% as a team, that means they would score approx 90 points. For that team to score 90 points from 2 (excluding fouls) they would have to average about 45% on 100 shots. I believe the average FG% in the W is right around 45%, which would technically mean that under 30% shooters should be discouraged from taking the shot. But the game is way more complex than that and encouraged/discouraged habits should be tailored to the player, not the team. Additionally, even a bad 3-point team needs to try to keep defenses honest, so discouraging it completely would probably worsen their scoring issues in the paint, not make them better.

 

[nwhoopfan]

It took me a long time to adjust my thinking on 3 point shooting. I still hate seeing teams overly reliant on taking shots behind the arc, but as low as 33% on 3's seems, it's just about equivalent to 50% on 2's, which is quite acceptable.

Yeah, agree with above, 40% as a team is not really reachable for most teams.

There are so many other factors though. 3 point shooting is just one. How good is a team defensively? How well do they rebound? Do they force TOs and get points in transition? How well do they shoot inside the arc? etc etc.

 

[bballnut90]

I don’t think there’s a clear minimum, but if it’s a major part of your offense I think 34% is a good baseline. South Carolina handily won the title in 2021-22 shooting 30.6% from 3, so it isn’t necessary if you’re elite elsewhere but it does help to have knock down shooters

 

[Alydar]

The more 3's are featured in your offense then the higher the team % has to be. A player who normally takes three spot up 3's a game can shoot 40% but if they are expected to shoot 10 a game the % will likely go down.

 

[Bone Dog]

33% from 3 is equivalent to 50% from 2. If players only shoot 33%, it’s not clear why a coach would encourage this. And yes, there’s other considerations. If you make your 3s you spread the floor. But your shooters also tend to drift back after shooting. An offense designed around 2s is usually in a better position to apply full court pressure. I have a tirade (that I’ll omit here) on the value of midrange jumpers. I like 3s mainly because they are demoralizing for opponents, and they open up the paint. Otherwise, I think 2s are more useful.

 

[maccca3232]

Stats from last season 2023-24.

 

[VaConnFan11]

This is an interesting article for determining the value of a 2-pt shot attempt and the value of a 3-pt shot attempt. It's concerning the NBA, but somewhat relevant. I apologize if I'm violating protocol for posting the link.

Deflation: Study Shows NBA 3-Point Shot Has Lost Its Value

 

[WBBTakeover]

34%.

Anything less than that and your offense is going to struggle against the better teams.