RebKell's Junkie Boards

[pilight]

Even the best spot shooters need more to their game or they wind up playing minimal minutes. One dimensional players like Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis and Shatori Walker-Kimbrough are only getting 10-12 minutes a game and they're shooting well.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[Randy]

[ClayK]

All of the factors Glen mentions apply, but they still don't negate the strategic (analytical) advantage of three-point shots.

There is one commonly held belief that I'm not sure applies -- long rebounds. People say it, but one study I saw some time ago did not support it. I'm not convinced three-pointers generate significantly more long rebounds than midrange jumpers, though they certainly do so more than shots at the rim. And don't forget the now-common rebounding technique of back-tapping, which also pushes missed shots away from the rim.

The case for three-pointers is Darwinian -- if shooting them at the present pace was not the best way to win, strategies would change. But since they have been added to the game, there has been a steady shift to more threes and fewer post moves. At some point, of course, the tipping point is reached, and too many threes will be shot, and the pendulum will swing back. I'm not convinced that point has been reached yet, however.

But we're definitely getting close.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[Richyyy]

The thing is, in NBA terms, historicaly when 'too many' threes are being taken - and therefore the shot is deemed too easy - they move the line back. Whenever I catch a little NCAA men's basketball, it looks ridiculous to me that they're giving out three points for mid-range jumpshots. But the NBA has pretty much run out of room. They can't go any further back in the corners and still leave enough room for a standard NBA foot. To be honest, I think they might've already pushed it back a bit further if the court was wider and allowed it.

But unless they're going to remove the corner 3 - which at this point would be a big change to the NBA game - the next shift to the arc is going to entail a lot of work, and a league edict. I think the court could do with being wider even if they don't move the arc, but either way you're going to have to talk teams into it when it means losing a row or two of premium seats.

_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/

[Randy]

Simple solution is to just change the shape of the arc to just eliminate the corner 3.

[Richyyy]

[pilight]

[GlennMacGrady]

So far, no one's refuted my primary argument: that teams who emphasize a paint attack and other short shots will draw a lot more fouls than teams who emphasize an arc attack.

And I stand by my original suggestion that many teams who shoot a lot of threes -- or "too many" threes -- are doing so, not because they have an abundance of high 3FG% shooters and are playing the arithmetic odds; but are doing so simply because they don't know how to effectively run, or don't have the players to run, a sophisticated paint attack offense.

I don't sense any animosity toward the three-point shot these days. I think there are exactly 17 of us remaining in the world who preferred the two-point era. Today, the tactical argument is how much of a three-point attack a given team should employ, which (non-simplistically) is what I think we are really doing in this discussion.

As to the "excitement" factor of the three-point shot. I don't find it exciting if it is missed 68% of the time. If we are going to have a three-point shot, and of course we are, it should be easier to make. I advocate bringing the three-point line in closer, so that the average outside shooter can hit about 36% and very good shooters can hit 40%. Therefore, I would support making the WBB line at all levels consistent with the WCBB distance.

Now, as to the SIZE of the court. For at least 25 years I have thought the men's court has become too small, given the size, speed and athleticism of modern men players. Men's courts (esp. NBA) should be 10 feet longer, five feet wider, and have a basket that is 9" higher.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/MagicBusBasketball

[Nixtreefan]

Personally I want it all. One without the other is boring. The best basketball IMO is where you have players that are versatile and difficult to guard as they can shoot with range and do the other stuff. Players without a shot are easy to take charges on and left out on their own with none to pass too. Those players are open for a reason.

[Luuuc]

[Randy]

The flip side of the drawing fouls argument is that you are much more dependent on the refs calling the fouls. Some nights they do and some nights they don't. So how the game is being called can have a disproportionate effect. Some nights Tip and Angel live at the line, other nights they seldom get there.

[tfan]

[ClayK]

There is no question that interior plays draw more fouls, but ...

I'll talk about the high school level here, but it's true to a lesser extent at the higher levels.

One game we took 42 threes (in 32 minutes, I must point out) and made 13. There was some criticism (we won, however) about our willingness to take threes and not draw fouls, give up long rebounds, etc.

Consider, however, the actual process involved. Most threes come from perimeter screens and passes that are not contested, or at least not intensely contested. There are few turnovers making a pass for a three, and given the offense we ran, we relied on picks on and off the ball to get open, thus minimizing the number of passes.

But let's say, instead of taking those 42 threes, we looked to the paint to score. First, we have to work the ball to the wing, and let's assume that's as risky (which is to say not much) as perimeter passing to set up a three.

The wing has the ball -- now she has to enter to the post. Entry passes are not easy, and are contested by both the on-ball defender and the post defender. And lobs are contested by the weak-side defender. All of this means you will turn the ball over more trying to get the ball to the post. Let's be generous: On those 42 possessions, the entry pass is poor five times.

Post players are not noted for their great hands or ballhandling skills, and they will turn the ball over either trying to catch it, or trying to score. Call it another five turnovers, so we're down to 32 possessions.

Then there are a couple offensive fouls, which will not only turn the ball over but also put the post player in danger of going to the bench. We'll call it one, and we're down to 31.

So the post player now gets off 31 contested shots, as the wing is digging down, and the post defender is working hard. An elite post will draw weakside help, and many posts do not pass well out of double teams, so they shoot the ball. But let's say the post player makes 51.6% of her shots -- that's 32 points. She gets some free throws -- give her five -- and she has 37.

The 13 threes on those 42 shots generated 39 points. And in addition, if you take 42 threes, you'll probably get three free throws at some point, and make two. We're at 41.

And let's not forget the turnovers, which generate points for the opposition. One point per possession would mean another five points, to 46.

To get 46 points from 42 post entries, we need to add five free throws (up to ten made, which means at least 15 attempts) and a defended post shooting percentage of 58%.

If you're still with me (and I don't blame you if you left long ago), it's pretty clear that there's not a great deal of difference between the 42 threes and the 42 attempted post entries. On top of that, it's way easier to defend a post player, who's getting the ball on one of two spots on the floor, than it is to defend three-point shooters, who can be anywhere beyond the arc.

Again, coaches and GMs may be slow on the analytic uptake, but they are not stupid. A winning strategy is a winning strategy, and will be adopted.

There is a lot to like about a well-run offense that generates wide-open layups through offball movement and precision passing, but it's very, very difficult to make that work unless you have two good entry passers (hard to find) and a skilled post player. I could go on, but I think that's more than enough ...

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[Richyyy]

[GlennMacGrady]

[ClayK]

I think the problems at the WNBA level, in terms of running the kind of offense you're talking about, are two-fold:

1) The 24-second clock. I remember John Whisenant telling me he had to change his offense almost completely when the clock dropped to 24 from 30. There just isn't time to do too much.

2) Lack of practice time. If WNBA teams had their whole roster for three weeks of preseason camp, then you could start to implement some things, but since starters often arrive a day or two before (or after) the season starts, it's almost impossible to do.

Which leads to a third point: NBA teams could conceivably do it, but choose not to -- and Darwin speaks loudly here.

Finally, even WNBA teams would be hard-pressed to find room for multiple players who can make quality entry passes under pressure. The turnover problem in the paint is definitely an issue as well.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā