| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66906
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/18/18 1:54 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Three possible explanations:
1. The Palm Tree Effect -- Kelsey Mitchell is doing it.
2. Coaches and players have become increasingly and more blindly accepting of the belief in the "fools gold" of the three-point shot, as Pat Riley initially called it in the 80's.
3. Coaches and players don't necessarily believe in gold or fool's gold, but end up chucking up more and more threes because they don't know how to execute efficient paint attacks out of the half court offense. You can tell a team is victim to this if you see that they mostly dribble, dribble, dribble on the perimeter, or recycle windshield wiper passes around the perimeter, instead of opening up shooting space in the paint, all while the shot clock winds down to desperation heave time.
In order to statistically test hypothesis 3, I'd like to see an analysis of average points in the paint per game during the life of the WNBA. |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 2:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Three possible explanations:
1. The Palm Tree Effect -- Kelsey Mitchell is doing it.
2. Coaches and players have become increasingly and more blindly accepting of the belief in the "fools gold" of the three-point shot, as Pat Riley initially called it in the 80's.
3. Coaches and players don't necessarily believe in gold or fool's gold, but end up chucking up more and more threes because they don't know how to execute efficient paint attacks out of the half court offense. You can tell a team is victim to this if you see that they mostly dribble, dribble, dribble on the perimeter, or recycle windshield wiper passes around the perimeter, instead of opening up shooting space in the paint, all while the shot clock winds down to desperation heave time.
In order to statistically test hypothesis 3, I'd like to see an analysis of average points in the paint per game during the life of the WNBA. |
4. There are more shots per game.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 4:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If players are shooting more 3's but their percentage is lower (which I couldn't discern from the article) then it may just be more chucking and bricking. It does seem the 3's have gotten too easy for the men so it may reach a point where the women stop following suit. Or maybe the move the line back in the NBA or something.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66906
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 5:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Randy wrote: |
| If players are shooting more 3's but their percentage is lower (which I couldn't discern from the article) then it may just be more chucking and bricking. It does seem the 3's have gotten too easy for the men so it may reach a point where the women stop following suit. Or maybe the move the line back in the NBA or something. |
The men have reached the point where they can't move it back any further in the corners and still leave room for the player's feet.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 6:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight, is the scoring average higher this season? Is it the highest ever? And in terms of 3 pt %, where does this season rank?
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 6:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Three possible explanations:
1. The Palm Tree Effect -- Kelsey Mitchell is doing it. |
This would certainly explain Indiana, which is averaging over 20 attempts from three years this year, up from less than 14.67 attempts last year.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66906
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 7:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| toad455 wrote: |
| pilight, is the scoring average higher this season? Is it the highest ever? And in terms of 3 pt %, where does this season rank? |
No, scoring is down from last year. Last year it was 81.4 ppg, this year it's 79.1.
The league is at .329 from three, that would rank 17th among the 22 seasons. The high was .353 in 2012.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 7:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Randy wrote: |
| If players are shooting more 3's but their percentage is lower (which I couldn't discern from the article) then it may just be more chucking and bricking. It does seem the 3's have gotten too easy for the men so it may reach a point where the women stop following suit. Or maybe the move the line back in the NBA or something. |
The men have reached the point where they can't move it back any further in the corners and still leave room for the player's feet. |
Eh, that's not entirely accurate: the men have reached the point where they can't move the line back any further without widening the court, which they won't do because they'd have to remove a whole row of courtside seats, which they won't do because $$$.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22474
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/18/18 8:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| toad455 wrote: |
| pilight, is the scoring average higher this season? Is it the highest ever? And in terms of 3 pt %, where does this season rank? |
No, scoring is down from last year. Last year it was 81.4 ppg, this year it's 79.1.
The league is at .329 from three, that would rank 17th among the 22 seasons. The high was .353 in 2012. |
Thanks!
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
jap
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 7924
Back to top |
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 10911
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11146
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/18 10:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Unless you subscribe to the theory that WNBA coaches and GMs don't care about winning, or are too stupid to pursue winning strategies, then the rise in three-pointers is recognition that, even at 32.9%, you will give yourself a better chance to win taking those threes than not taking them.
Of course, the pendulum always swings a little too far, and there is a limit, but the three-point shot does more than just change the scoreboard by itself -- it opens up the interior for drives and post players, and a made three-pointer is the most exciting play in the women's game (though I know Glen would prefer a carefully executed entry pass from the wing followed by an up-and-under post move).
When I first embraced the three-point shot as a strategy, it gave me a competitive advantage over high school opposition; if I were a head coach now, that would no longer be the case because coaches want to win, and they use strategies that give them the best chance to do so.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/18 12:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| but the three-point shot does more than just change the scoreboard by itself -- it opens up the interior for drives and post players |
True, but if and only if the offensive team shoots three-pointers at a high enough percentage to draw the defenders away from the paint and toward the arc shooters. I don't know what that magic 3PT% is for various defensive coaches, but 32% would probably not do it for many. |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24351
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/18 1:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The most basic of maths tells you that if you're shooting 33% on threes, you better be shooting 50% or better on twos to makes them a better shot. Most teams don't have many players who manage that latter feat, especially while taking anything other than layups. Hence jacking a load of threes.
It's amazing how much of the 'analytics revolution' boils down to people realising that three is actually quite a bit more than two. |
|
sigur3
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 6191
Location: Chicago-ish
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/18 2:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
The most basic of maths tells you that if you're shooting 33% on threes, you better be shooting 50% or better on twos to makes them a better shot. Most teams don't have many players who manage that latter feat, especially while taking anything other than layups. Hence jacking a load of threes.
It's amazing how much of the 'analytics revolution' boils down to people realising that three is actually quite a bit more than two. |
Math is hard though. Lots of stubborn basketball people out there who will just call you a nerd and say that you haven't played the game so there's no possible way for you to know how it REALLY works rather than acknowledge that 3>2.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11146
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/18 4:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
The most basic of maths tells you that if you're shooting 33% on threes, you better be shooting 50% or better on twos to makes them a better shot. Most teams don't have many players who manage that latter feat, especially while taking anything other than layups. Hence jacking a load of threes.
It's amazing how much of the 'analytics revolution' boils down to people realising that three is actually quite a bit more than two. |
It's funny you should mention that because I go through it with every team I coach and every camp I run. If you can shoot 50% you're an outstanding offensive player; if you can shoot 33% from three, you're helping your team just as much.
(Further number-crunching reveals that shooting 25% from three is like shooting 37.5% from two, and I've coached some very good high school teams, and only a couple have shot better than 37.5%. So missing three out of four threes actually helps you win at the high school level ...)
And the threshold for defending the three is not a percentage, necessarily -- it's if a player is a credible threat. If Taurasi has the ball, she's a credible threat in a way that Nneka is not. But if you just stand there and let Nneka set her feet, Nneka is a credible threat and must be guarded.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/18 5:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| ... and a made three-pointer is the most exciting play in the women's game... |
Bull-fucking-shit! When did women stop crossing people up? When did women stop making no-look passes? Alley-oops still happen in the women's game, even if they're not dunking on the catch, all all three of those things are more exciting than a three-pointer, by several orders of magnitude.
| Quote: |
| (though I know Glen would prefer a carefully executed entry pass from the wing followed by an up-and-under post move). |
Well, shit, put me on Team Glen, then. I am someone who has always preferred the NBA to the WNBA, but the W has started to pull even with my personal enjoyment, entirely on the strength of the fact that post players still matter in the W.
Look, I acknowledge the utility and the strategy of the three-point shot. I acknowledge that, in 2018, if you want to win at basketball, you need players that can hit threes. Three is more than two, and blah, blah, blah, and this, that and a third, and every thing else. I get all that. But, exciting? Fuck that! The three-point shot is the worst thing to happen in the history of basketball, IMO.
Well, it's definitely the worst thing to happen to basketball since zone defense.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
ChasingRatDogmaSalade
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/18 9:40 pm ::: Re: The W is Making More 3-pointers Than Ever |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
https://medium.com/her-hoop-stats/the-wnba-is-making-more-3-pointers-than-ever-dffd84290da2
| Quote: |
| The league nearly set a record with 17.5 attempts per game in 2017 and are up to 19.5 so far this season |
|
We here in Las Vegas are trying our hardest to reverse this trend.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/20/18 12:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| If you like the NBA right now it is because the better teams are passing and shooting the ball better including the 3. |
Speak for yourself; that's not what I'm in this for. I mean, I like passing as much as the next person, I just like it better when it's a pass that leads to a layup, or a hook shot, or (god forbid) a dunk. I've never been about jump shooting. The "bruising" and "knocking people over" that you look down your nose at? That's exactly what brought me to the table.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/20/18 10:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
The most basic of maths tells you that if you're shooting 33% on threes, you better be shooting 50% or better on twos to makes them a better shot. Most teams don't have many players who manage that latter feat, especially while taking anything other than layups. Hence jacking a load of threes.
It's amazing how much of the 'analytics revolution' boils down to people realising that three is actually quite a bit more than two. |
Sorry, this analysis is much too superficial, because basketball offense is about much more than the math of (3FG% x 3) vs. (2FG% x 2). If that's all there were to it, then some teams would be better off taking all threes and other teams would be better of taking all twos.
One crucial thing this simplistic math ignores is the probability of getting fouled in the act of driving or shooting. That probability increases in direct proportion to the the shooter's closeness to the basket. A team that shoots only threes would almost never get fouled. A team that works to get the shooter as close the the basket as possible will draw a lot of fouls. This can result in a LOT of foul shot points, and also can get the multiple defenders, including star players, in foul trouble.
Another thing the simplistic math ignores is the probability of getting offensive rebounds, putbacks and other second chance points, which will be higher for paint shots than arc shots.
A third thing the simplistic math ignores is that shots are not generated just by the position of the shooter -- beyond the arc, in the midrange or in the paint -- but by the position of the offensive teammates to set off-ball screens, back-door cuts, and other two- and three-man games. These fundamental plays work better inside the arc than outside the arc.
In the age of the three-point shot -- sigh, a dark moment in basketball history but now inexorable -- a top team must have a balance of high percentage three-point shooting, effective drivers and penetrators, and efficient inside two- and three-man plays. That kind of team would absolutely destroy the team from Simplistic Mathematics University, which starts five players who can do nothing offensively except shoot three-point shots at 33.3%.
Q.E.D. |
|
Aladyyn
Joined: 23 Jul 2017
Posts: 1560
Location: Czech Republic
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/18 5:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
The most basic of maths tells you that if you're shooting 33% on threes, you better be shooting 50% or better on twos to makes them a better shot. Most teams don't have many players who manage that latter feat, especially while taking anything other than layups. Hence jacking a load of threes.
It's amazing how much of the 'analytics revolution' boils down to people realising that three is actually quite a bit more than two. |
Sorry, this analysis is much too superficial, because basketball offense is about much more than the math of (3FG% x 3) vs. (2FG% x 2). If that's all there were to it, then some teams would be better off taking all threes and other teams would be better of taking all twos.
One crucial thing this simplistic math ignores is the probability of getting fouled in the act of driving or shooting. That probability increases in direct proportion to the the shooter's closeness to the basket. A team that shoots only threes would almost never get fouled. A team that works to get the shooter as close the the basket as possible will draw a lot of fouls. This can result in a LOT of foul shot points, and also can get the multiple defenders, including star players, in foul trouble.
Another thing the simplistic math ignores is the probability of getting offensive rebounds, putbacks and other second chance points, which will be higher for paint shots than arc shots.
A third thing the simplistic math ignores is that shots are not generated just by the position of the shooter -- beyond the arc, in the midrange or in the paint -- but by the position of the offensive teammates to set off-ball screens, back-door cuts, and other two- and three-man games. These fundamental plays work better inside the arc than outside the arc.
In the age of the three-point shot -- sigh, a dark moment in basketball history but now inexorable -- a top team must have a balance of high percentage three-point shooting, effective drivers and penetrators, and efficient inside two- and three-man plays. That kind of team would absolutely destroy the team from Simplistic Mathematics University, which starts five players who can do nothing offensively except shoot three-point shots at 33.3%.
Q.E.D. |
Houston Rockets are basically what you're describing. Threes and layups.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24351
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/18 5:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Yes, its obviously more complicated becuase everything is related. Having shooters opens the floor inside; having threats inside creates more room for shooters, just to start on the most basic level. But the line I offered is still true - a large part of analytics development in basketball was realising that 3 isn't just a bit more than 2; it's half as much again!
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Another thing the simplistic math ignores is the probability of getting offensive rebounds, putbacks and other second chance points, which will be higher for paint shots than arc shots. |
Except that longer shots typically lead to longer rebounds, which are more likely to be offensive rebounds because they evade defenders boxing out closest to the rim.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| A third thing the simplistic math ignores is that shots are not generated just by the position of the shooter -- beyond the arc, in the midrange or in the paint -- but by the position of the offensive teammates to set off-ball screens, back-door cuts, and other two- and three-man games. These fundamental plays work better inside the arc than outside the arc. |
Except there's more room to run those sets for shooters outside. You can flip screens at the last second, reverse around them a second or third time, and are less likely to get caught up with extra defenders who've collapsed down to the action inside. There's plenty of beauty to what goes on out there getting people open as well - it's just an extra threat that a guy like Steph Curry can pull up from 30ft and hit.
Maybe it's just because to me it's always existed, but I don't get the hate for the 3. It broadens and varies the game. The post-Jordan 90s NBA where everything was a war inside was boring as hell. |
|
|
|
