Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:SP, Right now we are hitting 47% of our 2 point shots. To achieve the equivalent efficiency with a 3 point shot, you only have to hit 31% of them. Right now we are hitting 41% of our 3-pointers (which is very good). I think we could afford to shoot more 3's. Even if our efficiency sank to 33 or 34% on 3's, our offense would be better off with that shot than a bunch of 20-footers.

Your second point has some merit to it. If Flip is telling guys like Bennett to "prove it to me that you can hit your open 2-pointers" first, I get that, up to a point. But the result of this philosophy is that in the short term we really are leaving points on the table. And don't even get me started on the irony of Flip disallowing 3's, but then doing absolutely nothing to encourage Bennett moving toward the basket. The result is all we see are long 2's, an opposing defense's dream-come-true.

This is what I hate about advanced stats, sure mathematically you can say our 3pt% can drop like 10% and we'd still be better off but there are so many more factors in play that make that not true. Unlike a made shot, which almost never results in a fast break, missed shots do lead to fast breaks. Long missed shots, missed 3's, usually lead to long rebounds and even more opportunities for teams to get out on a fast break. It's way too early to make a conclusion about the entire season but through three games I would guess we're one of the better teams in terms of fast break defense.

There's also development factors in play as well. We have a lot of really good athletes on this team who could essentially throw up a 3 whenever they wanted. Early on do we want them developing a chucker mentality just so we aren't last in 3pt attempts or do we want them to develop more of a team attitude that requires ball movement and finding an open look. Then there's also psychological factors, do you think it helps the young guys see more make-able shots go in or to watched 3's clank off the rim? I'd say it's much better for someone like Bennett to make 63% of his 2's than only 33% of his 3's.

The Rage Monster wrote:

Q12543 wrote:SP, Right now we are hitting 47% of our 2 point shots. To achieve the equivalent efficiency with a 3 point shot, you only have to hit 31% of them. Right now we are hitting 41% of our 3-pointers (which is very good). I think we could afford to shoot more 3's. Even if our efficiency sank to 33 or 34% on 3's, our offense would be better off with that shot than a bunch of 20-footers.

Your second point has some merit to it. If Flip is telling guys like Bennett to "prove it to me that you can hit your open 2-pointers" first, I get that, up to a point. But the result of this philosophy is that in the short term we really are leaving points on the table. And don't even get me started on the irony of Flip disallowing 3's, but then doing absolutely nothing to encourage Bennett moving toward the basket. The result is all we see are long 2's, an opposing defense's dream-come-true.

This is what I hate about advanced stats, sure mathematically you can say our 3pt% can drop like 10% and we'd still be better off but there are so many more factors in play that make that not true. Unlike a made shot, which almost never results in a fast break, missed shots do lead to fast breaks. Long missed shots, missed 3's, usually lead to long rebounds and even more opportunities for teams to get out on a fast break. It's way too early to make a conclusion about the entire season but through three games I would guess we're one of the better teams in terms of fast break defense.

There's also development factors in play as well. We have a lot of really good athletes on this team who could essentially throw up a 3 whenever they wanted. Early on do we want them developing a chucker mentality just so we aren't last in 3pt attempts or do we want them to develop more of a team attitude that requires ball movement and finding an open look. Then there's also psychological factors, do you think it helps the young guys see more make-able shots go in or to watched 3's clank off the rim? I'd say it's much better for someone like Bennett to make 63% of his 2's than only 33% of his 3's.

I'd add that you have to consider fouls when evaluating overall benefits of threes vs. two point shots as well. First, many two point shots end up being three points due to the "and one". Second, I believe in general closer to the basket, the more likely to draw fouls overall and get high perecentage free throw (even if it doesn't result in three, it's still efficent). And, finally - by getting the other team in foul trouble, you can sometimes alter who's on the court as teams generally sit guys down to avoid fouling out too early.

Rage, Here is a study on rebounding 3-pointers which is quite informative:http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

While 3's that miss do result in longer rebounds (on average), the offense actually has a better chance of maintaining possession than if they miss a mid-range shot. So those long rebounds are both a challenge and an opportunity.

Your second paragraph is where I do bend a little bit. I'm not suggesting that these guys start taking heat-checks with 20 seconds on the shot clock and guy in their face. "the open shot" is always the best shot. But what I am suggesting is that a lot of these open 20-footers they take within the flow of the offense could just as well be open 23-footers if they step out a bit more. I don't get why long 2's are OK, but somehow there is this arbitrary barrier at the 3-point line that isn't OK. It doesn't make any sense! You get 50% more points by increasing shot distance by 10-15%. What a bargain!

Carlos, My argument isn't close 2-pointers versus 3-pointers. I agree that if you can get shots in the paint and near the hoop, lots of good things happen. The most efficient offense is dunks, layups, free throws, and 3 pointers. It's the stuff in between that is sketchy. My problem is that Flip seems to think it's OK for some guys to shoot long 2's that are open, but it's not OK to shoot 3's that are open. AB is the poster child for this.

Well, there's the psychological factor of seeing more shots going into the basket on long 2s as compared to 3s...

And no, I am not advocating long 2s over 3s. But it seems a bit premature to condemn Flip's coaching and how it might evolve over the season. ;-)

Tim, I agree it's early, but Flip's reputation precedes him. There is adequate evidence to suggest that this is indeed a sustainable trend (the long 2's vs. more 3's). We shall see.....

Q12543 wrote:Carlos, My argument isn't close 2-pointers versus 3-pointers. I agree that if you can get shots in the paint and near the hoop, lots of good things happen. The most efficient offense is dunks, layups, free throws, and 3 pointers. It's the stuff in between that is sketchy. My problem is that Flip seems to think it's OK for some guys to shoot long 2's that are open, but it's not OK to shoot 3's that are open. AB is the poster child for this.

Q - I believe you and I and debated this a while back and I agree with your take specifically regarding long 2 pointers. I added my response to Rage's because I feel that sometimes others (not specifically you) are not looking at all factors. There are "good threes" and "bad threes". I know I read some stats that reflected risk based strategy of shooting threes. In a nutshell, the conclusion was it's obviously more beneficial to shoot threes (take risk) when behind and less advantageous to shoot threes (take risk) when ahead. Lots of things to consider. I feel too many people just see 3 > 2 and then say we need to shoot more threes. The reality is there's much more to it than that - otherwise every team would take every shot from 3 point land!

Is it ironic that there are complaints that Bennett is making his shots, whatever shots those may be. While our pg guard has a problem making shots from anywhere and the same people are happy he just signed a 14 mil per contract?
I'm just happy when the shot goes in. Call me crazy.

Q12543 wrote:Rage, Here is a study on rebounding 3-pointers which is quite informative:http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

While 3's that miss do result in longer rebounds (on average), the offense actually has a better chance of maintaining possession than if they miss a mid-range shot. So those long rebounds are both a challenge and an opportunity.

Your second paragraph is where I do bend a little bit. I'm not suggesting that these guys start taking heat-checks with 20 seconds on the shot clock and guy in their face. "the open shot" is always the best shot. But what I am suggesting is that a lot of these open 20-footers they take within the flow of the offense could just as well be open 23-footers if they step out a bit more. I don't get why long 2's are OK, but somehow there is this arbitrary barrier at the 3-point line that isn't OK. It doesn't make any sense! You get 50% more points by increasing shot distance by 10-15%. What a bargain!

That's a sweet article, looks like a lot of work went into it. In the end it looks like only about a 2-3% difference between offensive rebounding a mid-range and a 3pt shot. I would guess the percentage difference would be a little higher when comparing the percentage of 3's and long 2's leading to fast break attempts.

As for the long 2's being acceptable but not 3's I think there's a few factors involved. When it comes to bigs taking longer shots they're definitely some biomechanical factors involved. There are also repetition issues that come into play. In AAU, high school, and college the three point line corresponds with the long 2 in the NBA. That means all the repetition and practice these guys have been doing their entire lives.

The Rage Monster wrote:

Q12543 wrote:SP, Right now we are hitting 47% of our 2 point shots. To achieve the equivalent efficiency with a 3 point shot, you only have to hit 31% of them. Right now we are hitting 41% of our 3-pointers (which is very good). I think we could afford to shoot more 3's. Even if our efficiency sank to 33 or 34% on 3's, our offense would be better off with that shot than a bunch of 20-footers.

Your second point has some merit to it. If Flip is telling guys like Bennett to "prove it to me that you can hit your open 2-pointers" first, I get that, up to a point. But the result of this philosophy is that in the short term we really are leaving points on the table. And don't even get me started on the irony of Flip disallowing 3's, but then doing absolutely nothing to encourage Bennett moving toward the basket. The result is all we see are long 2's, an opposing defense's dream-come-true.

This is what I hate about advanced stats, sure mathematically you can say our 3pt% can drop like 10% and we'd still be better off but there are so many more factors in play that make that not true. Unlike a made shot, which almost never results in a fast break, missed shots do lead to fast breaks. Long missed shots, missed 3's, usually lead to long rebounds and even more opportunities for teams to get out on a fast break. It's way too early to make a conclusion about the entire season but through three games I would guess we're one of the better teams in terms of fast break defense.

There's also development factors in play as well. We have a lot of really good athletes on this team who could essentially throw up a 3 whenever they wanted. Early on do we want them developing a chucker mentality just so we aren't last in 3pt attempts or do we want them to develop more of a team attitude that requires ball movement and finding an open look. Then there's also psychological factors, do you think it helps the young guys see more make-able shots go in or to watched 3's clank off the rim? I'd say it's much better for someone like Bennett to make 63% of his 2's than only 33% of his 3's.

Excellent post rage. Very good analysys.