Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: My Version 2 of WINVAL

Expand Messages
  • Mike G
    ... that a ... shot. ... is ... This platitude surely predates the 3-point shot. And the danger in a player getting a rebound may lie more in what he ll do
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "John Hollinger"
      <alleyoop2@y...> wrote:
      > My research in the 2002 Prospectus showed just the opposite --
      that a
      > 3-pointer had LESS chance of being rebounded than a two-point
      > Which makes sense, because coaches are fond of saying the most
      > dangerous rebounder is the shooter, and on a 3-pointer the shooter
      > too far away to get most rebounds.

      This platitude surely predates the 3-point shot. And the "danger"
      in a player getting a rebound may lie more in what he'll do with it,
      than in the chances of his getting it.

      So given that a missed 3 is no more likely (or less likely) to be
      rebounded offensively, what accounts for the difference detected by
      Dr. Dan ?

      What about the missed shot that goes out of bounds? Probably more
      likely on a 3 than on a 2. Does the defense get a rebound? No, but
      effectively it's the same. Do they then get a fast break
      opportunity? No.

      So teams that shoot a lot of 3's may have relatively fewer fast
      breaks run against them. Yet they may have relatively more
      offensive rebounds. For both reasons, the outside-shooting team
      gains a cushion against a bigger/stronger opponent.

      This brings up the effect of "difference in team style". For a team
      without inside scoring, it does make sense to shoot more long
      shots. Forcing the ball inside makes the offense less efficient.

      Meanwhile, it's possible for an inside-efficient team to be even
      more efficient when shooting the 3. A mediocre 3-pt shooter can be
      a lot better when he's wide open all day, due to doubling inside.

      Smart coaches and teams take what is given them, most of the time.
      For the past several years (since before the shortened-arc era of
      the mid '90s), 3-pt shooting is (league-wide) more efficient than 2-
      pt and FT combined.

      > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
      > <edkupfer@r...> wrote:
      > > From: "dan_t_rosenbaum" <rosenbaum@u...>
      > > * <quote>
      > > Null Hypothesis: the cost of two point FGA is the same as the
      > of three
      > > point FGA
      > >
      > > The null hypothesis is soundly rejected with three point FGA
      > a lower
      > > cost, even after accounting for points produced and free throw
      > attempts
      > > generated.
      > > </q>
      > >
      > > Would it be asking too much to try this one again, this time
      > including
      > > rebounds in the accounting? Common Wisdom has it that 3 pointers
      > generate
      > > more offensive rebounds, which could add to the value of the
      > attempts.
      > > (I'm aware that DeanO disputes CW in his book, and I accept his
      > conclusion
      > > that 3 misses are no more likely to be offensively rebounded
      than 2
      > misses.
      > > Independent confirmation would be very nice, however.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.