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

Re: The 3-point shot

Expand Messages
  • mikel_ind
    Why count points from beyond the arc any differently than points from any other source? Very seldom does a team NEED a 3, the exception being at the very end
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 1, 2002
      Why count points from beyond the arc any differently than points from
      any other source? Very seldom does a team NEED a 3, the exception
      being at the very end of a very close game.

      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
      > In doing some of my own evaluations of players over different eras,
      > I've run into something of snag: how to compare the relative values
      > of similar players where only one of the two players can hit the 3-
      > point shot. For example take Reggie Miller 99-00 and Rolando
      > Blackman 87-88 for example:
      > player GP FGM/FGA FG% FTM/FTA FT% Reb Ast St Bl TO Pts PPG
      > R.Miller 81 466/1041 44.8 373/406 91.9 239 187 85 25 129 1470 18.1
      > Blackman 71 497/1050 47.3 331/379 87.3 246 262 64 18 144 1325 18.7

      Reggie's combined shooting pct in 2000 was .591, Blackman's
      (1988) .534. I scale scoring rate by these factors, and give Reggie
      a scoring rate of 21.3, Blackman 18.5.

      Overall production: Reggie 27.4, Ro 25.9

      > By memory, the two played pretty similar games. THe numbers they
      > up were also pretty similar. However, there is a major stat
      > difference between them. Miller shot 165/404 from downtown and
      > Blackman shot 0/5. We can quantify the difference between a 3shot
      > and a 2pointer based on their relative value (ie 33% from 3 is
      > in points created as 45% shooting from 2).

      I would say 33% from the arc = 50% from inside.

      > But are there hidden
      > costs? On the one hand, one could argue that Blackman was a better
      > offensive player because he was able to score more points without
      > hitting 3s. However, there maybe an argument that it is a
      > part of the job description of a shooter to be able to hit 3s.
      > (there are also era differences: no one really shot 3s in 87-88 and
      > when the 3 was used more in the early 90s blackman proved capable
      > hitting 3s when it was expected of the perimeter shooters). Any
      > opinions on whether the ability to hit a 3point shot should be
      > additional weight in statistical formulas and whether the inability
      > to hit a 3 based upon team/era expectations is also factored in?

      Some people use formulas that consider 3-point percentage separately,
      and end up penalizing Shaq (for example) for not shooting 3s. (?!?!?!)
      I don't see any use for this; I figure the 3-pointer can get you an
      extra point now and then, just as the and-one can.

      It was suggested (back when it was new) that the missed 3 would lead
      to fewer offensive rebounds, long rebounds, fast breaks, etc. I
      haven't seen any studies of this, but my casual observation is that
      if anything, there are more offensive boards (though fewer putbacks)
      off missed 3s.

      It's true that every team needs a couple of 3-point shooters, but it
      may also be true that players who score inside the arc tend to be
      more consistent scorers.

      I think Reggie Miller is a statistical anomaly in many ways. He is a
      3-point threat who can also get to the line a lot. And yet he
      doesn't take a lot of shots most of the time. Thus he has one of the
      highest "combined shooting pct" of all time.

      .612 Cedric Maxwell
      .609 James Donaldson
      .608 Artis Gilmore
      .606 Dave Twardzik
      .603 Reggie Miller
      .601 Adrian Dantley
      .598 Kevin McHale
      .598 Jeff Ruland
      .596 Steve Kerr
      .595 Charles Barkley
      .595 John Stockton
      .593 Darryl Dawkins
      .593 Magic Johnson
      .592 Bobby Jones
      .590 Ed Pinckney

      Mike Goodman
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.