Miscalculating

[coolm]

I think opposing fans overlook the impact of 3 pt shooting.

This team shoots as well or better from 3 than you'd expect a good team to shoot from 2.

50% more scoring is statistically HUGE. If it's done efficiently and some defense is thrown in then you have a juggernaut.

 

[tomkar98]

This trend is starting to take a strong hold on the NBA game as well. Obviously golden state is your prime example. However, organizations have been looking into "efficient shot selection " for a long time. The Houston Rockets own their D-League team and for years have encouraged them to take more threes than twos. Also, if they were to take a two, it should only be a high percentage shot.

That being said, I never thought I'd see this kinda philosophy used here at OU. Not complaining! Quite the opposite! It's a very exciting form of basketball! Appealing to the average eye and very fascinating statistically!

Boomer! :OUbball-logo: :lon :buddy:woot

 

[Soonerinkc]

when I coached HS, the WORSE shot was a 15 to 18 fter....either a 3 or a layup.

lol...

 

[j2d2]

The conventional wisdom is that a team that lives by the three dies by the three on those nights when they just wont fall. The difference with OU is that we have a decent defense that can keep us in games when the shots arent going in. Kelvin taught me the advantage of that.

 

[Zimwillett]

The conventional wisdom is that a team that lives by the three dies by the three on those nights when they just wont fall. The difference with OU is that we have a decent defense that can keep us in games when the shots arent going in. Kelvin taught me the advantage of that.

Exactly. And OU doesn't often have a night where the 3s aren't falling. Their worst % was vs. WVU (29.2%), and it just so happens that they are the #1 3 point % defense in the country. So OU locked them down, held them below 70, and won the game.

 

[AdaSooner]

The conventional wisdom is that a team that lives by the three dies by the three on those nights when they just wont fall. The difference with OU is that we have a decent defense that can keep us in games when the shots arent going in. Kelvin taught me the advantage of that.

Aside from a solid defense, it helps that this team has three players in Buddy, Isaiah and Jordan who are capable of shooting a high percentage from behind the arc. If one is having an off night, chances are good the other two will pick up the slack.

On a smaller scale, Spangler and Buford aren't bad either. James has also given us a brief glimpse at what he will be able to do in time.

 

[DenverSooner]

Aside from a solid defense, it helps that this team has three players in Buddy, Isaiah and Jordan who are capable of shooting a high percentage from behind the arc. If one is having an off night, chances are good the other two will pick up the slack.

On a smaller scale, Spangler and Buford aren't bad either. James has also given us a brief glimpse at what he will be able to do in time.

It is actually more than three. Spangler, Buford, Walker and James all shoot the three at high enough rates that they should be encouraged. The first three are all above 38% and should shoot whenever open in my opinion.

Erdman made the most threes in a single season in OU history. He shot less than 41% that season. Hield is fourth from 2015 and he shot just under 36% that year. I don't think we were all thinking Hield shouldn't shoot last year.

 

[AdaSooner]

It is actually more than three. Spangler, Buford, Walker and James all shoot the three at high enough rates that they should be encouraged. The first three are all above 38% and should shoot whenever open in my opinion.

Erdman made the most threes in a single season in OU history. He shot less than 41% that season. Hield is fourth from 2015 and he shot just under 36% that year. I don't think we were all thinking Hield shouldn't shoot last year.

I listed those three separately because they're volume shooters. Spangler, Buford and James are not, but they're still a threat to score from deep. I forgot about Walker. Thanks for pointing that out. If Odomes was getting more playing time, I have a feeling he would be on that list as well. It's easy to forget that he was not far from a 50% shooter from three his senior year in high school.

I don't remember a time when we had this many players on our roster who were capable of shooting a high percentage from three point range.

 

[sperry]

The conventional wisdom is that a team that lives by the three dies by the three on those nights when they just wont fall. The difference with OU is that we have a decent defense that can keep us in games when the shots arent going in. Kelvin taught me the advantage of that.

The conventional wisdom has been debunked. The 3 point shot is the best thing you can be doing in basketball. There's a reason the 2 best teams in the NBA bomb it from downtown all the time.

 

[coolm]

each % increase from 33% to 40% is worth an additional 7% to your overall scoring. It's all about getting more from the same number of shots. you either increase your base % or you increase the worth of the goal (changing the rules midstream). then if you increase defense (THEIR fg% decreases) then you have winning basketball at some point.

 

[DenverSooner]

I listed those three separately because they're volume shooters. Spangler, Buford and James are not, but they're still a threat to score from deep. I forgot about Walker. Thanks for pointing that out. If Odomes was getting more playing time, I have a feeling he would be on that list as well. It's easy to forget that he was not far from a 50% shooter from three his senior year in high school.

I don't remember a time when we had this many players on our roster who were capable of shooting a high percentage from three point range.

I get it. I am just reminding everyone that OU has six guys shooting above 38% on this team. In the history of the program, there are not that many guys that have shot above 38% for a season. It is crazy how well this team shoots. In fact, I would bet there have been seasons where no one shot 38% from three.

 

[DenverSooner]

each % increase from 33% to 40% is worth an additional 7% to your overall scoring. It's all about getting more from the same number of shots. you either increase your base % or you increase the worth of the goal (changing the rules midstream). then if you increase defense (THEIR fg% decreases) then you have winning basketball at some point.

I don't follow your math at all. Could you explain what you are saying.

How does scoring go up by 7%?

Are you assuming a made three would have been a made two?

wouldn't points per game impact the increase in percentage. If I score 65 points per game, one more made 3 is a bigger impact than if I score 85 points per game on a percentage basis.

Ignoring points per game and any impact on two point shots, isn't your premise still flawed. If I hit 33 of 100 threes, I score 99 points. If I hit 34 of 100 threes I score 102 points. If I hit 35 of 100 threes I score 105. Isn't the percentage increase getting incrementally smaller each time my total points earned goes up?

i am very confused.

 

[chuckb]

There's a whole game theory thing going on here. Taking more 3's is advantageous as long as the expected # of pts is greater from taking a 3 than from taking a 2 but there's a point at which that isn't true or else teams would shoot 3's every time down. Some # of 2's is essential in order to open up the perimeter for the 3 and vice versa. It's too simplistic, then, to say that shooting a 3 is better than shooting a 2. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

The other thing is that 2's and 3's have different offensive rebound percentages and it matters which -- and I don't know the answer -- is more likely to lead to a 2nd shot and, therefore, points. Also, shooting 3's creates longer rebounds, so is a defensive team more likely to get a run-out to a fast break if we shoot a 3? If so, that reduces the effectiveness of a 3.

I like the 3 as much as the next guy, but you can't just say "shooting 3's is better than shooting 2's" and that's the end of it.

 

[sperry]

There's a whole game theory thing going on here. Taking more 3's is advantageous as long as the expected # of pts is greater from taking a 3 than from taking a 2 but there's a point at which that isn't true or else teams would shoot 3's every time down. Some # of 2's is essential in order to open up the perimeter for the 3 and vice versa. It's too simplistic, then, to say that shooting a 3 is better than shooting a 2. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

The other thing is that 2's and 3's have different offensive rebound percentages and it matters which -- and I don't know the answer -- is more likely to lead to a 2nd shot and, therefore, points. Also, shooting 3's creates longer rebounds, so is a defensive team more likely to get a run-out to a fast break if we shoot a 3? If so, that reduces the effectiveness of a 3.

I like the 3 as much as the next guy, but you can't just say "shooting 3's is better than shooting 2's" and that's the end of it.

High percentage 2s close to the basket are good as well. it's those midrange jumpers that are the issue.

 

[Max Power]

High percentage 2s close to the basket are good as well. it's those midrange jumpers that are the issue.

That's why the best players in the NBA are so good a mid range jumpers. Every coach knows that for the value that is the worse shot you can take. so they try to force players into them by closing out on the three and havign help defense inside. Being able to consistently hit them makes a guy like Michael, Kobe, Durant, etc. even more dangerous.