Sure draining 3's feels good, looks good, and allows you to be lazy behind the line, but given the percentages that WE actually make 3's, are they really worth it? Let's take a look at the stats:
Player | 3PTA | FGA | % 3PTA of Total FGA | % Pts Scored from 3's of Total | 3pt% (Rank) | FG% (Rank) | FG% w/o 3's (Rank) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ROG | 6.7 | 10.1 | 66% | 53% | 17.8% (8) | 25.7% (11) | 41.2% (3) |
ROB | 3.5 | 6.7 | 52% | 67% | 28.3% (3) | 30.0% (9) | 31.9% (11) |
HYN | 4.7 | 9.4 | 50% | 51% | 27.1% (4) | 39.7% (2) | 52.1% (2) |
ALC | 3.9 | 9.2 | 42% | 54% | 32.8% (1) | 37.0% (5) | 40.0% (5) |
KLO | 2.8 | 8.9 | 31% | 27% | 21.4% (6) | 42.9% (1) | 52.7% (1) |
DAV | 1.4 | 4.5 | 31% | 0% | 0.0% (11) | 25.0% (12) | 36.0% (9) |
RAY | 1.9 | 8.5 | 22% | 33% | 31.0% (2) | 35.2% (7) | 36.4% (7) |
DAN | 0.9 | 4.1 | 22% | 19% | 15.4% (9) | 30.6% (8) | 34.7% (10) |
RUS | 0.8 | 5.6 | 14% | 9% | 9.1% (10) | 26.9% (10) | 29.9% (12) |
MAT | 1.1 | 8.3 | 13% | 16% | 25.0% (5) | 37.6% (4) | 39.4% (6) |
HRB | 0.3 | 7.9 | 4% | 5% | 20.0% (7) | 35.6% (6) | 36.3% (8) |
MA | 0.1 | 9.3 | 1% | 0% | 0.0% (11) | 39.6% (3) | 40.1% (4) |
- Table ordered from top to bottom of player with the highest percentage of 3pt attempts per total FGA.
- Green in 5th column represents % of pts from 3's of total pts scored is higher than % of 3PTA of total FGA.
- Red in 5th column represents % of pts from 3's of total pts scored is lower than % of 3PTA of total FGA.
- Red in last column indicates FG% without 3-pointers is over 10% points higher than actual FG%.
What do they say? Let's start with ROG. 66% of ROG's Field Goal Attempts (FGA) are 3 Point Attempts (3PTA). Yet only 53% percent of his total points scored are the result of a 3 point shot. This is a poor return on the risk accompanied by a 3 point attempt. Especially when you consider that 3 pointers are worth 2 actual points, compared to 1 point for a regular field goal. Consider a 10 FGA example: player shoots 1 for 5 3pt, 1 for 5 2pt. 50% of FGA are 3's, yet 67% of the 3 total points are from 3's. This indicates 3's are worthwhile. Yet ROG's case is more like shooting 1 for 7 3pt, 2 for 3 2pt. 70% FGA are 3's, yet only 50% of total points are from those 3PTA. 3's are NOT worthwhile.
Sure, this is obvious for ROG: it is well known he shoots a ridiculous amounts of 3's, when he really should be driving because he is one of the best drivers in the league. But who else suffers from unrequited love with the 3? KLO is the highest on the 3pt% rankings at 6th to have a negative difference in percentages. Yet the difference is only minimal, his 3PTA is about 1/3 of his total FGA, and the points from 3's is also about 1/3 of total points. Relative equality between these two percentages is a good sign because it indicates you are getting a fair return on your investment: $1 in equals $1 out.
A bad return is $1 in and $0 out. ROG puts $1 in and gets $0.80 out. DAV puts in $30 and gets $0 out. 31% of DAV's shots are from behind the arc, and yet 0% of his total points scored resulted from those 3 point attempts. Unfortunately, this is a horrible ratio for the player who shoots the 5th highest number of 3pts per shot attempted.
Now obviously FG% would go up if no one shot 3's. But who would stand to gain the most in FG% if they limited their 3PTA and focused on the short-to-midrange game? ROG, HYN, KLO, and DAV all shoot 10% points higher with 3's factored out. HYN and KLO both have astounding 52% FG%'s without 3's, which makes me wonder why they don't just stop shooting 3's altogether and utterly dominate with their short and mid-range games. Right behind them would be, wait, get this: ROG, at 41.2% FG% without 3's, a 15.5% jump from his FG% with 3's. His FG% rank with 3's is 11th out of 12. His FG% rank without 3's is 3rd out of 12... Not too far behind is DAV, who has a 36% FG% without 3's, an 11% point jump from his FG% of 25% with 3's. DAV's FG% rank with 3's is 12th out of 12. His FG% rank from down low to mid-range is 9th out of 12, just decimal places behind and competing with HRB and RAY.
Sure I may have over analyzed. 3pt%'s will obviously be lower than FG%. And we will probably never let go of our crush on the three, no matter how hard she bricks us against the rim. But when you look at stats, how often one shoots the three and how well one does NOT shooting the three, it'll be hard to ignore the obvious. Stick to your strengths. I applaud MA, MAT, and HRB for their self-control.
Take this as constructive criticism, don't be offended, don't be stubborn and have an open mind. Who are you to not accept advice from teammates? Kobe?? I know ROG uses it as inspiration. Take this for example: ROG knew going into last week he shoots way to many 3's and that he should drive. First game of the week, he starts of a blistering 4 for 5 without a single 3 point attempt, sticking to his gameplan. And then? He gets lazy, and during the same game, follows up his hot start with four straight 3 point attempts, missing all 4. He finished the day jacking up more lazy 3's and shooting 4 for 20 from 3 point land.
And well if nothing else, from a personal standpoint, all I know is that I don't want none of my teammates launching airballs from downtown when games are on the line. I won't get too mad, but just hope you aren't on ROG's team. He will chew your ass out, he warned us.
That is a very interesting analysis. Russ will back me up on this, every time BEFORE and AFTER our car ride to Moraga, I keep telling him how I'm not going to jack up three's because my field goal percentage and efficiency seems to be higher when I'm not falling in love with it.
ReplyDeleteBut dude....52 percent? Wow. Will that stop me from shooting 3's from half court? Probably not :(
good analysis, ill keep it in mind for the next firework filled BBA day!
ReplyDeleteThis stat tells me to jack up more threes. there is no other way but to go up in my 3pt%. Guess ill be brushing up my threes on the weekends. Plus whats wrong with jacking up threes, makes my stats look better anyways. I say....just practice more on the threes you guys will be fine.
ReplyDelete