foosballnick wrote:

tkf wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

good post, and accurate, but what I think is missed is this.. how many of his two point shots generate FT's? we know he is not generating FT's from three point shots. If so he probably would be among the league leaders in 4 point plays.. and we all know Jamal crawford leads in that category.

And using the nets may not have been the best team to use, because kevin love plays in the west. wouldn't it be much better to use a team in the west. Almost all of the higher scoring offenses are in the west. Love is trying to make the playoffs in the west. Of the 30 teams in the NBA only 5 east teams score 100pts or more, in the west it is 12.. so you have to count in pace, which generates more posessions for the other team, and the misses are more potential points for the opposition. His team probably could get away with his three point shooting in the east.. but not the west..

I also would figure the PPP to be a bit higher than 1.04 when you consider he plays 52 games vs the better scoring west teams vs 30 east games...

I would like to see the Point per posession in the west.... figured in with more weight into this equation.. or is the 1.04 a west calculation? of just the western conference opponents? thanks

Free throw attempts per FGA is a valid data point that probably needs to be added to the equation. We would have to know what the breakdown of FTA for 2 point shots vs FTA for 3 point shots was to make the equation valid. If you ran the formula and made the assumption that K Love generates Free Throw attempts 35% of the time on 2 Point shots (his career FTA per Shot is around 45%) and generates FTA on 3 Point Shots around 5% of the time.....this would mean he would have to shoot 41% from Three in order to have the same net value as 50% from two. Of course once assumptions in data are made, the model becomes less reliable.

Type of Shot 3 Pt
Shooting %: 0.41
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.05
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 0.61
Points: 12.91
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.90
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.27
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.44
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

Type of Shot 2 Pt
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.35
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 2.85
Points: 12.85
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

of particular note are the two bits of data that i enlarged. add in that if you miss 63% of your threes it benefits the opponent quite a bit more, doesn't it?

dk7th wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

tkf wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

good post, and accurate, but what I think is missed is this.. how many of his two point shots generate FT's? we know he is not generating FT's from three point shots. If so he probably would be among the league leaders in 4 point plays.. and we all know Jamal crawford leads in that category.

And using the nets may not have been the best team to use, because kevin love plays in the west. wouldn't it be much better to use a team in the west. Almost all of the higher scoring offenses are in the west. Love is trying to make the playoffs in the west. Of the 30 teams in the NBA only 5 east teams score 100pts or more, in the west it is 12.. so you have to count in pace, which generates more posessions for the other team, and the misses are more potential points for the opposition. His team probably could get away with his three point shooting in the east.. but not the west..

I also would figure the PPP to be a bit higher than 1.04 when you consider he plays 52 games vs the better scoring west teams vs 30 east games...

I would like to see the Point per posession in the west.... figured in with more weight into this equation.. or is the 1.04 a west calculation? of just the western conference opponents? thanks

Free throw attempts per FGA is a valid data point that probably needs to be added to the equation. We would have to know what the breakdown of FTA for 2 point shots vs FTA for 3 point shots was to make the equation valid. If you ran the formula and made the assumption that K Love generates Free Throw attempts 35% of the time on 2 Point shots (his career FTA per Shot is around 45%) and generates FTA on 3 Point Shots around 5% of the time.....this would mean he would have to shoot 41% from Three in order to have the same net value as 50% from two. Of course once assumptions in data are made, the model becomes less reliable.

Type of Shot 3 Pt
Shooting %: 0.41
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.05
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 0.61
Points: 12.91
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.90
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.27
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.44
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

Type of Shot 2 Pt
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.35
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 2.85
Points: 12.85
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

of particular note are the two bits of data that i enlarged. add in that if you miss 63% of your threes it benefits the opponent quite a bit more, doesn't it?

wow, good catch DK..

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

tkf wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

good post, and accurate, but what I think is missed is this.. how many of his two point shots generate FT's? we know he is not generating FT's from three point shots. If so he probably would be among the league leaders in 4 point plays.. and we all know Jamal crawford leads in that category.

And using the nets may not have been the best team to use, because kevin love plays in the west. wouldn't it be much better to use a team in the west. Almost all of the higher scoring offenses are in the west. Love is trying to make the playoffs in the west. Of the 30 teams in the NBA only 5 east teams score 100pts or more, in the west it is 12.. so you have to count in pace, which generates more posessions for the other team, and the misses are more potential points for the opposition. His team probably could get away with his three point shooting in the east.. but not the west..

I also would figure the PPP to be a bit higher than 1.04 when you consider he plays 52 games vs the better scoring west teams vs 30 east games...

I would like to see the Point per posession in the west.... figured in with more weight into this equation.. or is the 1.04 a west calculation? of just the western conference opponents? thanks

Free throw attempts per FGA is a valid data point that probably needs to be added to the equation. We would have to know what the breakdown of FTA for 2 point shots vs FTA for 3 point shots was to make the equation valid. If you ran the formula and made the assumption that K Love generates Free Throw attempts 35% of the time on 2 Point shots (his career FTA per Shot is around 45%) and generates FTA on 3 Point Shots around 5% of the time.....this would mean he would have to shoot 41% from Three in order to have the same net value as 50% from two. Of course once assumptions in data are made, the model becomes less reliable.

Type of Shot 3 Pt
Shooting %: 0.41
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.05
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 0.61
Points: 12.91
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.90
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.27
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.44
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

Type of Shot 2 Pt
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.35
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 2.85
Points: 12.85
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

The issue is that you can't just look at 2's and 3's. It has to be broken down to 2's at the rim, 2's mid range, and 3's.

There zero advantages is any scenario to long range 2's. Close 2's are the highest rate and the most efficient, yet they are not always there. When they are not, the next best shot is a three. They compliment each other.

Actually they are there, historical data I provided shows he has taken more of the shots in the lane, his highest % shot at least 20 times more in a season. I will get to this when I have some time later...

Most of his shots are between 3 feet and the 3 point line. Those are his worst shots as they are with most players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/loveke01.html

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

tkf wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

good post, and accurate, but what I think is missed is this.. how many of his two point shots generate FT's? we know he is not generating FT's from three point shots. If so he probably would be among the league leaders in 4 point plays.. and we all know Jamal crawford leads in that category.

And using the nets may not have been the best team to use, because kevin love plays in the west. wouldn't it be much better to use a team in the west. Almost all of the higher scoring offenses are in the west. Love is trying to make the playoffs in the west. Of the 30 teams in the NBA only 5 east teams score 100pts or more, in the west it is 12.. so you have to count in pace, which generates more posessions for the other team, and the misses are more potential points for the opposition. His team probably could get away with his three point shooting in the east.. but not the west..

I also would figure the PPP to be a bit higher than 1.04 when you consider he plays 52 games vs the better scoring west teams vs 30 east games...

I would like to see the Point per posession in the west.... figured in with more weight into this equation.. or is the 1.04 a west calculation? of just the western conference opponents? thanks

Free throw attempts per FGA is a valid data point that probably needs to be added to the equation. We would have to know what the breakdown of FTA for 2 point shots vs FTA for 3 point shots was to make the equation valid. If you ran the formula and made the assumption that K Love generates Free Throw attempts 35% of the time on 2 Point shots (his career FTA per Shot is around 45%) and generates FTA on 3 Point Shots around 5% of the time.....this would mean he would have to shoot 41% from Three in order to have the same net value as 50% from two. Of course once assumptions in data are made, the model becomes less reliable.

Type of Shot 3 Pt
Shooting %: 0.41
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.05
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 0.61
Points: 12.91
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.90
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.27
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.44
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

Type of Shot 2 Pt
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.35
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 2.85
Points: 12.85
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

of particular note are the two bits of data that i enlarged. add in that if you miss 63% of your threes it benefits the opponent quite a bit more, doesn't it?

That is already calculated into the +/- (diff).

so the results are dead even at 9.09 whether 2 or a 3?!?

If you massage the data enough for your vacuum :-)

All these numbers just prove that should not be taking too many mid range shots or else you will be inefficient like Aldridge.

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:This discussion reminds me of the Love vs. Aldridge thread. A big who takes 3s versus a big who doesn't.

Aldridge takes most of his shots between 16 feet and the 3 point line at 44%. How (in)efficient is that?!?!?

i know right.

And he is the perfect example. 18.6 of his shots are from 0-3 feet. Why? Because its hard to get those shots. So what does he do? He has to settle for long 2's at 44% percent because he does not have the range to shoot the 3. Between 3 and 16 he is horrible (~37%) but between 16 and the arc he is at 44% (not good either).

Wouldn't it be better if those really long 2's were 3's?

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

tkf wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I've attempted to create a mathematical or logic based calculation related to the major issue discussed in this thread - that being is it more efficient for a player to take 3 pointers at an average of 37% or 2 pointers at an average of 50%. Below I've listed a calculation that would compare 10 three pointers vs. 10 two point shots. The calculation takes into account the number of possessions (and points) that would go to the other team based on shot misses. The Brooklyn Nets were used as a standard for Defensive Rebounding Rate and Points per Possession. Overall it appears that the taking 10 three pointers at 37% would yield a slightly higher net score of 6.36 points .... vs. 10 two point shots (6.24 net points). What could effect the outcome would be other variables not presented such as Def Rebound Rate on two point shots vs. three point shots. Also, shots taken in the paint at a much higher percentage such as layups or dunks were taken out of the equation as the discussion was mainly about overall individual shooting percentages of a player such as Kevin Love.

Type of Shot (3 Pt)
Shooting % : 0.37
Attempts : 10.00
Points: 11.10
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 6.30
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.55
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.74
Net Points (+/-): 6.36

Type of Shot (2 Pt)
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Points: 10.00
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 6.24

good post, and accurate, but what I think is missed is this.. how many of his two point shots generate FT's? we know he is not generating FT's from three point shots. If so he probably would be among the league leaders in 4 point plays.. and we all know Jamal crawford leads in that category.

And using the nets may not have been the best team to use, because kevin love plays in the west. wouldn't it be much better to use a team in the west. Almost all of the higher scoring offenses are in the west. Love is trying to make the playoffs in the west. Of the 30 teams in the NBA only 5 east teams score 100pts or more, in the west it is 12.. so you have to count in pace, which generates more posessions for the other team, and the misses are more potential points for the opposition. His team probably could get away with his three point shooting in the east.. but not the west..

I also would figure the PPP to be a bit higher than 1.04 when you consider he plays 52 games vs the better scoring west teams vs 30 east games...

I would like to see the Point per posession in the west.... figured in with more weight into this equation.. or is the 1.04 a west calculation? of just the western conference opponents? thanks

Free throw attempts per FGA is a valid data point that probably needs to be added to the equation. We would have to know what the breakdown of FTA for 2 point shots vs FTA for 3 point shots was to make the equation valid. If you ran the formula and made the assumption that K Love generates Free Throw attempts 35% of the time on 2 Point shots (his career FTA per Shot is around 45%) and generates FTA on 3 Point Shots around 5% of the time.....this would mean he would have to shoot 41% from Three in order to have the same net value as 50% from two. Of course once assumptions in data are made, the model becomes less reliable.

Type of Shot 3 Pt
Shooting %: 0.41
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.05
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 0.61
Points: 12.91
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.90
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 4.27
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 4.44
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

Type of Shot 2 Pt
Shooting %: 0.50
Attempts: 10.00
Free Throws per shots average: 0.35
Free Throw Percentage: 0.82
Free Throw Points per 10 shots: 2.85
Points: 12.85
Rebounds Per 10 Shots: 5.00
Def Rebound Rate: 0.72
# Opponents Possessions caused: 3.62
Opponents Points per Possession: 1.04
Opponents Points per missed shot: 3.76
Net Points (+/-): 9.09

of particular note are the two bits of data that i enlarged. add in that if you miss 63% of your threes it benefits the opponent quite a bit more, doesn't it?

That is already calculated into the +/- (diff).

so the results are dead even at 9.09 whether 2 or a 3?!?

If you massage the data enough for your vacuum :-)

All these numbers just prove that should not be taking too many mid range shots or else you will be inefficient like Aldridge.

i don't understand your answer. what data is being massaged here such that the end result is a wash?

Well ... there were many assumptions made just to get it to even. Assumptions that I have never seen any data to support.

What I have been stating is data that is widely adopted by the NBA community.

What foosball did was great - love to see when someone takes time to understand the data and I am not disagreeing with his attempted theory, but eFg (to properly value 3's) is widely established and it's value is pretty well documented.

And, the main issue I have is the bucketing of rim 2's together with long 2's which you have not addressed.

Nobody will argue that close 2's are great shots though they are hard to come by. So, after the rim shots, what would you rather, long 2's or 3's?

So, that would depend on who is shooting the 3 and if they can be made at an efficient level. Some players just can't shoot from that distance. And for these players, they better be off the charts at hitting long 2's to compensate.

The best stat to look at to judge efficiency is obviously TS since it includes FT's and any player near 60 is superstar efficient.

I found this experiment quite interesting, have you seen this?

Its a bit nuts and experimental but that is what is great about having a D-League team. You can't experiment.

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:This discussion reminds me of the Love vs. Aldridge thread. A big who takes 3s versus a big who doesn't.

Aldridge takes most of his shots between 16 feet and the 3 point line at 44%. How (in)efficient is that?!?!?

i know right.

And he is the perfect example. 18.6 of his shots are from 0-3 feet. Why? Because its hard to get those shots. So what does he do? He has to settle for long 2's at 44% percent because he does not have the range to shoot the 3. Between 3 and 16 he is horrible (~37%) but between 16 and the arc he is at 44% (not good either).

Wouldn't it be better if those really long 2's were 3's?

OK, FIRST i wish you stop with the " its hard to get those shots".. another myth.... And where do you come up with this 3 foot barrier?

If you at kevin loves chart, he is getting over 500 shots from 8 feet and in, stop saying this is so hard to get.. and stop with the three foot rule... I am saying get closer to the basket.. looking at the chart that is 8 feet and in.

So now look at at all of the shots that he missed right on that three point line.. well guess what, he is probably hoovering around that three point line setting picks.. and he missed just as many of those as he had in the mid range area.. lets say the 12-18 feet... The reason why his long twos are bad is because he is hoovering around the three point line, which is why I said get closer to the basket and you won't be shooting those shots...

now i am going to post this url link of the kinds of shots he gets.. and when you are around the hoop, you can get off a number of shots, dunks and tip-ins, take a look at how he scores around the basket..

http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.html?PlayerID=201567&groupFeedtype=splitsShooting&MeasureType=Base&PerMode=Totals

it looks like he can get a lot of shots around the basket, and for a guy who is an elite rebounder think of how many tip-ins and put backs he can get.. but that can only happen if you are playing closer to the basket.... and since you tried to church up his 4.4 dimes, just think of how many more he can get if he gets doubled.. and I can bet he isn't getting doubled at the three point line..

Another thing, what do you think happens when you are that close to the basket? well for a guy who was championing TS, you should be happy to know kevin love gets to the line a lot.. imagine how much more he could get there if he plays closer to the basket... rebounds, free throws and assist don't come easier hanging at the three point line..

now don't get me wrong I never said he said he shouldn't take threes. threes are an important part of the NBA now, especially if you shoot them well... I am questioning the amount of threes he is taking.. specific to kevin love.... a page or two ago, i suggested he take about 1.5 threes less..

Now let me jump on lamarcus Aldridge.. you said long twos are the worst shots you can take.. well ok, lets look at LA's shot chart.

now take a look at the green.. you see these are the long twos... but LA hits them at a pretty high rate... you see he can hit those shots and as long as you can hit them, take them.. but make no mistake I still want him him closer to the basket.. and for a jump shooting big, he still took 429 shots from 8 feet and in.. so again please stop saying he can't get those shots.. the reason why he ventures out to the perimeter, and i can only assume, is 1) he is a high post player, doesn't post deep in the block, and 2) He can actually hit the shot!

And he doesn't take any threes.. so for him, the shots at the top of the key redistribute those to the areas he shoots better.. but in the end, I still want him closer to the basket.. so LA debunks your theory....

Now lets take a look at kyle korver

Now you see his whole chart is damn near green.. LOL.. He is actually taking the shots he can hit.. and he is not dancing right on the three point line, he is clearly behind the line.. he also is hitting a lot of long twos.. so again your theory of that being a bad shot doesn't seem to hold water.... It just goes to show, shoot the shots you can hit at a high rate... Look at the balance that korver has, this is what you would like to see from most players.. and for a guy who shoots threes as well as he does twos, you can almost understand that he takes as many threes as he does twos.. and here is the kicker, he is not shooting at 36, 37, or 38, or 39%!!! NO he is at a 47% average!! that is HIGHLY efficient!!!

my advice to kevin love would be to cut down on threes, operate on the right side of the court and focus on what you do best.. he is an elite rebounder.. stay closer to the hoop, post a bit more, he is a good passer, very good passer... and He can hit free throws.. why would you not want him near the basket as much as possible?

so while you are arguing that threes are more than two point shots, I am looking at this from a rebound, assist, and amount of quality shots for his team.. remember this is not a skills challenge.... this is still a team game, and the closer he is to the basket, the more options he gives his team...

In Its 30th Year in N.B.A., 3-Pointer Is No Outsider
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

By JONATHAN ABRAMS
Published: October 17, 2009
Raja Bell used to approach 3-pointers with trepidation. Before and after each shot, he looked for Coach Mike D’Antoni’s approval when they were with the Phoenix Suns. D’Antoni nudged, then pushed him to take more 3s. And Bell, like a lot of his peers, finally let loose beyond the arc.

Enlarge This Image

David Richard/Associated Press
The Cavaliers’ LeBron James making a 3-pointer against the Magic in the playoffs last season. But it was Orlando, which emphasizes 3-point shooting, which made it to the N.B.A. finals.
Multimedia
The Rise of the 3-Point Shot
Graphic
The Rise of the 3-Point Shot
Related
Knicks Try to Make Progress on Court and With the Fans (October 18, 2009)

“I’d always tell him if he thought he could make it, then go ahead,” D’Antoni said recently. “When they know they can let it go, there’s no turning back.”

The N.B.A. has hardly looked back since introducing the 3-pointer 30 years ago. The shot and its usefulness have revolutionized the game. It has evolved from a gimmick adapted from the American Basketball Association to a tactic for overcoming large deficits, and now is a focal point in many N.B.A. offenses.

The 3-pointer does not guarantee success. But evidence suggests that it does not prevent success, either.

Much to D’Antoni’s delight, the Orlando Magic dispelled the notion that a team that relies on the 3-pointer could not reach the N.B.A. finals. Orlando reflects the trajectory the league has taken on the 3-pointer. Teams attempted a record 44,583 3-pointers in 2008-9. They made 36.68 percent, the second-highest success rate in league history. Teams converted 36.69 percent in 1995-96, when the 3-point line was a uniform 22 feet from the basket. Since 1997-98, the arc has ranged from 22 feet at the corners to 23 feet 9 inches.

Last season, D’Antoni’s Knicks set an N.B.A. record with 2,284 attempts, or nearly 28 a game. His Suns made the most 3-pointers in N.B.A. history with 837 in 2005-6. Bell’s attempts rose to 446 in 2005-6, his first season with Phoenix, from 134 with the Utah Jazz a season earlier.

Some purists bemoan the lost art of the midrange jump shot, a sign that fundamentals are being extinguished beneath a mix tape of long shots and slam dunks. As the N.B.A. slowly turns toward more analytical measures, the 3-pointer is viewed under a new prism.

The most ideal shot, Nets Coach Lawrence Frank said, is from the free-throw line because it almost always results in at least a point. The next-highest-percentage shot is at the rim. Three-pointers are next. But a team would have to shoot 60 percent on 2-pointers to match the offensive output of a team that shoots 40 percent from beyond the arc.

“Teams have all caught on to the whole points-per-possession argument,” Frank said.

The Magic successfully blended Dwight Howard in the post with potent 3-point shooters. Of all the Magic’s shots last season, 33.5 percent were 3-pointers, eclipsing the record of 33.1 percent set by the 2002-3 Boston Celtics.

“We all try to copycat each other in a way,” Magic General Manager Otis Smith said. “But there’s more versatility in our roster this way. We can play multiple ways. You have to make teams pay for their inability to rotate to shooters.”

The N.B.A. adopted the 3-pointer on a one-year trial because executives from the A.B.A. pushed for it after the leagues merged. Three seasons after its introduction in 1979-80, the Philadelphia 76ers, who took only 1.5 percent of their shots beyond the 3-point line, won the N.B.A. championship.

“Everyone thought you could affect the end of the game with a 3,” said Donnie Walsh, the Knicks’ president, who coached Denver at the time. “I don’t think anyone foresaw that teams would come down looking for it.”

In some ways, the Magic can be viewed as an evolved version of the successful Houston teams of the mid-1990s. The Rockets flanked Hakeem Olajuwon in the middle with shooters like Clyde Drexler, Robert Horry and Sam Cassell. The Magic broadened the approach, a reflection of the league over all.

In the place of the gritty power forwards like Karl Malone and Charles Barkley, the N.B.A. now has the Magic’s Rashard Lewis, Dallas’s Dirk Nowitzki and the Knicks’ Al Harrington, chameleons who can post up, take defenders off the dribble and shoot from the perimeter. And the league freed offensive players from defensive hand checks, allowing smaller players to navigate the lane. Coaches use the 3-pointer to make the court longer and stretch defenses. Perimeter threats spot up while defenses break down, rotate and scramble.

“What has happened is kids have grown up with that line now,” said Boston Celtics Coach Doc Rivers, an N.B.A. player from 1983 to 1996. “And they’ve become excellent shooters behind the line, and it actually is a tool that teams can use. We didn’t shoot it because we couldn’t make it.”

Players love the freedom the 3-pointer gives them. When Antoine Walker was asked why he shot so many 3s for the Celtics, he memorably replied, “Because there ain’t no 4s.”

When Bell joined D’Antoni, he left Jerry Sloan’s bread-and-butter pick-and-roll system with the Jazz.

“Everybody wants a 3-point shot or a dunk,” Sloan told Utah reporters last season. “That’s the nature of coming out of college into this league.”

Bell is not the only player who flourished when given 3-point freedom. Harrington said Coach Rick Carlisle forbade him to take 3s when they were with Indiana. He went on to play for Don Nelson with Golden State and now for D’Antoni.

“When I first came in, you didn’t shoot them as much,” said Harrington, who entered the N.B.A. in 1998. “Now, you have teams that encourage you.”

As the 3-pointer has become more potent, defenses have had to adjust.

“Coaches teach that there are spots you don’t want to give up, like the corner 3 is one of the highest-percentage shots in the game,” the Nets’ Keyon Dooling said.

N.B.A. players are indeed most accurate from the corners. They shot 39.3 percent from the left side last season, 39.5 percent from the right side.

D’Antoni has played a part in the transformation. The basis of his offense, which emphasizes open looks, running and possessions, was developed in Italy, where D’Antoni coached for much of the 1990s.

“Guys just started shooting the ball so well from 3s, so why wouldn’t we shoot more?” he said. “If you do shoot 3s, then that’s really going to open up the basket, so it’s either layups or 3s.”

His philosophy is fairly simple, chaotic for defenses and emblematic of the changed perception of the 3-pointer.

“If we’re open, we’ll take it,” D’Antoni said. “No matter what. I’m not looking to see if we’ve got people under, I’m not looking for anything like that. If you’re open and you’re a good shooter, then take it.”