Quote:
Originally Posted by IKE
No, not a hint. Merely some thoughts that have been bugging me a bit. Watching basketball, it seems that the 2 point shot is valued significantly over the 3 pt. shot. Most of the big money guys are inside players playing the short game in basketball (dunks and lay-ups). Some of the greats listed in the "3 pt." article cited guys shooting aaround 40 to 50%. Since the value is 50% higher (3/2), then one would think that the 2 pt. shot would need to be on the order of 60 to 75% in order to be the smart play. Looking through some NBA stats, I find that a FG% around 60% is usually considered very good, and a 3FG% above 40% is also considered good. My guess is that the re-bound on a missed shot is likely gained by the shooter more often with the close shots. This additional gain would likely be the reason that primary scoring and money go to guys playing the close game.
|
I could write a paper on this subject, but I'll do my best to explain simply.
The 3 point shot is undervalued in the NBA; more specifically, NBA players have a strange obsession with the long 2 pointer, with has lowest expected value of any play in basketball. That being said, finding players who can shoot the 3 at 40% or better in game situations with defense is difficult. There were 31 players who shot at that rate last season, but remember this is not with them mad bombing 3's at all costs. This their percentage based on only shooting what the player perceives to be a "good shot". If a team were to employ the strategy you suggest, their 3 point percentages would drop dramatically.
There are a lot more factors that go into this, but basically, teams should probably shoot more three pointers, however, simply relying on the three point shot sends you into risky territory.