Science Does 3fg% affect winning for early season 2024-25 Blazers?

[THE HCP]

Anybody is better than Billups?

 

[Everything Beagle]

Anybody is better than Billups?

Depends on if Billups is responsible for their good defensive fundamentals. I’d be all for a John Wetzel type who comes up with a good offensive scheme to go with Chauncey’s defense. Of course, an assistant to handle substitution patterns would also be nice.

If it’s all the players doing and not coaching at all, then just make Cronin the coach and let him manage the team directly.

 

[THE HCP]

That’s just it….we are one of the better defensive teams in the league correct. You NEVER read about that on here. It’s like with Stotts, we were one of the better offense teams in the league, but you only read about our horrible defense he was blamed for. It’s true……

 

[SharpesTriumph]

It is not false.

Scoring 3 points 33% of the time is equivalent to scoring 2 points 50% of the time. This is math.

The offensive rebound opportunities you note above are benefits of missing three pointers but not benefits of hitting three pointers. We miss plenty of shots already and are benefitting from that with offensive rebounds already. But, we are actually looking to miss fewer shots. Because offensive rebounds aren’t points.

Your explanation reminds me of that Homer Simpson line where he has won a boat (which he wanted) in a game show, but could also choose the mystery box instead of the boat:
“But the mystery box could be anything! Even a boat!”

Only the points we score go on the scoreboard. Misses score us zero points, regardless of how nice an offensive rebound is.

Incorrect for an NBA game.

Your not properly accounting for the resulting actions and opportunities that occur after the shot. It's all very simple analytics, although maybe your not capable of comprehending probabilities beyond one single action.

If your talking about a shot at the end of the first quarter as time expires then sure in that example 33% 3s is equivalent to 50% 2s. Otherwise no, the expected value of each opportunity from missing 67% of shots or 50% is substantially different.

Just because a team has a poor offense as the Blazers currently do or even if they conversely had a great offense, it doesn't change this dynamic. That you would try to use that as validation of a falsehood shows your lack of understanding NBA probabilities.

Not sure what's more impressive, that you could butcher probabilities so easily or that you moved Peter Griffin over to the Simpsons.

 

[Everything Beagle]

Incorrect for an NBA game.

Your not properly accounting for the resulting actions and opportunities that occur after the shot. It's all very simple analytics, although maybe your not capable of comprehending probabilities beyond one single action.

If your talking about a shot at the end of the first quarter as time expires then sure in that example 33% 3s is equivalent to 50% 2s. Otherwise no, the expected value of each opportunity from missing 67% of shots or 50% is substantially different.

Just because a team has a poor offense as the Blazers currently do or even if they conversely had a great offense, it doesn't change this dynamic. That you would try to use that as validation of a falsehood shows your lack of understanding NBA probabilities.

Not sure what's more impressive, that you could butcher probabilities so easily or that you moved Peter Griffin over to the Simpsons.

Damn. You got me good.

 

[KingSpeed]

We won 3 straight games with Scoot (and no Ant) and after he left, we sucked again.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Incorrect for an NBA game.

Your not properly accounting for the resulting actions and opportunities that occur after the shot. It's all very simple analytics, although maybe your not capable of comprehending probabilities beyond one single action.

If your talking about a shot at the end of the first quarter as time expires then sure in that example 33% 3s is equivalent to 50% 2s. Otherwise no, the expected value of each opportunity from missing 67% of shots or 50% is substantially different.

Just because a team has a poor offense as the Blazers currently do or even if they conversely had a great offense, it doesn't change this dynamic. That you would try to use that as validation of a falsehood shows your lack of understanding NBA probabilities.

Not sure what's more impressive, that you could butcher probabilities so easily or that you moved Peter Griffin over to the Simpsons.

Do we also account for the increased likelihood of an opponent's transition opportunity following a missed 3 rather than a missed (or made) 2? Has anyone ever done the analysis on the expected points allowed after missed 3's?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Do we also account for the increased likelihood of an opponent's transition opportunity following a missed 3 rather than a missed (or made) 2? Has anyone ever done the analysis on the expected points allowed after missed 3's?

If you can get an open layup/dunk that's always preferable to a 3.

But you can't get that consistently if you can't shoot the 3.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Do we also account for the increased likelihood of an opponent's transition opportunity following a missed 3 rather than a missed (or made) 2? Has anyone ever done the analysis on the expected points allowed after missed 3's?

Yes this has all been analyzed extensively the last ~15 years, which is why you see so many more NBA teams with huge increases in 3pt attempts.

3s have a much higher benefit than the old school incorrect idea that 33% 3pt = 50% 2pt.

Now your right in that the more detailed your analysis gets the more you have to look at all the expected values of every subsequent resulting action, and how those differ with the original shot selection.

 

[wizenheimer]

Incorrect for an NBA game.

Your not properly accounting for the resulting actions and opportunities that occur after the shot. It's all very simple analytics, although maybe your not capable of comprehending probabilities beyond one single action.

If your talking about a shot at the end of the first quarter as time expires then sure in that example 33% 3s is equivalent to 50% 2s. Otherwise no, the expected value of each opportunity from missing 67% of shots or 50% is substantially different.

Just because a team has a poor offense as the Blazers currently do or even if they conversely had a great offense, it doesn't change this dynamic. That you would try to use that as validation of a falsehood shows your lack of understanding NBA probabilities.

Not sure what's more impressive, that you could butcher probabilities so easily or that you moved Peter Griffin over to the Simpsons.

not sure if it's accurate or out of date, but:










https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/02/09/deflation-study-shows-nba-3-point-shot-has-lost-its-value/

obviously, when reading the article I see a couple of factors missing: offensive rebounds and fast break points the other way.

• 
  "Yes, in the NBA, offensive rebounds are significantly more likely to occur from a 2-point field goal attempt (FGA) compared to a 3-point FGA, simply because a 2-point shot is taken much closer to the basket, giving players a better chance to grab a rebound if the shot is missed.
  
  Key points:
  • Distance from the basket:
    A 2-point shot is taken closer to the hoop, meaning there is less distance for the ball to travel if it misses, giving players a better opportunity to secure the rebound.
• 
  
• Multiple players near the basket:
  When attempting a 2-point shot, typically more players are positioned near the basket, increasing the likelihood of someone being able to grab a rebound.
• 
  
• 3-point shot trajectory:
  A 3-point shot often has a higher arc, which can make it more difficult to rebound as the ball may travel further away from the basket if missed. "

https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/2536613

***********************************************************************************
I'm going to take that with a tiny grain of salt, but it does seem mostly true from my eyeball test. And if offensive rebounds are actually worth 1.13 points, then they are worth more than either an initial 2pt or 3pt FGA. (which makes me wonder if the FGA data above distilled transition two's and three's?)

finally, is a three point FGA more likely to lead to easy transition points for opponents than a 2 pt FGA? Again, my eyeball test says probably