[raincole]

It's such an arrogant comment.

"Really basic math"? Do you think NBA coaches reached this conclusion like this:

1. A player can throw X 2-points in a game.

2. Or he can throw Y 3-points in a game.

3. 3Y > 2X, so we should just throw 3-points all the time.

It's absolutely not what happened. And the reason teams didn't discovery the current strategy decades earlier was absolutely not that they couldn't do basic math.

[Xenoamorphous]

In the 2008-2009 season, the year before Curry’s debut, the 3p percentage was 36% vs 2p percentage of 48%. If you took 100 shots of each you’d have 108 points vs 96 so yeah I consider that quite simple.

And call me naive maybe but not arrogant, I’ve never been called that in my life so it’s quite surprising to be called arrogant in HN where I know the average person is smarter than me.

[brutalhonesty]

It really is basic math though.

A 3 point shot with 36% chance to go in (league average) = 1.08 points per attempt.

A mid-range 2 point shot with 45% chance to go in = .9 points per attempt.

The math is very basic.

[tomjakubowski]

When you elect to take more three pointers you necessarily have to resort to shooting more difficult ones, which lowers the expected return on each one. In the real world it's not so simple.

Similar reason why star players often have lower FG% than one might think: they are the ones tasked with trying _something_ when the shot clock winds down and there's no clear play. Not all shots are chosen equally.

[Xenoamorphous]

> When you elect to take more three pointers you necessarily have to resort to shooting more difficult ones, which lowers the expected return on each one

But then 2 pointers become easier. You can’t defend tightly both the perimeter and the paint at the same time. Sounds like a win-win. Again, nobody seemingly noticed.

[relaxing]

Do you watch NBA games?

[HDThoreaun]

He is right. The highest volume shooting teams play 5 out which leads to easy layups as well.

[relaxing]

And help defense exists to counter it.

Meanwhile Denver won it all with some of the lowest volume of threes in the league.

[Dylan16807]

> When you elect to take more three pointers you necessarily have to resort to shooting more difficult ones, which lowers the expected return on each one.

Well yeah, the idea is not to go all 3-pointer, it's that the borderline decisions need to adjust a few notches in favor of attempting 3-pointers, until the returns are balanced out.

> Not all shots are chosen equally.

I agree, that is a proper issue to figure out.

[grandempire]

This assumes the game is static and the question is selecting A or B, but all the variables are intertwined.

How does the percentage change when the other team knows you will go for 3? How much more effective is the three when you are able to have the threat of other scoring? A layup is 80-90% isn’t it worth it to try to create one?

[Xenoamorphous]

Precisely. Shooting lots of threes with good/decent efficiency also made two pointers more likely as more players would be defending the perimeter. Again, seemingly nobody thought of this for decades.

[grandempire]

It’s not insightful to say your team is more effective when you have the real threat of scoring 3s. That’s not a new idea.

Comparing probability of shot A vs shot B is just not a sufficient model. Its not simple math to model basketball.

[Xenoamorphous]

Then why the first time someone tried it then it worked and it stuck for 15 years or so? Last season there were 35 3p attemtps per game on average vs 18 in the year before Curry’s debut, almost 2x.

It it really impossible to think that it was a huge oversight?

[relaxing]

Daryl Morey? Is that you?

You can’t just tell your players to start jacking more threes and coast your way to success. Many tried, many failed. The game is more complex than that.

[grandempire]

> why the first time someone tried it then it worked

Is this the first time a team has tried to shoot 3s?

> It it really impossible to think that it was a huge oversight?

I’m not saying biasing towards 3s, with serious threats inside, is a bad strategy. Im saying multiplying a shooting percentage doesn’t tell you that.

[chatmasta]

It was not always 36% and in fact for a while it had lower EV than two pointers.

(Also, any league average for three pointers will suffer from obvious selection bias.)

[jitl]

Claim the math is very basic is reminding me of the different conclusions people have drawn from this image: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#/media/Fil...

[Xenoamorphous]

So in the 2008-2009 season, the one before Curry’s debut, the average number of 3 pointer attempts per game from a team was 18. Last season it was 35, so pretty much 2x.

If it was so intricate why nobody tried it before? And why after someone tried it it seemingly stuck? Is it really that far fetched that it was actually pretty simple and nobody noticed for many years?

Even if you consider the adjustement to the defense, you’d be making two pointers easier as you can’t defend tightly both the perimeter and the paint at the same time.

[relaxing]

It was absolutely tried before. The 08 Magic shot threes at a similar % and volume to the 2015 Warriors, yet they got rolled in the playoffs every time.

[necovek]

But it isn't just simple math.

Yes, 33% for 3pts equals a 50% 2pt shot, so beat that, and you've got yourself a pretty good scorer. But hitting 33% is not trivial unless you make a lot of other adjustments: multiple blocks for the shooters and not just a simple pick-and-roll or pick-and-pop, staggered blocks for a shooter switching from one sideline to the next. This has actually led to less specialization, as every player on the court needs to shoot 3s and defend faster or bigger players as switches became unavoidable.

And with all that, it only led to a "dynasty" when one player who could create his own shot and shoot from nearly anywhere at 35+% (Curry), paired with another ~40% career 3pt shooter and defensive specialist (Thompson) and completed with a power forward who could defend anyone and coordinate the attack too (Green). Even so, they did need another future hall-of-famer in Durant to win two of their last 3 rings.

That same team still has 2 of those core people in them, but they are unable to replicate anywhere near the success.

So if anyone can do this, why doesn't everyone do it?

[zzo38computer]

This math makes sense, but it might not not always be so simple.

For example, maybe these probabilities might not always be the same as this in all circumstances. Also, how much risk you might take also might depend on the current score and remaining time (e.g. maybe you are likely to win even with only one more point than your current score, or maybe it depends how much time it takes to make a specific shot (I don't actually know enough about basketball to know if this is relevant)), and on how your opponent can defend against it at a specific situation (and if their defense would allow them to score instead; I don't actually know how much that is relevant either), maybe. There are probably other considerations as well.

(I do not actually know all of the rules or strategy of basketball, so if I am wrong, you can mention what mistake I made.)

[1970-01-01]

OK so eFGs are basic math. Are we ignoring them??

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_g...

https://www.basketballforcoaches.com/effective-field-goal-pe...

[tracerbulletx]

Right because it was x * 2P% * 2 < Y * 3P% * 3