[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.