[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.

[HDThoreaun]

You can try to counter it but go ahead and look at the highest volume 3 point shooting teams and compare them to the highest volume layup teams. Part of it is that theyre following analytics so theyre looking for layups more than other teams but gravity is very real and does make it easier to get layups when you shoot more 3s.

[relaxing]

I know spacing the floor is real. The point is it’s not the only winning strategy and basketball is in no way “solved”.

[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.