Yeah for example... You shoot 10 shots. You hit 35% from 3 and 50% from 2. From 2 point range, you scored 10 points. From 3, you scored 10.5 points.
It's even a bit better than that. Suppose Team A shoots only 2 pointers and makes 50% while Team B shoots only 3 pointers and makes 33.3% then Team B will win assuming all else is equal because Team B will get more offensive rebounds and thus take more shots. For example, assuming offensive rebound rate of 25% and no fouls or turnovers then per 100 possessions: Team A 114.3 Team B 120.0
It's not quite that simple. If Aldridge sets up the pick that high, it means Lillard has to shoot a very long 3 every time if the defender goes under. Yeah, he can make it, but defenses will usually give that shot up happily.
name the last NBA championship team that didn't feature the 3 ball as a major part of their offense STOMP
That's actually a very interesting point. It'd be a decent Synergy study to see if Dame's open, say, 26-footers combined with LMA shooting 3's is more or less efficient than a "normal" Dame 23-footer with LMA shooting his "normal" 20-footer. My gut feel is that Dame's percentage drop-off (especially when open after a defender goes under the pick) is not as high as the efficiency drop-off of LMA stepping from a 3-point shot to a 2-point shot. But I could be wrong.
Yeah, it would require a lot more analysis than a gut feeling to figure out the most efficient combinations. I just think the pick being set a step inside the 3 point line is one of the toughest plays to guard because of how many options result from it.
lol! Six man play, baby! One is to score more than your opponent, the other is to have your opponent score less than you.
He's not "striving to shoot that 3". He is open and HITTING. Everyone has called Dirk soft but they say nothing about him shooting 3's because he can hit them. LA can hit them and has been doing it with amazing efficiency. Why complain now?
I couldn't agree more...he takes that shot just inside the arc so often...the Neo-Dirk-back to the basket, pivot, reverse pivot fade...its like "Just step back 1 more step!" Hell...I want to see him do that to some poor defender if they are stoopid enough to check him behind the arc. If anyone could make a fade-3 "their shot", LA has the stroke and range to do it. Un-defendable. With good off-ball rotation and movement, if it misses it should be a 50/50 ball to rebound for another shot at something.
Yeah, it oddly reminds me of Bill Laimbeer and how he did that against our team. I wouldn't mind see LA shooting a couple of 3-pt attempts per game.
First off I was replying to the topic of the post not the entire roster. You know "Aldridge and the 3 ball" Secondly the 08 Celtics only had 5 players shooting around 40% from three the entire season, none of them were centers/pf. Not going to bother looking @ playoff stats. Why don't you stay on topic rather than pull one little sentence to make a false statement. The debate over the 2 point shot sucks and the 3 point shot is hogwash. Rather take the open shot be in a 3 or a 2 regardless of "what is efficient" Can't tell me the more efficient shot is a contested 3 pointer when there is an open 2 pointer 1 pass away. Someone tried to tell me this in high school too. That if a player goes down and makes a 2 pointer every time, then another player goes and makes a 3 pointer every time who is going to win? that doesn't factor in defense. Stats don't factor in defense or contested shots. Not going to continue because No one will ever convince me a wide open 2 pointer is a shitty shot compared to a contested 3 pointer.
strawman. a 2 has to be significantly easier to make--whether layup, dunk or jumper--than a 3 for there ever to be a reason to shoot one. No one is saying that shooting wide-open 2's is bad. No one is saying that shooting contested shots is good. However, it is almost categorically proven that if you can't find a way to get 3's, your offense will suffer because you get fewer of those "significantly easier" 2's to make.
I think one of the smartest ways to beat a team is the +1 layup. Not only will you get the 3 pts but you'll get a guy a foul and add to the other teams foul total. Other than Jamal Crawford, very few shooters are good at drawing fouls on the 3 pt play. Talking about the 3pt shot, I think we need two seperate highest scoring lists. One before the 3pt shot and one after. I just saw Paul Pierce passed Jerry West but if you saw West play, a big percentage of his shots were at least 23 ft out, yet no 3 pt shot. I think it's a tainted record.
