I often see criticism of Dame bombing a 3 point shot early in the shot clock. I did some simple analytics to see if it's really a bad shot. I took a look at Dame's 3 point shooting from 28+ feet. I limited that to 34 feet or less to exclude desperation heaves. Dame's is a career 77/222 or 34.7% from that distance. http://nbasavant.com/apps/compare.php Let's see what that works out to in points per possession. 34.7% of a made 3 is 1.04 points per shot. But on a miss there is about 20% chance of an offensive rebound. That yields an extra 0.13 possessions. Conservatively that is worth another 0.13 points. That's 1.17 points per possession. How good is that? Warriors and Rockets are at around 1.12 points per possession. Blazers are at 1.03. Blazers in a half-court set are surely even worse than that. Extrapolating to 100 possessions that's 117 to 103. You could argue that Dame's long 3 hurts transition defense. Maybe. Maybe not. There are pluses and minuses. Long 3's take a long time to reach the basket. That gives the offense a bit more time to prepare for defense. Dames quick 3 has 0% chance of a TO. TO's are terrible for transition D. Missed layups and paint shots often leave the shooter under the rim. Sometimes on their back. That results in 5 on 4's, dunks and wide open 3's the other way. Personally, my observation is that 3 point shots do not hurt team D. Really, what is overlooked about that shot is that it has no chance of a TO. When you factor TO% (probably at least 10%) into "working the ball for a higher percentage shot" it starts to make more sense why that can be a good shot.
interesting take ...not sure I fully agree but I usually see a brick as a brick....if you don't have offensive rebounding...I think it's an anomaly that it turns into a longer possession
I was looking for something that would give me some idea of the offensive rebound rate of long shots compared to close-in shots. All I could find was this (from 2003) : http://www.82games.com/comm13.htm Jumpers vs inside shots the ORB% is not so different and quick shots were better. Jumper 28.5% Close Up 34.4% Dunks 29.6% 0-10 seconds 33.6% 11-15 seconds 27.0% 16-20 seconds 27.7% 21+ seconds 30.2%
Contrary to popular wisdom, 3-point shots have a lower ORB% than other shots. Totals from 2010-2014 ORB% on Layups 42% ORB% on 2-Pointers 33% ORB% on 3-Pointers 31% ORB% on Free Throws 15% https://kenpom.com/blog/offensive-rebounding-data-dump/ Those numbers are oldish. Recent NBA philosophy favors getting back on defense over crashing the boards. ORB% is down by as much as 5%. Even then, that gives 3 pointers a 26% ORB rate. So my 20% assumption for Dame's long 3 seems conservative.
Im gonna take this a step further this evening. I was thinking about this for a while now. Im willing to bet if you shoot the league average in 3pt% you will score more and win more than shooting the league average in twos. Ill put the numbers together after the game tonight.
I believe that's probably true too. For sure making 1/3 of your 3's is better than making 1/2 of your 2's all else being equal.
Did you look up his shooting% on all the long 3s, including the one when he's wide open and set, or just those that are early in the shot clock, pull up with a guy in his face (those that most on this board dislike) ? Oh, that's what I thought
What throws these stats out the window is the shot clock....desperation chucks are a big part of 3 pt stats...seems a lot of those come from 3pt range to avoid shot clock violations
When Dame shoots 4+ feet behind the arc, he's usually open. I agree that a contested shot from there is not a good shot, I'm not arguing that.
Interesting analysis, but I have a hard time believing the data is accurate. More than a third such shots are makes? Doesn't pass the eye test. However, I used that link and ran the same numbers (28-34', all years) and got different results: 93 of 285 = 32.6% More importantly, it shows the league average (assuming that's what "LA" stands for) being 34.9%. So, not only does the long-3PT% appear questionable on the surface, it indicates Dame is below average in that category. I find that equally hard to believe.
Hmmm... I didn't see the "All Years" option so I did each year and summed them. I still get the same results as before. 4/15 (2012/13) 11/23 (2013/14) 15/51 (2014/15) 19/60 (2015/16) 28/73 (2016/17) 77/222 (Total) But yeah, when I choose "All Years" it gives your numbers. Maybe its buggy?
No we don't. If it was a good shot and benefit to the team he should take it every time down the floor. He should try it....82 and 0 might be possible.
I suspect so. I have no familiarity with that site and the accuracy of its data, but the numbers looked fishy on the surface.
I tried another site https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/shot_finder.cgi which includes this season too. I get 4/15 2012-2013 27% 10/20 2013-2014 50% 13/45 2014-2015 29% 15/48 2015-2016 31% 29/78 2016-2017 37% 17/65 2017-2018 26% Total 88/271 32.5% If he's only gonna make 26% of them, that is a bad shot. But at his career rate of 32.5% it's a good shot at 1.11 points per possession.
All this is good. I get the PPS argument, but misses from these shots are momentum killers. Analytics doesn't take into account being "hot," and especially the case in streaky shooters like Dame. Dame shooting a 30' shot with 20 on the clock after no passes on a night when he's cold as hell is a bad shot. I have no problem with it if he's been making them
I think "All Years" includes this year and playoffs. That site didn't have 2017-18 in the drop down so this year wasn't included in my original numbers. Using basketball-reference.com and including playoffs: 2017-2018 17/65 26% 2016-2017 32/86 37% 2015-2016 19/63 30% 2014-2015 15/51 29% 2013-2014 11/22 50% 2012-2013 4/15 27% Total 98/302 32.5%
I'm more inclined to believe those numbers, and they also highlight the question I almost asked initially, which you sort of answered with the previous breakdown by year: has he trended down as the eye test would indicate? The answer is a resounding yes, with his second year at 50% setting lofty expectations that he has never come close to since. Take that year out of the equation and he's pretty consistent in the high-20's to low-30's, with a 31% avg. Not terrible, not great.