Make 3s = Win Games?

[Knightro]

Look, I just plotted out win percentage (high to lowest) vis number of 3's made.

(I did it in excel and can't figure out how to insert chart in the editor)

Coefficient of determination was 0.19 and basically flat.

The bottom line is win percentage as a function of 3 pointers made is basically random.

I highly recommend that you read Silver's book "the signal and the noise" because everything that you think that you see is random noise.

There is no statistically significant correlation between 3 pointers made and win percentage.

Not with a CoD of 0.19 there isn't.

The CoD for 3 Pt % is actually much better at 0.37

That still is not statistically significant, but I have to admit it is much higher than I expected.

What happens when you break it down game-by-game?

The Warriors are 40-37. That's a .519 winning percentage. They also lead the league in 3PT made per game with 16.5.

Based on that, it would appear that their high three point volume is not a hugely determining factor in their overall success rate from a W/L perspective.

However...

In the games GSW makes at least 1 more 3PT than their opponents, they're 33-15 (.688)

In the games they make the same or fewer 3PT than their opponents, they're 7-22 (.241)

In the games they make more than their 16.5 3PT per game average, they're 26-14 (.650)

In the games they make fewer than their 16.5 3PT per game average, they're 14-23 (.378)

This will take me quite a while to research, but if you're interested, I would be willing to wager that there's not another offensive statistic - not points in the paint, not fast break points, not second chance points, not offensive rebounds, not turnovers - that has such a severe game-by-game impact on winning and losing as 3PT shooting has.

[pepe1991]

8 out of 10 worst 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have record below .500 ( 7 of them negative, Raptors neutral).
7 out of 10 teams with lowest 3 FGA have negative record. 3 others are: Lakers , Raptors ( .500 record) and Pelicans ( 1 game above .500 )

Flip side
9 out of 10 best 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have winning record. Only Bulls don't.
6 out of 10 highest volumen 3 FGA teams have positive record ( ones who don't are Utah, Blazers, Dallas, indiana)


From 2020-21 data



During 2020-21 season Ringer did data ( in February), teams that shot 50% or better for 3 over one game had 91% win rate ( 48-5), teams who shot 20% or lower for 3 had 5% win rate. ( 1-21).

Article is called " The NBA Is Literally Becoming a Make-or-Miss League"

it goes in depth how overanalzying one game is usless now because 3 point shots make single games very random.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting
link if anybody cares

[drsd]

8 out of 10 worst 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have record below .500 ( 7 of them negative, Raptors neutral).
7 out of 10 teams with lowest 3 FGA have negative record. 3 others are: Lakers , Raptors ( .500 record) and Pelicans ( 1 game above .500 )

Flip side
9 out of 10 best 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have winning record. Only Bulls don't.
6 out of 10 highest volumen 3 FGA teams have positive record ( ones who don't are Utah, Blazers, Dallas, indiana)




Article is called " The NBA Is Literally Becoming a Make-or-Miss League"

it goes in depth how overanalzying one game is usless now because 3 point shots make single games very random.

I am sure that eFG% is the most decisive stat correlating with wins. How can it not be.
So for me: there is nothing new here. What is new, starting say 10 years ago, is that teams learnt that the three ball is good for eFG%.

..

[AaronB]

8 out of 10 worst 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have record below .500 ( 7 of them negative, Raptors neutral).
7 out of 10 teams with lowest 3 FGA have negative record. 3 others are: Lakers , Raptors ( .500 record) and Pelicans ( 1 game above .500 )

Flip side
9 out of 10 best 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have winning record. Only Bulls don't.
6 out of 10 highest volumen 3 FGA teams have positive record ( ones who don't are Utah, Blazers, Dallas, indiana)


From 2020-21 data



During 2020-21 season Ringer did data ( in February), teams that shot 50% or better for 3 over one game had 91% win rate ( 48-5), teams who shot 20% or lower for 3 had 5% win rate. ( 1-21).

Article is called " The NBA Is Literally Becoming a Make-or-Miss League"

it goes in depth how overanalzying one game is usless now because 3 point shots make single games very random.

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting
link if anybody cares

Nice chart.

That chart says 3 things:

R-squared (the Coefficient of Determination as I referenced in my analysis post above for this year) is exceptionally low and strongly leans toward data that is not statistically significant. Would need to look at the F probability, but I am all but certain the data cannot statistically provide a solution to any serious question.

The second is but for the 4 outliers at the bottom, the slope of the trendline would be flat. Hinting even further that there cannot be a statistically significant relationship between 3PT% and wins. My analysis for this year was based on win% because not all teams have played the same number of games, but this data roughly agrees with what I calculated, although my R-squared turned out to be above 30%.

2 of the top 3 teams in the league had a 3 pt shooting percentage below the mean, especially when removing teams that simply were not competitive as outliers. The data speaks the truth, I won't comment on the words.

[AaronB]

8 out of 10 worst 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have record below .500 ( 7 of them negative, Raptors neutral).
7 out of 10 teams with lowest 3 FGA have negative record. 3 others are: Lakers , Raptors ( .500 record) and Pelicans ( 1 game above .500 )

Flip side
9 out of 10 best 3 point shooting teams, percentage vise have winning record. Only Bulls don't.
6 out of 10 highest volumen 3 FGA teams have positive record ( ones who don't are Utah, Blazers, Dallas, indiana)




Article is called " The NBA Is Literally Becoming a Make-or-Miss League"

it goes in depth how overanalzying one game is usless now because 3 point shots make single games very random.

I am sure that eFG% is the most decisive stat correlating with wins. How can it not be.
So for me: there is nothing new here. What is new, starting say 10 years ago, is that teams learnt that the three ball is good for eFG%.

..

That chart says the exact opposite of what you think it says. It strongly implies that 3Pt% has very little effect on wins.

[drsd]

That chart says the exact opposite of what you think it says. It strongly implies that 3Pt% has very little effect on wins.

This is the eFG% by wins chart for the games played this year. There is a good correlation. And it's not just the four horrible teams (deleting those 4-points to the left and there is still a good correlation).

This is s shooter's league. I take from this that if a team is not efficient in scoring, then losses come.

[Audi]

Even if you fall into the camp of "not believing" that shooting more 3's equals winning...

You, at some level, have to believe that floor spacing is a real necessity in todays nba. A successfully run offense almost always requires it.

I agree on importance in general, but I don't quite understand what today's NBA has to do with it...isn't it just as much a necessity as it has always been?

[AaronB]

That chart says the exact opposite of what you think it says. It strongly implies that 3Pt% has very little effect on wins.

This is the eFG% by wins chart for the games played this year. There is a good correlation. And it's not just the four horrible teams (deleting those 4-points to the left and there is still a good correlation).

This is s shooter's league. I take from this that if a team is not efficient in scoring, then losses come.

That is a fantastic chart, and I agree with everything you said.

Some observations:

I think win % is a better horizontal variable because not all teams have played the same number of games. This is a nit and does not affect the results that much.

eFG% is a complex multivariate combination 3 pt shots and 2 pt shots.

We know from Pepe's previous chart that win % is basically random with 3 pt %. I suspect the same is true for 2 Pt percentage but have not done the analysis. If it is true, then I would conclude that the players and the coaches are running a very sophisticated optimization routine of the ratio of 3 pt/2 pt shot selection in real-time. If true, then it would explain why some coaches are winning coaches, and some coaches are not. Some coaches have an intuitive ability to do the calculation in their head real time.

Finally, I would say there is a really interesting non-clustering of data that I would look into if I were a basketball organization. If you look at the win totals at about the eFG% level of 0.515. It shows a variation of between 18 and 38 wins. that is a huge delta. I would investigate the cause of that delta. There is a similar effect occurring at the eFG% of 0.552 where the delta in wins is between 35 and 55 wins. What is the cause of the delta? That is the difference between keeping a job and losing a job.

Again, super job with the chart!

[OrlDave]

This whole "3 point" mantra is nonsense and it is getting old.

Teams 1-19 in 3PT made: 14/19 winning records
Teams 20-30 in 3PT made: 0/11 winning records

I'll give you one guess which group the Magic is in.

I'm curious how that looks if you toss out the 5-20 start where we barely had a fully functioning team. I wager we still are underwater with 3s, but have a winning record. That said, we certainly can use some more shooting on the team.

[drsd]

I think win % is a better horizontal variable because not all teams have played the same number of games. This is a nit and does not affect the results that much.

eFG% is a complex multivariate combination 3 pt shots and 2 pt shots.

We know from Pepe's previous chart that win % is basically random with 3 pt %. I suspect the same is true for 2 Pt percentage but have not done the analysis. If it is true, then I would conclude that the players and the coaches are running a very sophisticated optimization routine of the ratio of 3 pt/2 pt shot selection in real-time. If true, then it would explain why some coaches are winning coaches, and some coaches are not. Some coaches have an intuitive ability to do the calculation in their head real time.

Finally, I would say there is a really interesting non-clustering of data that I would look into if I were a basketball organization. If you look at the win totals at about the eFG% level of 0.515. It shows a variation of between 18 and 38 wins. that is a huge delta. I would investigate the cause of that delta. There is a similar effect occurring at the eFG% of 0.552 where the delta in wins is between 35 and 55 wins. What is the cause of the delta? That is the difference between keeping a job and losing a job.

Here is the whole of last season:

Basically it is the same conclusion. Efficiency matters, but it is not the only thing that wins games.

[JoshuaPotter]

[drsd]

Here's a chart simply to wind pepe up.

It is eFG% by year for all teams (these are league averages by year) . Whoever said "points sells tickets" is a genius!

[drsd]

a) What a joke.


b) if this is how defences run, team players on offense should go over. (An on-ball screen?)
He would have a direct path to the basket. Or could run a PnR backwards; the player with the ball would be the roller.
It would be SO EASY to design effective offensive plays here.

[JoshuaPotter]

a) What a joke.


b) if this is how defences run, team players on offense should go over. (An on-ball screen?)
He would have a direct path to the basket. Or could run a PnR backwards; the player with the ball would be the roller.
It would be SO EASY to design effective offensive plays here.

is steve kerr a joke of a coach to you?

[VFX]

Even if you fall into the camp of "not believing" that shooting more 3's equals winning...

You, at some level, have to believe that floor spacing is a real necessity in todays nba. A successfully run offense almost always requires it.

I agree on importance in general, but I don't quite understand what today's NBA has to do with it...isn't it just as much a necessity as it has always been?

The game has evolved into benefiting offense as opposed to the 80’s and 90’s defense. There is no longer hand checking and many rules benefiting shooters.

Teams are winning with astronomical scores now because the teams that take (and make) 3’s are more successful.

For Orlando, they will not be a successful team in the nba if their primary scoring option is a PF that isn’t surrounded by highly efficient volume shooters. That’s like reliving terrible early 2000’s basketball. This is why people bring up the back court all the time.

Defenses can scheme against Orlando because the Magic lack reliable shooters. It’s no surprise we win games when certain players have good shooting nights. Franz and Paolo simply aren’t as effective without that draw offensively.

[jonbob17]

Magic opponents have shot worst in the league on open 3 point attempts(shooter 4-6ft away from nearest Magic defender) at 32.4%. Overall teams have shot just 33.9% on shots from 25-29ft against the Magic.... 35% on all threes

Have we just been lucky this year on how many threes we have given up

[basketballRob]

Magic opponents have shot worst in the league on open 3 point attempts(shooter 4-6ft away from nearest Magic defender) at 32.4%. Overall teams have shot just 33.9% on shots from 25-29ft against the Magic.... 35% on all threes

Have we just been lucky this year on how many threes we have given up

We've defended the FT well also.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

[pepe1991]

There is bit of misconception with whole tread.

It's 2023. You can't have funcional team without shooting 3s. Everybody shoots them. Lowest average 3 FGA is 29 per game.

There is no modern offense without 3 point shooting.

Inability for especially starters to hit 3s on consistant bases becomes serious issues when it comes to playoffs.

In any given series, your starters can't be made out of 2,3,4 guys who can't hit 10-15 open 3s over 7 games with solid accuracy. You can get away with one, but probably no more than that, maybe two, if both are megastars in every other aspect of a game.

This whole concept is nothing new, Lebron being mediocre 3 point shooter himself, always needed most elite 3 point shooters possible to go all the way. His pairing with Davis, to this date, only worked where rest of a team were 3 and D guys.
Their pairing with Westbrook was one of biggest recent nba desasters mostly because they packed paint and NOBODY among them could streach floor to the point where defense is alerted to defend him outside restricted area.

And goes without saying that most dominant nba team of past decade is team with two best shooters. Why? Well, even when they don't touch the ball, they bring so much gravity, making it that much easier for others to exploit defensive mistakes, drive at rim, slash or hit open jumpshots on their own.

[RichCollab]

It’s time to add a 4pt shot. Logo? The league will have a standard logo size to make this happen. The 3pt shot was never meant to be this easy.

[jonbob17]

It’s time to add a 4pt shot. Logo? The league will have a standard logo size to make this happen. The 3pt shot was never meant to be this easy.

Never going to happen...but if the court was wider to accommodate a full arc, what would that do to the rest of the game. Would it make the game even easier, by getting help defenders either farther away from the paint? What if we widened the court by 6 feet and moved the 3 point line even farther.

My gut says that would make the game even easier with more space, and I don't think an extra foot or so is going to make that much difference on all 3s....either defenders are going to have to guard shooters further away from the basket...or shooters are going to be even more open. There are a lot of margingal shooters that make a living off standing in the corner for that 22 footer, maybe at least that could be addressed

I don't know I always thought corner threes were stupid, and there was hardly any room along those sidelines anyways. Make them earn it at 24 feet.