RealGM

MAKE 1 MORE 3PT THAN YOUR OPPONENT: .674 winning percentage - 55 win pace

MAKE 3 MORE 3PT THAN YOUR OPPONENT: .720 winning percentage - 59 win pace

MAKE 1 MORE 3PT THAN YOUR OPPONENT AND SHOOT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE: .737 winning percentage - 60 win pace

Hmmm, you weren't over indexing on the 3 point shot after all...

Wowza

I would add that the Magic is taking the alternative path to the 3-ball: the and-1 shot.

It might just work (but still needs percentage improvements in three-point shooting if not increases in volume).

Game is so beautiful right now...

well, making more 3 pts, mean you get more points and that means you win the game , i mean have these numbers been any different in past seasons? also is it any different for ft made for instance?
Dallas are 3rd in 3pt made per game, Utah -6, Indiana - 7, Portland - 8... all of them have losing record, so 3pt shooting is not the universal solution... yet
currently we have one player that shoot 3pts above league average %, one that shoot them at the average efficiency and rest of the team is bellow average % wise, so we need either new players or massive leap in the shooting efficiency. Banchero is dead LAST in 3pt% of all nba players that qualify - 148 place.

TRUTH...I know it's a dumb statement on face, but 3 is a LOT more than 2. A LOT MORE...it's pretty basic math to compare what shooting % need to occur to out-2 somebody who makes 3's...that's not easy to do without Shaq or Wilt in the post, maybe even with them nowadays.

Even if we play it boring this summer and stick with Fultz...we MUST sprinkle legit 3pt shooters throughout the lineup. I don't think a lead ball handler who isn't a 3pt threat is a real option these days. PG is now also a triple threat scorer and the best ones are also traditional QB's of the team on top of that. But the scoring makes the passing possible. It's just not statistically possible, IMO, to get beyond mediocre without both guards bombing 3's whenever they are given space (ideally more than that). Ja (and perhaps Scoot and Amen?) are the only exceptions I see and they're such dynamic scorers overall, that it's not terrible. Ja and Scoot are also threats to bomb away on any given night, despite their overall 3pt% - so they must be respected.

drsd makes the and 1 point, which is also true (but doesn't replace the long ball)...you can't be among the scoring leaders without a ton of ft's. Paolo looks solid there, nearly elite already...now give him the perimeter support to get wins.

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

Fact: 3 of the top 6 teams in the league are not even in the top half of 3's made
Fact: The top 3 point team by a wide margin is basically a .500 team
Fact: 4 or the top 9 Three point shooting teams are not even playing .500
Fact: The Magic are about to pass 2 of the top 9 three point shooting teams

The bottom line:

To use football as an analogy, if a team has the best DBs in the league, they will still get torched if there is no pass rush.

Balance is the key. Should the Magic shoot and make more threes? Yes

At the expense of putting players on the court who cannot defend? No

AaronB wrote: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.

Your inability to discriminate between correlation and causation is remarkable.

It is the biggest problem with most of the advanced stat aficionados.

That is the exact stat i have been looking for a while. I figured it would play out that way.

Knightro wrote:

AaronB wrote: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.

So what you're saying is that teams with lesser talent (Bottom 10 teams) would more than likely be unable to shoot/score? Which wouldn't be to shocking.

On top of that you're indicating that most the NBA (about 2/3) can shoot the 3. Making it indicate that it takes probably more than JUST shooting 3 point shots to win in the NBA.

AaronB wrote:Your inability to discriminate between correlation and causation is remarkable.

It is the biggest problem with most of the advanced stat aficionados.

Why would losing impact 3PT made and not the other way around?

eyriq wrote:

AaronB wrote:Your inability to discriminate between correlation and causation is remarkable.

It is the biggest problem with most of the advanced stat aficionados.

Why would losing impact 3PT made and not the other way around?

You missed the point.

I have not done the analysis, but I can almost guarantee that the team that scores the most points in the paint will win games at a very high percentage.

Why is that? Because scoring points in the paint sets up kick outs and the kinds of players that can guard in the paint are often not efficient scorers.

As I said before, these silly comments are about correlation and not causation. What causes teams to win (the causation) is the balance between scoring the right kinds of 2's and the right kinds of 3's that sets teams up for easy, high percentage baskets.

Another one is fast break points. The team that scores the most fast breaks points often wins. Why is that? Because fast break points are often generated when you hold the opposing team to a miss and only 1 shot.

This whole emphasis on 3 point shooting is basically a diversion. If a team gets stops, limits the opposition to 1 shot, does not turn the ball over and gets steals and a significant number of fast break points, they are going to win a lot of games regardless of 3 point shooting.

Remember, Michael Jordan was a career 32% 3 point shooter. He would still dominate today with that low of percentage. Why? Because he would dominate in the paint snd fast break points, would get a ton of steals, and hit enough 3's to be a threat.

The answer is balance, not just hit more 3's. I am not saying threes are not important. They are, but the latest fad are that they are the most important and the fact is that balance in the most important.

AaronB wrote:

eyriq wrote:

AaronB wrote:Your inability to discriminate between correlation and causation is remarkable.

It is the biggest problem with most of the advanced stat aficionados.

Why would losing impact 3PT made and not the other way around?

You missed the point.

I have not done the analysis, but I can almost guarantee that the team that scores the most points in the paint will win games at a very high percentage.

Why is that? Because scoring points in the paint sets up kick outs and the kinds of players that can guard in the paint are often not efficient scorers.

As I said before, these silly comments are about correlation and not causation. What causes teams to win (the causation) is the balance between scoring the right kinds of 2's and the right kinds of 3's that sets teams up for easy, high percentage baskets.

Another one is fast break points. The team that scores the most fast breaks points often wins. Why is that? Because fast break points are often generated when you hold the opposing team to a miss and only 1 shot.

This whole emphasis on 3 point shooting is basically a diversion. If a team gets stops, limits the opposition to 1 shot, does not turn the ball over and gets steals and a significant number of fast break points, they are going to win a lot of games regardless of 3 point shooting.

Remember, Michael Jordan was a career 32% 3 point shooter. He would still dominate today with that low of percentage. Why? Because he would dominate in the paint snd fast break points, would get a ton of steals, and hit enough 3's to be a threat.

The answer is balance, not just hit more 3's. I am not saying threes are not important. They are, but the latest fad are that they are the most important and the fact is that balance in the most important.

Got it. I think there's a clear indication that 3-point made differential impacts winning. The next step would be to hold other differentials constant and measure the effect on something like the propensity to win a game. But to say the indication isn't one of causation doesn't exactly make sense to me since that's exactly the interpretation I went with right away.

JF5 wrote:

Knightro wrote:

AaronB wrote: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.

So what you're saying is that teams with lesser talent (Bottom 10 teams) would more than likely be unable to shoot/score? Which wouldn't be to shocking.

On top of that you're indicating that most the NBA (about 2/3) can shoot the 3. Making it indicate that it takes probably more than JUST shooting 3 point shots to win in the NBA.

Right, but forget about it if you're not a competent 3pt shooting team. You need more than 3's - but you need 3's or your dead in the water.

Skybox wrote:

JF5 wrote:

Knightro wrote:
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.

So what you're saying is that teams with lesser talent (Bottom 10 teams) would more than likely be unable to shoot/score? Which wouldn't be to shocking.

On top of that you're indicating that most the NBA (about 2/3) can shoot the 3. Making it indicate that it takes probably more than JUST shooting 3 point shots to win in the NBA.

Right, but forget about it if you're not a competent 3pt shooting team. You need more than 3's - but you need 3's or your dead in the water.

That's just the pre-requisite now though. If the great teams like the Celtics to the mediocre teams like the Pacers can all hit 3s at similar clips what are the other facets of the game that separates them? That's what I'm saying.

Knightro talking about 3 point shots like that determines the best teams in the league clearly has how most if not all the league has pivoted to spacing/shooting in the last 3-4 years.

Knightro wrote: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.

Man, I agree with you that the Magic need to improve 3pt shooting on the whole, both in volume and accuracy. I agree that it's the biggest swing variables in the game at the moment by the virtue of its volatility. The OP statement isn't really saying much more than "if you make more shots than your opponent, there's a greater chance you win. If you shoot a better % than your opponent, there's a greater chance you win." It's a bit of a no brainer that the team who makes more shots wins. You can even attribute that to 2pt FG% and its correlation to the actual league standings.

Sacramento leads the league in 2pt fg% on 58.6%
Denver leads the league in 3pt fg% on 38.9%

Over 100 shots, Sacramento would score 117.2 points on 2pts alone.
Over 100 shots, Denver would score 116.7 points on 3pts alone.

League average for 2pt fg% is 54.8%
League average for 3pt fg% is 36%

Over 100 shots, that's 109.6 points on 2pts alone.
Over 100 shots, that's 108 points on 3pts alone.

That, to me, is a representation that the 2pt shot is still just as valuable as the 3pt shot (technically, it's more valuable). The psychological difference, which can go both ways, is that one team is only missing 45 shots, while the other is missing 65 shots. Young teams don't have the mental fortitude to shoot through so many misses.

But I'm not trying to make a point of viewing them in isolation. The game is a balance of using strengths to lift weaknesses. Our strength is our game in the paint, and we should be using the gravity of that to get us better looks from 3. That's essentially the Giannis/Jokic effect. Right now, our young guys in Franz and Paolo look to finish at the rim more than they look to kick out to an open 3, whereas Giannis and Jokic have learned to leverage their gravity to get better, higher % shots from the outside.

Because it's not as simple as giving a green light to launch 3's and expecting it to produce W's regardless of whether it goes in or not, just look at 3PTAs:

- 4 of the top 10 teams in 3pt attempts have losing records and aren't in the play-ins.
- 7 of the bottom 10 teams in 3pt attempts have winning records or are in the play-in (including WC leaders and 3pt fg% leaders Denver).

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.

Orlando is currently bottom 3-5 in ORTG.

Opening up the floor for Paolo and Franz is the obvious next step for this offense. And no, Im not talking about Carter shooting more 3's.

AaronB wrote:You missed the point.

I have not done the analysis, but I can almost guarantee that the team that scores the most points in the paint will win games at a very high percentage.

Why is that? Because scoring points in the paint sets up kick outs and the kinds of players that can guard in the paint are often not efficient scorers.

As I said before, these silly comments are about correlation and not causation. What causes teams to win (the causation) is the balance between scoring the right kinds of 2's and the right kinds of 3's that sets teams up for easy, high percentage baskets.

Another one is fast break points. The team that scores the most fast breaks points often wins. Why is that? Because fast break points are often generated when you hold the opposing team to a miss and only 1 shot.

This whole emphasis on 3 point shooting is basically a diversion. If a team gets stops, limits the opposition to 1 shot, does not turn the ball over and gets steals and a significant number of fast break points, they are going to win a lot of games regardless of 3 point shooting.

Remember, Michael Jordan was a career 32% 3 point shooter. He would still dominate today with that low of percentage. Why? Because he would dominate in the paint snd fast break points, would get a ton of steals, and hit enough 3's to be a threat.

The answer is balance, not just hit more 3's. I am not saying threes are not important. They are, but the latest fad are that they are the most important and the fact is that balance in the most important.

We can compare them if you want...

There are 14 teams with winning records and 16 teams without winning records in the NBA currently.

Top Half Points in the Paint: 6 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half Points in the Paint: 8 of 15 winning records

Top Half Fast Break Points: 8 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half Fast break Points: 6 of 15 winning records

Top Half 3PT made: 10 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half 3PT made: 4 of 15 winning records

Top half 3PT accuracy: 11 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half 3PT accuracy: 3 of 15 winning records

Knightro wrote:

AaronB wrote:You missed the point.

I have not done the analysis, but I can almost guarantee that the team that scores the most points in the paint will win games at a very high percentage.

Why is that? Because scoring points in the paint sets up kick outs and the kinds of players that can guard in the paint are often not efficient scorers.

As I said before, these silly comments are about correlation and not causation. What causes teams to win (the causation) is the balance between scoring the right kinds of 2's and the right kinds of 3's that sets teams up for easy, high percentage baskets.

Another one is fast break points. The team that scores the most fast breaks points often wins. Why is that? Because fast break points are often generated when you hold the opposing team to a miss and only 1 shot.

This whole emphasis on 3 point shooting is basically a diversion. If a team gets stops, limits the opposition to 1 shot, does not turn the ball over and gets steals and a significant number of fast break points, they are going to win a lot of games regardless of 3 point shooting.

Remember, Michael Jordan was a career 32% 3 point shooter. He would still dominate today with that low of percentage. Why? Because he would dominate in the paint snd fast break points, would get a ton of steals, and hit enough 3's to be a threat.

The answer is balance, not just hit more 3's. I am not saying threes are not important. They are, but the latest fad are that they are the most important and the fact is that balance in the most important.

We can compare them if you want...

There are 14 teams with winning records and 16 teams without winning records in the NBA currently.

Top Half Points in the Paint: 6 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half Points in the Paint: 8 of 15 winning records

Top Half Fast Break Points: 8 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half Fast break Points: 6 of 15 winning records

Top Half 3PT made: 10 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half 3PT made: 4 of 15 winning records

Top half 3PT accuracy: 11 of 15 winning records
Bottom Half 3PT accuracy: 3 of 15 winning records

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.