Percent of points that come from 3 pointers by team

[ogmagicfan]

There’s definitely a couple different schools of roster makeup at play right now. Our approach is closer to Denver and Minnesota as a lower % of points from 3, but being good enough in other areas (defense, FTs, points in the paint) to still have a top record.

Then there’s the 3pt bombers who are really hit and miss. Boston is the best of that group because they can play defense too, but many of the other high volume 3pt teams like Sac, Indy, Dallas, Utah, etc get routinely blown out by 30-50 points because of how boom-bust high volume shooting results can be.

I think our approach is much more stable and keeps games closer in general.

The problem is that Minny & Denver both have a plethora of capable 3 pt shooters, which keeps defenses honest

Out of Minny's top 8 played players, 6 of them shoot the ball at 36.5% or higher from 3, the other 2 are Gobert & Kyle Anderson

Out of Denver's top 8 played players, 6 of them are shooting 34.5% from 3 or higher, the other 2 are Jokic & Gordon who are struggling from 3 to start the season. Also they have Jokic's passing ability which keeps defenses honest

Regardless of if 3's are gonna be high volume for our team or not, we need to make them to make defense stay honest on defense. Because currently teams are either running 2-3 zones or packing the pack crazy on drives and daring us to make open 3's

Inability to make 3's makes it really difficult to make bigger comebacks as well.

[Bensational]

There’s definitely a couple different schools of roster makeup at play right now. Our approach is closer to Denver and Minnesota as a lower % of points from 3, but being good enough in other areas (defense, FTs, points in the paint) to still have a top record.

Then there’s the 3pt bombers who are really hit and miss. Boston is the best of that group because they can play defense too, but many of the other high volume 3pt teams like Sac, Indy, Dallas, Utah, etc get routinely blown out by 30-50 points because of how boom-bust high volume shooting results can be.

I think our approach is much more stable and keeps games closer in general.

The problem is that Minny & Denver both have a plethora of capable 3 pt shooters, which keeps defenses honest

Out of Minny's top 8 played players, 6 of them shoot the ball at 36.5% or higher from 3, the other 2 are Gobert & Kyle Anderson

Out of Denver's top 8 played players, 6 of them are shooting 34.5% from 3 or higher, the other 2 are Jokic & Gordon who are struggling from 3 to start the season. Also they have Jokic's passing ability which keeps defenses honest

Regardless of if 3's are gonna be high volume for our team or not, we need to make them to make defense stay honest on defense. Because currently teams are either running 2-3 zones or packing the pack crazy on drives and daring us to make open 3's

Inability to make 3's makes it really difficult to make bigger comebacks as well.

Ingles - 40%
Banchero, Suggs, Cole - 37%
Wendell, Harris - 33%
Moe Wags - 34%
Houstan - 38%
Black - 31%

We’ve got shooters, unfortunately nearly all of them are in a slump right now. Harris and Franz are shooting at something like 5% over the last 4 games. During our win streak they were hitting and we were top 10 in efficiency.

Harris and Franz will return to their normal percentages sooner or later and that will help lift the other numbers.

[pepe1991]

League's average for 3 this year is 36,6% ( for now).

[drsd]

We’ve got shooters, unfortunately nearly all of them are in a slump right now.

I cannot agree with the first point. And the second point becomes untrue if the Magic does not have shooters to begin with.

Is there any doubt that Fultz, Black, G-Harris, Isaac and the Denver pick for Herro (and change) would transform this team? If you think "yes", then you conclude the Magic actually does not "have shooters".




..

[The-Stallion70]

We’ve got shooters, unfortunately nearly all of them are in a slump right now.

I cannot agree with the first point. And the second point becomes untrue if the Magic does not have shooters to begin with.

Is there any doubt that Fultz, Black, G-Harris, Isaac and the Denver pick for Herro (and change) would transform this team? If you think "yes", then you conclude the Magic actually does not "have shooters".




..

We got a sharpshooter rookie who can't see the court at all and our defense only, 4 points a game rookie is being force fed minutes. At some point the Magic org needs to understand that not everything has to start with defense.

[SOUL]

We got a sharpshooter rookie who can't see the court at all and our defense only, 4 points a game rookie is being force fed minutes. At some point the Magic org needs to understand that not everything has to start with defense.

Jett is still a theoretical shooter - lighting up the G-League but a lot of people are. We can't really afford to have two rookies playing 15-20 mpg because that will tank our season even worse. I think Jett starts seeing REAL minutes next year.

I think we go after Hield or someone like that.

[basketballRob]

Watching you guys explain how Black sucks even though he has a +2.8 net rating is funny.

It reminds me how I had to defend Suggs when you guys were calling him garbage.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

[pepe1991]

Watching you guys explain how Black sucks even though he has a +2.8 net rating is funny.

It reminds me how I had to defend Suggs when you guys were calling him garbage.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

23 rookies have higher net rating than Black, including Jett Howard.

Net rating is meaningles data when your sample is low and players you are "evaluating" also tend to play small min.
Net rating also needs context of team sucess, because that's how it's calculated.Matter of fact more often than not, net rating has very little to do with player himself, but rather situation and rotation of players he plays with.
Like any other data, without other data it's meaningless. Now if player continues to have negative ( or positive) net rating year after year, you can conclude some pattern. But 25 games, 20 min a game, low usage, it's usless.

One Brandon Miller will have bad net rating because he is on bad team, one Cason Wallace will have amazing net rating because he is on one of best teams in basketball.

Franz Wagner during disaster of Magic rookie season had -4,9 net rating (that's minus 4 point nine). Yet he was one of best rookies.


Suggs was objectivlly terrible rookie. Nothing can dispute that. He was historically terrible shooter. He improved. He got better. That doesn't change fact he was terrible rookie.



Black starting is cosmetic move. He also doesn't have much to do on offense. We can argue is it because he can't or because Mosley doesn't trust him, i don't know, nobody does really.

99% of posters don't "attack" Black. Most people are supportive ( including me). But if you want to win games, it's near impossible to play offense 4 on 5, and more often than not, playing Black put you in that, exect situation.
I don't mind playing Black, i'm more annoyed how we draft PGs to not play them as PGs. Black is not exception. Drafted as PG, guy plays Thybulle role.

[eyriq]

Watching you guys explain how Black sucks even though he has a +2.8 net rating is funny.

It reminds me how I had to defend Suggs when you guys were calling him garbage.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

23 rookies have higher net rating than Black, including Jett Howard.

Net rating is meaningles data when your sample is low and players you are "evaluating" also tend to play small min.
Net rating also needs context of team sucess, because that's how it's calculated.Matter of fact more often than not, net rating has very little to do with player himself, but rather situation and rotation of players he plays with.
Like any other data, without other data it's meaningless. Now if player continues to have negative ( or positive) net rating year after year, you can conclude some pattern. But 25 games, 20 min a game, low usage, it's usless.

One Brandon Miller will have bad net rating because he is on bad team, one Cason Wallace will have amazing net rating because he is on one of best teams in basketball.

Franz Wagner during disaster of Magic rookie season had -4,9 net rating (that's minus 4 point nine). Yet he was one of best rookies.


Suggs was objectivlly terrible rookie. Nothing can dispute that. He was historically terrible shooter. He improved. He got better. That doesn't change fact he was terrible rookie.



Black starting is cosmetic move. He also doesn't have much to do on offense. We can argue is it because he can't or because Mosley doesn't trust him, i don't know, nobody does really.

99% of posters don't "attack" Black. Most people are supportive ( including me). But if you want to win games, it's near impossible to play offense 4 on 5, and more often than not, playing Black put you in that, exect situation.
I don't mind playing Black, i'm more annoyed how we draft PGs to not play them as PGs. Black is not exception. Drafted as PG, guy plays Thybulle role.

It's extremely context dependent, great breakdown pointing out why that's the case. Black plays with starters, against starters. +2.8 while the team overall is +2.6 is a good look. His OnOff is -0.5, so the bench is still providing a tough comp, but the rest of the starters are much worse.

This is evidence that the starters play better with him than without him. To me this means he's having a positive contribution. Combined with the long-term benefit of developing him now with meaningful mins and he's the last player I look to criticize.

[p0peye]

When you have a shooter, you run plays with him coming off screen or even multiple. We don't have that.

When a player can shoot, he doesn't pass wide open 3.

When a shooter takes open 3, he tends to hit more shots than he misses.

[The-Stallion70]

We got a sharpshooter rookie who can't see the court at all and our defense only, 4 points a game rookie is being force fed minutes. At some point the Magic org needs to understand that not everything has to start with defense.

Jett is still a theoretical shooter - lighting up the G-League but a lot of people are. We can't really afford to have two rookies playing 15-20 mpg because that will tank our season even worse. I think Jett starts seeing REAL minutes next year.

I think we go after Hield or someone like that.

Your statement is completely unfounded and that's just your opinion that playing two rookies would "tank" our season but nice try.

If we get Hield we better not send much for him but people are missing the point when it comes to our offense, it isn't just three point shooting but having more offense period.

4 points per game in 20 minutes is not a positive thing for the organization now that Black has had a good 25 games under his belt. It's time for Black to sit the bench and watch for a bit and put in extra work on his shot. Play 2 shooting guards, or Ingles at "point" which is just by name since Paolo and Franz do the bulk of the handling.

Perhaps start Cole and bring Black off the bench. Black may have more success scoring against second units anyhow.

The team may actually have a chance to make the second round of the playoffs this year and force feeding minutes a pg who may or may not develop may not be in the org's best interest.

[AaronB]

What was really significant in correlation (R squared ~ 0.6) to wins is that difference (3 point % - opponents 3 point shooting).

Bottom line is better 3 point shooting does not win more games unless defending the 3 stays constant.

This fits the general notion that FG% differential in general (and 3-pt FG% is in that) is the most decisive stat to determine a W vs. a L.

I am now hopeful to getting some maths-dept. university UGs to do a deep dive on this for all teams over thee last decades.

I looked at the data over the last 10 years.

Plot Summary:

Top grey scatter plot is a scatter plot of True Shooting (y) vs winning percentage (x)

The biggest take-away (and surprising) is that the R squared of 0.15 says that the relationship between winning percentage and true shooting is basically random.

The overlapping blue and orange points is a plot of the difference between Team and Opponent shooting % and true shooting %.
Both are reasonably predictive of winning percentage.

Most interesting is that the slope of the trend lines are almost identical, which means that winning percentage as a function of delta FG% is the same as the delta True Shooting %. I would not have guessed that.

[Bensational]

Our interior work + FTs is winning us games right now but we’re over dependent on it.

Paolo has so much gravity that he could generate a lot more kick outs for open looks, but he really favours his own shots or short handoffs. Houstan and Harris having such low volume is mostly a result of our playmaking (though Harris has been extra avoidant during his slump). We just really don’t hunt for those shots. Even Cole is down in attempts this season, and he’s one of our best shooters with the ball in his hands a lot.

[Skybox]

Our interior work + FTs is winning us games right now but we’re over dependent on it.

Paolo has so much gravity that he could generate a lot more kick outs for open looks, but he really favours his own shots or short handoffs. Houstan and Harris having such low volume is mostly a result of our playmaking (though Harris has been extra avoidant during his slump). We just really don’t hunt for those shots. Even Cole is down in attempts this season, and he’s one of our best shooters with the ball in his hands a lot.

Agree…I think the (maybe someday soon) optimal Paolo is averaging a Jokic-like 8+ assists to go with his efficient interior scoring. We have some guys that clearly can shoot the 3, but there’s clearly another step upward in both the quality of Paolo’s table setting and our perimeter players “hunting shots” more aggressively. I suppose it’s largely a coaching thing too…maybe Jett will be the guy who takes the opportunity to a Jamal Murray-like level, recognizing the perfect opportunity for a good-sized guy with a quick-release and a true scorer’s mentality.

I throw out a trade a day, it seems, for a shooter, but it’s probably more systemic…at this point at least.

[SOUL]

Your statement is completely unfounded and that's just your opinion that playing two rookies would "tank" our season but nice try.

I watch the NBA. There are no good teams playing rookies extended minutes as part of their rotation, outside of OKC (which has an asterisk because Chet essentially redshirted and was privy to everything related to the NBA - learning the playbook while recovering and using facilities to gain strength/getting used to the NBA life even if he wasn't on the court) ... oh, and they have an MVP caliber guy in SGA playing next to them. GSW might be the only other team to do that with Podziemski and Trayce Jackson-Davis, but again, an MVP candidate in Steph Curry and a lot of older veterans that have known the system/NBA systems for a while like Looney, Klay, Green, CP3, Wiggins. We'd be trying to replace vets (Gary) with a rookie to play with a bunch of of other 19-22 year olds and we've seen that movie before.

Jett shot 41/36 in college.
Jett's shooting 26/18 in the NBA (in extremely limited minutes).
Jett's shooting 38/37 in the G-League.

I like Jett. If he stays, I think he'll find his niche here as a potentially lethal shooter. If anything is unfounded, it's the clamoring of a (freshman) rookie to bring a consistency he hasn't shown and to depend on said rookie to bring it. The best shooters/offensive names in the last draft around 10-20 were supposedly Jett, Dick, Hawkins, Sensabaugh, Kris Murray. Jett is putting up okay numbers in the G League, Dick is struggling in the G League, Hawkins looked solid in his time but is losing out to guys who offer more currently and Sensabaugh/Murray can't get minutes on tanking teams.

I don't mind bringing Jett or Black along slowly at all, but I'm saying if we're trying to find ways to get them around 20 minutes a game right now, in hopes that either gives us something we're missing, it's going to come at the cost of what fans aren't very patient for right now, which is a lot of rookie learning moments and wonky results.

If they're looking for a player that will actually change how our team looks in terms of being a threat from three, it needs to be a guy that puts up volume threes and makes them at a decent clip, like a Hield, Monk archetype. We've already had Gary shooting a limited numbers of threes last year at 40% and it didn't change us as a team really because the attempts are so low. It was useful and he was solid last year, but this year when he's struggling and Franz is struggling and we have only a few other guys that shoot them decently, it becomes a real issue. Jett isn't going to get the volume of attempts to change enough this year even if he made them at a crazy efficient clip, and his defense isn't as good as Gary's, so it's a pipe dream as of this moment. Not talking about his future.

[basketballRob]

AB has contributed to this team winning. He's 11th in the league in defensive rating among players that have played 20 games or more. It makes a difference to stop guards from going off. You could argue that he's been more valuable than Cole. Cole gives you some offense and rebounding, but players go off on him. His defense is 6.3 pts behind AB in only 5.3 more mpg.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

[SOUL]

AB has contributed to this team winning. He's 11th in the league in defensive rating among players that have played 20 games or more. It makes a difference to stop guards from going off. You could argue that he's been more valuable than Cole. Cole gives you some offense and rebounding, but players go off on him. His defense is 6.3 pts behind AB in only 5.3 more mpg.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

Black has been fine, but he's not been better than Cole this year. People can I've been seriously reading some bizzaro-land takes on this forum lately with extremely cherry picked stats. RAPTOR has Cole about 300 (!!) spots above AB which makes sense for a rookie learning the NBA, and that's about as general of a stat indicator you can get.

I think we really need to stop this ridiculous overrating of rookies... it doesn't mean they're bad, don't have their uses on the team, aren't preferable in the future or in specific lineups, especially if they're cooking during that game.. but I swear I'm watching a different game sometimes. There's a reason young, rebuilding teams featuring young players and rookies lose a lot, but some people apparently think it's a weird coincidence that it consistently happens and it has nothing to do with the fact that its a bunch of young guys learning the game on the fly going up against grown men, even if in a few years they will be running the league.

Even Paolo isn't nearly as efficient or as much as a game-changer as people think, he's below Franz and Suggs this year in terms of singular impact.. because he's a year behind. Suggs' defense is legit game changing this year which shows in his play and through advanced stats, and Franz, despite his shooting slump, affects the game more by being in better working lineups. Way lower turnover rate, better FT%, similar defensive stats.. even with a huge 3 point slump. I'd still say Paolo is the "best" on the team because of the defenses he faces and the coverages he gets, while being able to hit a special gear.

[basketballRob]

AB has contributed to this team winning. He's 11th in the league in defensive rating among players that have played 20 games or more. It makes a difference to stop guards from going off. You could argue that he's been more valuable than Cole. Cole gives you some offense and rebounding, but players go off on him. His defense is 6.3 pts behind AB in only 5.3 more mpg.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

Black has been fine, but he's not been better than Cole this year. People can I've been seriously reading some bizzaro-land takes on this forum lately with extremely cherry picked stats. RAPTOR has Cole about 300 (!!) spots above AB which makes sense for a rookie learning the NBA, and that's about as general of a stat indicator you can get.

I think we really need to stop this ridiculous overrating of rookies... it doesn't mean they're bad, don't have their uses on the team, aren't preferable in the future or in specific lineups, especially if they're cooking during that game.. but I swear I'm watching a different game sometimes. There's a reason young, rebuilding teams featuring young players and rookies lose a lot, but some people apparently think it's a weird coincidence that it consistently happens and it has nothing to do with the fact that its a bunch of young guys learning the game on the fly going up against grown men, even if in a few years they will be running the league.

Even Paolo isn't nearly as efficient or as much as a game-changer as people think, he's below Franz and Suggs this year in terms of singular impact.. because he's a year behind. Suggs' defense is legit game changing this year which shows in his play and through advanced stats, and Franz, despite his shooting slump, affects the game more by being in better working lineups. Way lower turnover rate, better FT%, similar defensive stats.. even with a huge 3 point slump. I'd still say Paolo is the "best" on the team because of the defenses he faces and the coverages he gets, while being able to hit a special gear.

Cole is better offensively by a mile, but defensively, he is way behind Black.

I don't see the Raptor stat anymore. ESPN uses RPM to analyze players' impact. Black is -0.69, and Cole is -0.63.

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

[Knightro]

Magic team sorted by EPM

Goga +3.9
Suggs +3.5
Franz +2.1
Moritz +0.7
Paolo +0.4
Isaac +0.2
Cole -0.5
Ingles -1.0
Harris -1.1
Carter -1.5
Black -2.0

[basketballRob]

Magic team sorted by EPM

Goga +3.9
Suggs +3.5
Franz +2.1
Moritz +0.7
Paolo +0.4
Isaac +0.2
Cole -0.5
Ingles -1.0
Harris -1.1
Carter -1.5
Black -2.0

What's the defensive EPM?

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app