Atlantic division analytics profiles are up

[BballTim]

So if you're shooting more threes and are still right around league average for three point %, it stands to reason that you would be a better-than-average three point shooter.

If you expand the search out to 350 attempts, you're still looking at a who's who of great three point shooters in the league:
http://bkref.com/tiny/5tsKI

Food for thought: if you're a bad three point shooter, you're not going to be allowed to take that many shots from beyond the arc.

  So is the thought that Lowry's a good 3p shooter, not when compared to other 3p shooters, but when you expand the comparison to include players like Perk and Asik?

[PhoSita]

I have a question about league averages: Is that 35% as calculated from 

(a) the percentage of all of the three pointers taken for the season that went in? (i.e. Steph Curry counts 4x more than Jared Sullinger)

or

(b) the 3P% of all players who shot some, averaged? (i.e. Steph Curry counts the same as Jared Sullinger)

The answer is (a). If you grabbed a random NBA player in the gym and asked him his 3P%, the average value would be about 31%. Only about a third of NBA players actually shot better than 35% last season.

Sure, but how many of those players actually regularly took three pointers -- i.e. the three pointer was a significant part of their offensive game?

[PhoSita]

So if you're shooting more threes and are still right around league average for three point %, it stands to reason that you would be a better-than-average three point shooter.

If you expand the search out to 350 attempts, you're still looking at a who's who of great three point shooters in the league:
http://bkref.com/tiny/5tsKI

Food for thought: if you're a bad three point shooter, you're not going to be allowed to take that many shots from beyond the arc.

  So is the thought that Lowry's a good 3p shooter, not when compared to other 3p shooters, but when you expand the comparison to include players like Perk and Asik?

I'd think the comparison would be more along the lines of Kyle Lowry, who has averaged 4-6 three point attempts per game over the last five seasons, versus Paul Millsap, who has averaged three attempts from deep per game over the last two seasons.

Millsap has averaged around 35% the last two years, but I don't think it would be fair to say that he's equal to or better than Kyle Lowry as a three point shooter. 

[mmmmm]

I have a question about league averages: Is that 35% as calculated from 

(a) the percentage of all of the three pointers taken for the season that went in? (i.e. Steph Curry counts 4x more than Jared Sullinger)

or

(b) the 3P% of all players who shot some, averaged? (i.e. Steph Curry counts the same as Jared Sullinger)

The answer is (a). If you grabbed a random NBA player in the gym and asked him his 3P%, the average value would be about 31%. Only about a third of NBA players actually shot better than 35% last season.

Sure, but how many of those players actually regularly took three pointers -- i.e. the three pointer was a significant part of their offensive game?

Sadly, several of them (guys who took a lot of threes despite being below average at it) were on our roster ...

[PhoSita]

Sadly, several of them (guys who took a lot of threes despite being below average at it) were on our roster ...

 

[bdm860]

I have a question about league averages: Is that 35% as calculated from 

(a) the percentage of all of the three pointers taken for the season that went in? (i.e. Steph Curry counts 4x more than Jared Sullinger)

or

(b) the 3P% of all players who shot some, averaged? (i.e. Steph Curry counts the same as Jared Sullinger)

The answer is (a). If you grabbed a random NBA player in the gym and asked him his 3P%, the average value would be about 31%. Only about a third of NBA players actually shot better than 35% last season.

Sure, but how many of those players actually regularly took three pointers -- i.e. the three pointer was a significant part of their offensive game?

For those wondering, the stats breakdown like this:

League as a whole
492 different players
3's Made =19,300
Attempted =55,137
Avg % (unweighted) = 25.4%, (For this calc, 0 makes on 0 attempts = 0%, even though mathematically this is undefined)
Avg % (weighted) 35.0%
Median = 31.2%

If you look at players who had at least one 3pa:
425 players
Avg % (unweighted) = 29.4%
Avg % (weighted) 35.0%
Median = 32.7%

If you look at players who attempted at least one 3pa:
425 players
Avg % (unweighted) = 29.4%
Avg % (weighted) = 35.0%
Median = 32.7%

If you look at players who averaged at least 0.5 3pa per game:
337 players
Avg % (unweighted) = 32.9%
Avg % (weighted) 35.2%
Median = 34.3%

If you look at players who averaged at least 1.0 3pa per game:
297 players
Avg % (unweighted) = 33.8%
Avg % (weighted) 35.3%
Median = 34.5%

If you look at players who averaged at least 2.0 3pa per game:
201 players
Avg % (unweighted) = 35.0%
Avg % (weighted) 35.8%
Median = 35.4%

Unweighted meaning Curry at 44% (and 286/646) and Elton Brand at 0% (0/1), their unweighted average is 22%, while their weighted average is 44%.

[littleteapot]

In the future I'll avoid loaded terms such as "average"

[BballTim]

So if you're shooting more threes and are still right around league average for three point %, it stands to reason that you would be a better-than-average three point shooter.

If you expand the search out to 350 attempts, you're still looking at a who's who of great three point shooters in the league:
http://bkref.com/tiny/5tsKI

Food for thought: if you're a bad three point shooter, you're not going to be allowed to take that many shots from beyond the arc.

  So is the thought that Lowry's a good 3p shooter, not when compared to other 3p shooters, but when you expand the comparison to include players like Perk and Asik?

I'd think the comparison would be more along the lines of Kyle Lowry, who has averaged 4-6 three point attempts per game over the last five seasons, versus Paul Millsap, who has averaged three attempts from deep per game over the last two seasons.

Millsap has averaged around 35% the last two years, but I don't think it would be fair to say that he's equal to or better than Kyle Lowry as a three point shooter.

  Is the theory that taking more shots lowers your fg%? Because the argument can go either way. Defenders might concentrate on you more outside the line, but there's also consistency from taking the shot more often.

[PhoSita]

  Is the theory that taking more shots lowers your fg%? Because the argument can go either way. Defenders might concentrate on you more outside the line, but there's also consistency from taking the shot more often.

If I understand D.o.s. correctly, the idea is that taking a lot of three pointers, generally speaking, indicates a greater capacity to take them.  Otherwise the player wouldn't get playing time.

Capacity in this case can mean a lot of things, including the consistency you mention.  It can also be a J.R. Smith kind of capacity, where the player is inconsistent, but when his shot is falling, it's REALLY falling, and he can nail a bunch in a row regardless of defensive pressure.  There are a lot of reasons why a coach might be willing to let a guy bomb from deep, but most of the time it'll have something to do with his ability to actually put the ball in the basket.

My point by bringing up Millsap versus Lowry is just that I think if you're going to judge how good a three point shooter somebody is, you have to consider the context, which includes a number of different factors.  Makes versus misses is an important as a raw measure of success in shooting, but it's not everything.


With Lowry specifically, I think his percentage would be higher if he weren't taking so many shots.  On the other hand, I think part of the reason he takes so many shots despite not always hitting a high percentage is that he often plays in lineups without many reliable three point shooters, so his team needs him to bomb from deep.  That may change this year if they play Carroll at PF a lot of the time.

The lack of other three point shooters on the floor is probably part of the reason Smart took so many deep shots last year, too.  The Celts had a good number of shooters, but Smart shared the floor much of the time with Turner, Bass, Zeller, Sullinger, and Crowder -- guys who were non-shooters from deep, or close to it. 

[sofutomygaha]

In the future I'll avoid loaded terms such as "average"

I didn't mean to make things super complicated-- the point was just to realize that a dude who takes a lot of 3's but only makes the "average" percentage is actually a rare commodity. The implication that some kind of run-of-the-mill player can do that is wrong wrong wrong. This was being implied about Lowry.

[BballTim]

  Is the theory that taking more shots lowers your fg%? Because the argument can go either way. Defenders might concentrate on you more outside the line, but there's also consistency from taking the shot more often.

If I understand D.o.s. correctly, the idea is that taking a lot of three pointers, generally speaking, indicates a greater capacity to take them.  Otherwise the player wouldn't get playing time.

Capacity in this case can mean a lot of things, including the consistency you mention.  It can also be a J.R. Smith kind of capacity, where the player is inconsistent, but when his shot is falling, it's REALLY falling, and he can nail a bunch in a row regardless of defensive pressure.  There are a lot of reasons why a coach might be willing to let a guy bomb from deep, but most of the time it'll have something to do with his ability to actually put the ball in the basket.

My point by bringing up Millsap versus Lowry is just that I think if you're going to judge how good a three point shooter somebody is, you have to consider the context, which includes a number of different factors.  Makes versus misses is an important as a raw measure of success in shooting, but it's not everything.


With Lowry specifically, I think his percentage would be higher if he weren't taking so many shots.  On the other hand, I think part of the reason he takes so many shots despite not always hitting a high percentage is that he often plays in lineups without many reliable three point shooters, so his team needs him to bomb from deep.  That may change this year if they play Carroll at PF a lot of the time.

The lack of other three point shooters on the floor is probably part of the reason Smart took so many deep shots last year, too.  The Celts had a good number of shooters, but Smart shared the floor much of the time with Turner, Bass, Zeller, Sullinger, and Crowder -- guys who were non-shooters from deep, or close to it.

   You seem to be saying, on a certain level, that pretty much every three point shooter is a good three point shooter because they shoot threes. That's accurate on some level, but it's similar to saying that centers who get more rebounds than the average nba player are good rebounders. It's somewhat accurate, yet somewhat lacking in context.

[PhoSita]

  Is the theory that taking more shots lowers your fg%? Because the argument can go either way. Defenders might concentrate on you more outside the line, but there's also consistency from taking the shot more often.

If I understand D.o.s. correctly, the idea is that taking a lot of three pointers, generally speaking, indicates a greater capacity to take them.  Otherwise the player wouldn't get playing time.

Capacity in this case can mean a lot of things, including the consistency you mention.  It can also be a J.R. Smith kind of capacity, where the player is inconsistent, but when his shot is falling, it's REALLY falling, and he can nail a bunch in a row regardless of defensive pressure.  There are a lot of reasons why a coach might be willing to let a guy bomb from deep, but most of the time it'll have something to do with his ability to actually put the ball in the basket.

My point by bringing up Millsap versus Lowry is just that I think if you're going to judge how good a three point shooter somebody is, you have to consider the context, which includes a number of different factors.  Makes versus misses is an important as a raw measure of success in shooting, but it's not everything.


With Lowry specifically, I think his percentage would be higher if he weren't taking so many shots.  On the other hand, I think part of the reason he takes so many shots despite not always hitting a high percentage is that he often plays in lineups without many reliable three point shooters, so his team needs him to bomb from deep.  That may change this year if they play Carroll at PF a lot of the time.

The lack of other three point shooters on the floor is probably part of the reason Smart took so many deep shots last year, too.  The Celts had a good number of shooters, but Smart shared the floor much of the time with Turner, Bass, Zeller, Sullinger, and Crowder -- guys who were non-shooters from deep, or close to it.

   You seem to be saying, on a certain level, that pretty much every three point shooter is a good three point shooter because they shoot threes. That's accurate on some level, but it's similar to saying that centers who get more rebounds than the average nba player are good rebounders. It's somewhat accurate, yet somewhat lacking in context.

I agree that "three point shooters are good shooters because they take threes" is close to circular logic.

There are other factors I mentioned though... Who else is on the floor, shot selection, consistency, frequency of attempts, three point attempt rate, and so on.

[Vermont Green]

I had trouble figuring out why there was such a long debate about 3fg%.  Isn't the bottom line that if you can hit 3s at 33% or better, that will result in good scoring efficiency equivalent to 50% Fg%?  I don't think it matters if 35%-37% is average, good, or great, point is that it is good enough.

And yes, I do think that maintaining that percentage with more attempts is a better indication than with less.  If you take fewer, it means you are likely being more selective and only taking them when you are good and open.  That is not a bad thing.  Someone who takes more and shoots the same percentage is either really good at getting open or is making some tougher shots.  Ability to make tougher shots at a higher percentage can come in handy at the end of games so yes, I would value that player more.

Stats are just stats though, I am a little old school in that I base a lot of my opinion of a player based on what I see on the court.  There can be many factors that impact what a 35% 3fg% for a player really means.  Rondo always appeared to shoot a high FG% but what did that mean?  Ben Wallace shot 48% or something like that for his career and he was one of the worst shooters every to play.  It is probably a little harder to distort 3FG% but it can still be distorted.

I think Lowry is a decent player, better than Smart right now.  Smart needs to develop some shooting touch.  If he does, he may be a perennial all-star and better than Lowry.  If he doesn't, he will be a good NBA player and maybe never as good as Lowry.  I am high on Smart so I think he is going to develop touch.

[PhoSita]

I had trouble figuring out why there was such a long debate about 3fg%.  Isn't the bottom line that if you can hit 3s at 33% or better, that will result in good scoring efficiency equivalent to 50% Fg%?  I don't think it matters if 35%-37% is average, good, or great, point is that it is good enough.

Well dang.  Good point.

[D.o.s.]

  Is the theory that taking more shots lowers your fg%? Because the argument can go either way. Defenders might concentrate on you more outside the line, but there's also consistency from taking the shot more often.

If I understand D.o.s. correctly, the idea is that taking a lot of three pointers, generally speaking, indicates a greater capacity to take them.  Otherwise the player wouldn't get playing time.

Capacity in this case can mean a lot of things, including the consistency you mention.  It can also be a J.R. Smith kind of capacity, where the player is inconsistent, but when his shot is falling, it's REALLY falling, and he can nail a bunch in a row regardless of defensive pressure.  There are a lot of reasons why a coach might be willing to let a guy bomb from deep, but most of the time it'll have something to do with his ability to actually put the ball in the basket.

My point by bringing up Millsap versus Lowry is just that I think if you're going to judge how good a three point shooter somebody is, you have to consider the context, which includes a number of different factors.  Makes versus misses is an important as a raw measure of success in shooting, but it's not everything.


With Lowry specifically, I think his percentage would be higher if he weren't taking so many shots.  On the other hand, I think part of the reason he takes so many shots despite not always hitting a high percentage is that he often plays in lineups without many reliable three point shooters, so his team needs him to bomb from deep.  That may change this year if they play Carroll at PF a lot of the time.

The lack of other three point shooters on the floor is probably part of the reason Smart took so many deep shots last year, too.  The Celts had a good number of shooters, but Smart shared the floor much of the time with Turner, Bass, Zeller, Sullinger, and Crowder -- guys who were non-shooters from deep, or close to it.

   You seem to be saying, on a certain level, that pretty much every three point shooter is a good three point shooter because they shoot threes. That's accurate on some level, but it's similar to saying that centers who get more rebounds than the average nba player are good rebounders. It's somewhat accurate, yet somewhat lacking in context.

I think it would be fairly safe to say that while Lowry is one of the better three point shooters in the league without being one of the best -- a grade or two above being an 'ok' three point shooter. Largely semantic, I guess, but it seems to me that he stacks up well against the field but falls short when compared to the truly elite deep threats ala Kyle Korver et. al.