538: 3-pointers are now no more efficient than 2-pointers
I thought this article from FiveThirtyEight was interesting - among other things, it shows how the points per attempt on two-pointers and three-pointers are now virtually the same, since the NCAA moved back the three-point line before last season:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-moving-the-arc-bring-the-3-pointer-to-a-breaking-point/
As we all know, Beilein's teams won by avoiding turnovers, taking a lot of three-pointers, and (at least once Yaklich joined his staff) limiting opponents' three-pointers. We may have transitioned to Howard, and his increased focus on post play on offense and drop coverage on defense, just in time to avoid the negative effects of college basketball's reduced three-point efficiency.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:26 AM ^
Another feather in the ol’ Juwan cap!
February 1st, 2021 at 11:18 AM ^
First, I think Juwan is the best coach for this team, and everything he is doing I appreciate and agree with...
However...
The post game doesn't work without the threat of the 3. Spacing gets worse, passing stops, and there are too many guys standing around when you start to just focus on the post up and not finding the best shot to keep the defense spaced.
While I understand the stats say that 2's and 3's are now equal in terms of quality, you will LOSE the quality of the 2 (post up) if you focus too much on that and abandon the 3.
You cannot have the post up without the 3, but you can have the 3 without the post up, which to me, still makes the 3 a more valuable shot and has to be the slight focus still (60/40 in half court sets when you take out runouts and fast breaks) of the offense, and not the other way around.
February 1st, 2021 at 12:27 PM ^
And you wouldn’t get the post scoring under the Beilein big man recruiting. I don’t mean that as a slight to Beilein and his coaching abilities.
February 1st, 2021 at 1:08 PM ^
The post game doesn't work without the threat of the 3
Do you think Juwan doesn't recognize this?
February 1st, 2021 at 2:53 PM ^
Not at all, I think he understands it more then most coming from the Miami Heat situation that was in front of the data driven basketball movement.
Just a warning to what can happen when you stray one way or the other too far.
February 1st, 2021 at 1:27 PM ^
it cuts both ways. 3 point shooting is better with a solid post player.
February 1st, 2021 at 7:35 PM ^
Completely agreed. Being able to make either type of shot will increase the efficiency of both. I think Howard's teams are constructed to be able to make both. Beilein's teams were more focused on three-pointers, and jump shots generally.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:28 AM ^
This is definitely interesting data and it does make you wonder about the future. However, the difference in accuracy dropped a single percent and has some fluctuations over time so I'm not ready to conclude it is a theme. Additionally I would assume that players are going to get used to the new line just as they adapt to the longer NBA three as well.
The one thing that may be worth monitoring is whether freshmen shoot a lot worse than they used to since the leap from the HS line to the NCAA/FIBA line is now more dramatic. That may explain (in a very small way) why several teams relying heavily on freshmen are struggling this year.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:37 AM ^
I wonder how the lack of games played has effected the stats? I'll be honest, I forgot they moved the line back, but it doesn't seem to have effected Iowa or us this year.
February 1st, 2021 at 2:37 PM ^
On another note, why not keep the ladies 3pt line the same as the men's? I don't like seeing the extra (and sometimes different color) lines on the court and its a little demeaning to the women. Like "we don't think you can handle shooting 3's from 2 or 3 inches further back than usual." Kind of insulting. lol
February 1st, 2021 at 9:30 AM ^
This makes me want to do the cabbage patch!
February 1st, 2021 at 9:35 AM ^
Completely random thought, but since we're discussing 3-pt shooting....I'd still love to see the shootout between Stauskas and Steph Curry on Nik's home court in Canada.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:38 AM ^
I think you are being tongue in cheek, but Steph would beat anyone in their own backyard. That guy puts up the worst looking shots at times, and they go in. Considering Stauskas is in the G league, wouldn't a better contest be against Duncan Robinson?
February 1st, 2021 at 9:55 AM ^
A better matchup would be Katelynn Flaherty vs Stauskas...as Flaherty has already beaten D. Robinson in a 3 point shootout.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:47 AM ^
They aren’t even in the same league when in comes to in game performance.
The link above shows Curry hit 103, 3s in a row at a practice. Before the cameras were rolling he has already made 2.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:27 AM ^
I call BS. There was clearly some camera trickery going on b/c you can't see the ball when it goes out of frame. LIARS!!!
/s
Seriously though, I hit 7 in a row once. That felt pretty good.
February 1st, 2021 at 12:58 PM ^
Yep. Only guy on earth that is in the same league as Steph is his running mate (pre-inury) Klay.
Klay was a bit streakier. D-Robinson is just a peg below with KD there as well. KD is unreal because at 6'11 he shoots it right in your face.
For range it's Lillard and Steph.
Steph takes and makes the toughest 3s and off the dribble 3s out of all of them. If he had the luxury to just practice spot up or catch and shoot 3's and take only spot up or catch and shoot 3's in the game, he'd probably hit 57-60% of them in game. He's ridiculous.
February 1st, 2021 at 6:42 PM ^
Steph is the greatest shooter of all time because he's super efficient in shooting 3s in a high volume shots and about 40% of it are off the dribble which is a lot more difficult shot to make on a consistent basis.
I would say Klay and Duncan are top 3 shooters in the league right now but since Klay has been hurt for the past two seasons, Duncan is #2.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:40 AM ^
I think you are going to naturally see a shift back to more "quality" looks from 3. Curry changed the game and what people perceived was a good shot. Trouble is, Curry is a unicorn, and people are starting to realize what is a quality shot from one is not a quality shot for all.
I don't think we will ever get back to where any 15 footer is seen as a higher quality look than a 3, rather, an open 15 footer is a higher quality look than a contested 3. Like anything else, it is cyclical. The moment a team starts to abuse another team with a true center that is putting up 30 and 15 with high efficiency, and that team wins, you will really see a shift back.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:04 AM ^
I think there is something to the thought that a good mid-range jumper will come back in style. The prototype for that in my mind is still Richard Hamilton. I looked up his 2004 season with the Pistons and he took 1098 2s in that season. I don't know where to look / have the right subscription to know how many of those were at the rim vs jumpers, but I think it's safe to say a lot were jumpers. What gets lost in the math of at the rim and 3s only is that the quality of your 3s goes down if everyone knows you absolutely won't take a mid-range jumper.
February 1st, 2021 at 11:13 AM ^
Some guys still take good mid-range twos, and I was talking about how Michigan will take certain shots inside the line, even now, if it is an open shot.
I think you're right about the 3 quality issue. A hard 3-and-rim strategy makes for efficient shots, but it also means that guys can defend the line hard and if they get beat there's time for defense behind them to compensate at the rim. Maybe that means we see Ds that figure out how to exploit this, and offenses counter with open jump shots 5-8 feet inside the line.
Doesn't mean we'll go back to Carmelo taking 15-foot contested fadeaways on boring iso possessions, but stuff can come back in.
This is a really interesting data point and thread.
February 1st, 2021 at 11:13 AM ^
Keep in mind, the '04 Pistons were not a terribly efficient offensive team. They ranked just 18th in the league in offensive efficiency (but 2nd on D). Rip had an offensive rating of 103, just the fourth-best on the team even though he took the most shots.
February 1st, 2021 at 1:50 PM ^
Part of Rip's low O-rating was a dreadful 26% from 3. Modern Rip is for sure extending his range, but his mid-range game was an offensive weapon and what they ran a large percentage of the offense off of.
February 1st, 2021 at 7:40 PM ^
The Rip Hamilton strategy works a lot better if you have the best defense in recent NBA history backing you up. Not that he wasn't reasonably efficient on those shots, but most players are far less efficient on two-point jump shots than on either shots at the rim or threes.
February 1st, 2021 at 1:56 PM ^
It's not cyclical when there's a rule change making the three point line further away . . . And while NBA trends certainly get plenty of attention from college coaches, the fine details are going to differ.
"I don't think we will ever get back to where any 15 footer is seen as a higher quality look than a 3" When has this ever been true? When they didn't have a 3pt line?
February 1st, 2021 at 7:38 PM ^
Curry's revolution was partly about three-point volume, but as mentioned in the article, that may have stabilized. I think the other part of Curry's revolution was about taking threes from distance. A 25-foot three with a few feet of space from the defender can be as efficient as a 22-foot three with a defender in the shooter's face. In addition, extending the defense out that extra few feet can really warp the interior defense, opening up driving lanes and making help defense more difficult.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:49 AM ^
Michigan still shoots a decent amount of 3's too.
The difference is the offense is essentially go for a layup/dunk or a 3 pointer and they have eliminated mid to long range 2's for the most part.
This is the analytical approach as the mid-range shot is the most inefficient shot in basketball. This approach is also very NBA like as well.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:06 AM ^
Very good. The quality of two point shots has increased, it seems to me, with the mid-range jumper now a no-no with many coaches. So the sample set has changed, a change that will filter through to points per possession efficiency. M basketball this year has amply demonstrated that a highly effective 2 point game centered around post possessions (hello, Hunter Dickinson and Austin Davis and Naz) can yield a very good points per possession statistic. And conversely, but a change that works in the same direction, the new three-happy strategies are often manned by those who shoot less well than Nick Stauskus or Kaitlyn Flaherty.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:32 AM ^
I wouldn't say eliminated by any stretch, although it is a smaller percentage of shots. There are still a not insignificant number of mid-range jumpers from 7' out. We're not Alabama, which really goes all in on the lane or 3 philosophy. With guys like Livers, Johns, and Brown who can hit the mid-range jumpers, I don't think we'll ever go full on like Alabama, but they are opportunistic and generally smart about when they take those shots.
February 1st, 2021 at 11:16 AM ^
the mid-range shot is the most inefficient shot in basketball.
We need a proper definition of "mid-range" here. Are we talking about everything between 5 and 22 feet from the rim? If so, that's encompassing a lot of different shots in terms of difficulty.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:51 AM ^
We need a field goal worth 4 points. Can someone get busy on that?
February 1st, 2021 at 10:39 AM ^
I would propose that a hook shot made by anyone under 6 feet tall should count as a 4-pointer.
February 1st, 2021 at 12:35 PM ^
"5-Points" when lit! Not serious but fun for me to think about. As a former pinball player back in the day (mid-70s) I am in favor of 6 foot circles near the half court line that light up during the last 30 seconds of the half or when the shot clock is down to 5 seconds. X-League or Extreme Basketball perhaps.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:55 AM ^
The NCAA has readjusted the 3-point line before. I wouldn't be surprised if they move it back in again.
February 1st, 2021 at 9:55 AM ^
Good. I know it's not a popular opinion, but at least at the collegiate level, the 3 pointer has really hurt the game. I watch a ton of college basketball, and so many games just turn into a 3 point contest. The problem is that there are very few elite shooters at this level. You end up watching 2 teams brick 3 point shots for over half the game. NBA of course is a different story because those guys don't freaking miss!
February 1st, 2021 at 10:27 AM ^
Kinda like the Spartans against OSU yesterday.
February 1st, 2021 at 12:57 PM ^
The 3-point line has in college basketball since 1986 - 35 years. To put that into perspective, it was introduced six years before John Beilein became a D-I coach. I don't think you can put that genie back in the bottle.
If a team is doing nothing but heaving up bricks, it's just playing stupidly. Removing the line won't make them play smarter.
February 1st, 2021 at 1:01 PM ^
yes, but was it introduced before john beilein was an *assistant* coach?
February 1st, 2021 at 7:44 PM ^
I disagree. I think the game suffers if three-pointers are so efficient that there are more threes than twos, but I think the game also suffers if there is no three-point shot at all. Before the three-point line was instituted, all 10 players would often be packed within 15 or so feet of the basket, resulting in lots of bad shots, turnovers, and fouls. Even if you think that three-point shots themselves are boring, they open up the inside for better two-point plays.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:09 AM ^
There were other rules changes happening besides the expansion of the three point line that could have had an impact on the relative efficiency of 2’s vs. 3’s.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:23 AM ^
I wonder if this convergence will hold, once players have spent enough time adjusting to the new 3 point line in practice, as high schoolers, etc. I'll be sold once it stays this way in a season or three.
Promising trend for diverse offensive skillsets in the game though.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:23 AM ^
Nothing has changed - good shots are 3 pointers and 2 pointers at/near the rim. Lumping all 2 pointers together doesn't change that at all.
February 1st, 2021 at 10:45 AM ^
As others have said, I think this is a little misleading. One is obvious sample size issues, since the 3 point line was only moved back last year and we have had two limited seasons since. Also the changes we're seeing are relatively small, drops of 1% from 18/19 to now, with a slight uptick this year from last.
But also if you look at the graph they have showing Points per Attempt for NCAA 2's and 3's, you can see that from around 2015 onward there was a steady increase in PPA for 2's, which is probably a result of teams trying to follow the analytical model of more rim shots and less 2 point jumpers. There was also a massive drop in PPA for 3's when the 3 point line was moved back, but just as big a part of the efficiency gap closing is the increase in 2P efficiency.
I'd also expect that we see the gap start to grow again as teams start to get more comfortable with the longer 3 point line and younger players start coming to college who play with that line their whole careers. Also teams will probably start to learn more about who can actually take the new 3's in an efficient manner, and we'll see more efficient shots being taken as well. Last time the NCAA moved back the 3 point line we saw an initial drop in PPA for 3's before it rebounded to previous levels. I would guess a similar thing begins to happen, and like the graph shows we can already see a slight increase this year.
February 1st, 2021 at 11:00 AM ^
I wouldn't read too much into this year's stats, given the unevenness of schedules and all that. I do think that when the line was closer you had guys who were questionable from that distance being given the green light because it was so tantalizing of a shot, but now my guess is it's clearer who should be taking those shots and who should be a bit more careful. But I assume that it'll even out going forward to where it's a key part of a team's arsenal but you still have to be able to hit some jumpers and generate play going toward the basket to be able to really loosen up defenses.
February 1st, 2021 at 11:03 AM ^
This changes nothing for me because:
1. we have 4 rotation players shooting 40% whereas by comparison MSU has 2, and one of them is Loyer who essentially has to be wide open because he's tiny. We should continue to bombs away with those 4 players.
2. long 2s are still hot garbage and our team takes very few of those, except the times that Brown wears bigger shoes.
3. with Dickinson's inside domination our offense is amazingly efficient. most centers are black holes on the post, Hunter just terrorizes defenses with his vision/passing out of the post.
Articles like this seem to be written for the antithesis of teams like Michigan. Worse shooting teams 3pt shooting teams that take long 2s and have black holes down low is a bad combo.
February 1st, 2021 at 11:19 AM ^
Interesting data. It's pretty general about what kinds of 2-pointers are being taken though, and it seems like the issues is entirely a decline in 3-point percentage. Lots of good discussion about why that might be in this (terrific) thread already. I suspect it's a combination of the line moving back (which is obvious) and, perhaps, improved understanding of how to defend 3-heavy offenses. We've certainly seen improvements in that at Michigan in the last 5 years.
It may be that equilibrium has a natural gravity to it. So long as 2-pointers are less efficient in the advanced metrics era, coaches look to find ways to make it more efficient. So, obviously, a lot of 2-pointers are getting closer to the rim, which could incrementally improve 2-point percentage until it nears the 3-point percentage. Efficiency attracts shots.
February 1st, 2021 at 11:22 AM ^
Basketball is the best sport to play from a variety of perspectives...athleticism, skill, intelligence, composure, discipline...and on and on. I like where things currently are with regards to the three point line. Here, having the risk reward at a 50-50 breaking point is perfect.
February 1st, 2021 at 12:11 PM ^
I would like for the three-point line to be eliminated from college basketball.
February 1st, 2021 at 12:46 PM ^
Interesting thought. The 3-point line has been around so long that I forgot it hasn't been around forever. I hated it when it came out.
I want more time put back on the shot clock so teams have time to run a second play if the first one doesn't work. I like to watch defenses make adjustments and watch offenses force adjustments. I definitely enjoy the game less since they reduced the shot clock.