Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69
  1. #16
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by 3ball
    what constitutes a "contested shot"

    the catch-and-shoot midrange shots are more contested than catch-and-shoot 3-pointers.
    Vantage's definition is a defender within three feet and hands up.

  2. #17
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by GIF REACTION

    What are you suggesting?
    Even though today's game takes 22 threes per game, Flpiii's article said the most frequent shot is off-the-dribble midrange, which you obviously don't need offense to run..

    Clearly, back when they only attempted 2 threes per game, they took a lot more off-the-dribble midrange, so less offense needed to be run, which sped up the pace.

    ^^^^ There... I proved teams took more contested midrange in previous eras and therefore didn't need to run as much offense to get those shots, which resulted in faster pace.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    5,456

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    It's a two way street remember

    Playing at a faster pace gives your opposition more possessions

  4. #19
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by fpliii

    Vantage's definition is a defender within three feet and hands up.
    Here's the problem: it's standard for paint and midrange shots to be taken with defenders draped all over - these shots are usually taken with lots of physical contact in a borderline AND1 situation - but that ISN'T standard for 3-pointers.

    Paint and midrange shots are contested much more heavily, while still being viable from an efficiency standpoint - 3-pointers would not be viable if they were contested the same way midrange and paint shots are.

    Since paint and midrange shots are still viable options despite a much higher level of contest, you don't need to run as much offense to get those shots, which is why eras that took these shots exclusively had a much faster pace.

    If the 3-point line were removed, teams would start running up and down again, taking contested shot after contested shot like the old days.. Since heavily contested paint/midrange shots are the norm, why would teams run as much offense if they were seeking these shots exclusively??... Obviously, they wouldn't.

  5. #20
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by 3ball
    Here's the problem: it's standard for paint and midrange shots to be taken with defenders draped all over - these shots are usually taken with lots of physical contact in a borderline AND1 situation - but that ISN'T standard for 3-pointers.

    Paint and midrange shots are contested much more heavily, while still being viable from an efficiency standpoint - 3-pointers would not be viable if they were contested the same way midrange and paint shots are.

    Since paint and midrange shots are still viable options despite a much higher level of contest, you don't need to run as much offense to get those shots, which is why eras that took these shots exclusively had a much faster pace.

    If the 3-point line were removed, teams would start running up and down again, taking contested shot after contested shot like the old days.. Since heavily contested paint/midrange shots are the norm, why would teams run as much offense if they were seeking these shots exclusively??... Obviously, they wouldn't.
    I'm not sure if you clicked the link, but it separates into contested and open shots. So you can compare apples with apples.

    It's not speaking about averages. Rather, it says of shots that are contested and aren't contested, how often heard made. It breaks down shots into off the dribble vs spotting up as well (in addition to open/contested and at rim/mid range/three).

    But the article contains numerical proof that *contested* threes on a per shot basis are more valuable than *open* mid range shots (again, using the same definition of contested vs open for all shot types).

    (Do note that I'm not arguing that you're right or wrong. Just provided a link. There's not really anything subjective about it so there's no need for me to take a position.)

  6. #21
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by GIF REACTION


    Playing at a faster pace gives your opposition more possessions

    [COLOR="Navy"]But those possessions include far more paint/midrange shots, which were more highly contested.. But regardless, MJ's 2nd three-peat came in the slowest era of all time (mid-90's) and his per 100 possession stats were GOAT anyway:[/COLOR]


    JORDAN:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 43.3 pts.. 32.5 fga.. 118 ORtg.. 56.8 ts.. 2.2 oreb.. 6.1 dreb.. 7.4 ast.. 4.0 tov.. 2.7 stl.. 1.1 blk
    LEBRON:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 36.5 pts.. 26.8 fga.. 114 ORtg.. 56.5 ts.. 2.0 oreb.. 9.3 dreb.. 8.6 ast.. 4.5 tov.. 2.2 stl.. 1.2 blk
    DURANT:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 35.8 pts.. 25.8 fga.. 114 ORtg.. 58.3 ts.. 1.2 oreb.. 9.1 dreb.. 4.8 ast.. 4.1 tov.. 1.4 stl.. 1.5 blk
    KOBE:[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 34.7 pts.. 27.7 fga.. 110 ORtg.. 54.1 ts.. 1.4 oreb.. 5.5 dreb.. 6.4 ast.. 4.0 tov.. 1.9 stl.. 0.9 blk
    WADE:[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 32.2 pts.. 24.5 fga.. 108 ORtg.. 55.4 ts.. 2.0 oreb.. 5.4 dreb.. 7.1 ast.. 4.8 tov.. 2.3 stl.. 1.4 blk



    Notice how MJ maintained superior efficiency despite shooting so much more.. He did exactly what Lebron or Durant did efficiency-wise, except he did MORE production at that efficiency.. So take what they did and multiply by a factor of 1.2 or something around there.. No one in history could maintain efficiency at high volume like MJ.. The gap between MJ and the others is amazing.

  7. #22
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by flpiii

    I'm not sure if you clicked the link, but it separates into contested and open shots. So you can compare apples with apples.
    Vantage's definition of "contested" (within 3 feet with hands up) skews their data, because a much higher proportion of 2-pointers are shot with defenders DRAPED ALL OVER with significant physical contact, whereas that rarely happens or 3-pointers.

    But yeah, I'm sure many 3-pointers are "contested" based on Vantage's criteria of the defender being within 3 feet with hands-up.. .. [COLOR="Navy"]But let's compare the proportion/frequency of fouls and AND1's on 2-pointers and 3-pointers - that will give us an idea of how much more heavily contested 2 pointers are.[/COLOR]


    Quote Originally Posted by flpiii


    But the article contains numerical proof that *contested* threes on a per shot basis are more valuable than *open* mid range shots (again, using the same definition of contested vs open for all shot types).


    The argument isn't whether 3-pointers are more efficient - everyone knows they provide an extra point... The point I'm making is that 2-point attempts such as paint and midrange shots have far heavier contests than 3-point attempts - 3-pointers are almost never attempted with the kind of physical contact or borderline AND1 situations that are standard for 2-pointers.

    Players have always been willing to take 2-pointers while enduring heavier contests than they'd be willing to endure for 3-pointers, which meant that the 2-point shooting eras didn't need to run as much offense to get quality looks as today's game.

    The standard of settling for more heavily-contested 2-pointers in previous eras made pace faster than today's game, where teams must run more offense to get quality 3-point looks.

  8. #23
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by 3ball
    Vantage's definition of "contested" (within 3 feet with hands up) skews their data, because a much higher proportion of 2-pointers are shot with defenders DRAPED ALL OVER with significant physical contact, whereas that rarely happens or 3-pointers.
    To each his/her own. I have no problem with that definition. Three feet and hands up is awfully close. In making your arguments about illegal defense, you've said that's the strictest definition...so if you're being consistent my good man, there should be no complaints about the degree of contest.

    But yeah, I'm sure many 3-pointers are "contested" based on Vantage's criteria of the defender being within 3 feet with hands-up.. .. [COLOR="Navy"]But let's compare the proportion/frequency of fouls and AND1's on 2-pointers and 3-pointers - that will give us an idea of how much more heavily contested 2 pointers are.[/COLOR]
    The dataset takes it into account. Value is measured in points per shot (which includes foul draw rate, and free throws taken), the y-axis is *not* just FG%.

    The argument isn't whether 3-pointers are more efficient - everyone knows they provide an extra point... The point I'm making is that 2-point attempts such as paint and midrange shots have far heavier contests than 3-point attempts - 3-pointers are almost never attempted with the kind of physical contact or borderline AND1 situations that are standard for 2-pointers.
    This dataset separates shots into close (at-rim, meaning layups, dunks, and attempts at the rim that were fouled), threes, and mid-range (everything in between). The set uses a uniform criteria for contested shots, regardless of location. Open (without a defender within three feet with his hands up) two-point shots not at the rim result in a lower value (in points per shot) than contested (*with* a defender within three feet with his hands up) threes.

    Players have always been willing to take 2-pointers while enduring heavier contests than they'd be willing to endure for 3-pointers, which meant that the 2-point shooting eras didn't need to run as much offense to get open looks as today's game.

    The ease of settling for more heavily-contested 2-pointers made pace faster than today's game, where teams must run more offense to get quality 3-point looks.
    3ball...I have nothing against you man, but you do this shit all the time. I think you're a knowledgeable guy, but I think when you are having multiple conversations with different people at the same time, you mix up your conclusions. I didn't bring up pace or degree of offense run at all in my previous posts.

    In general, you'll try and tack on conclusions at the end of some discussion (see both bolded portions), and present them as facts. Even if these things are true, the content of your post doesn't prove them definitively. When you are having a debate or any discussion, your points and evidence should logically flow from your premise to your conclusion. You can't just say "so X and Y are true, which means conclusion Z must be true", without that logical progression.

    For the record, regarding the bolded, if an offense settles for sub-optimal shots, of course it will take less time to set up a shot (though that isn't just about the three, that's more about coaches becoming smarter...as you've said before, coaches in the 80s didn't have the same knowledge of coaches later on, which hindered players offensively, since their skill sets weren't optimized). But that is unrelated to the discussion you and I are having.

  9. #24
    Very good NBA starter chips93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,922

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by 3ball
    The efficiency of any shot will decline when contested, but midrange and paint shots don't decline nearly as much as 3-pointers.. There is data on this - but just think about it - Most paint shots ARE contested.. Midrange too.
    Link?

    The closer a shot is to the hoop, the more it can withstand a contest without the efficiency dropping as much... Anyone - and I mean ANYONE who has played basketball will tell you this.. And anyone that isn't keenly aware of this has simply NOT played basketball and honestly, has a very shallow understanding of the game.
    I play semi regularly and i rarely shoot jumpers, just layupsm and i know for sure i shoot worse when there is a defender at the rim to contest.

  10. #25
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by chips93
    Quote Originally Posted by 3ball
    The efficiency of any shot will decline when contested, but midrange and paint shots don't decline nearly as much as 3-pointers.. There is data on this - but just think about it - Most paint shots ARE contested.. Midrange too.
    Link?
    Here is some research for 3ball's point:





    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.0231.pdf

    At-rim attempts (basis 1) are affected heavily by degree of contest (up to 1ft). In-paint attempts (basis 2) are affected further when a guy is closer (up to 1ft, though the dropoff is small after 4ft...note that these are log odds, or log[prob-make/prob-miss]). Jumpers, whether they're mid-range outside of the paint (basis 3), corner threes (basis 4), or above-the-break threes (basis 3) do not have any further meaningful dropoff in expected value after you get to that three feet range.

  11. #26
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by fpliii
    Vantage's definition is a defender within three feet and hands up.
    Here is the link to their glossary: http://www.vantagesports.com/story/V...stats-glossary

    I was correct about contested shots:

    Contested Shot: Shot defender is within 3 feet and has a hand up.
    Here is their definition of open shots:

    Open Shot: Shot defender is not within 5 feet of the shooter.

  12. #27
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by fpliii


    To each his/her own. I have no problem with that definition. Three feet and hands up is awfully close.

    Bullshit - there's a MASSIVE difference from a defender being 3 feet away and 0-1 feet away.. Imagine a defender being 3 feet away from a someone taking a 8 foot shot and considering that "tight" defense... It obviously isn't.

    If you think a 3 feet distance results in equivalent defense to 0-1 feet away - well, that's why I stopped even debating you - this kind of willful and purposeful ignorance is a testament to your disingenguous posting and willingness to say anything to support your erroneous belief.


    Quote Originally Posted by flpiii

    In making your arguments about illegal defense, you've said "armslength" is the strictest definition...so if you're being consistent my good man, there should be no complaints about the degree of contest.
    You're conflating the distance a defender is allowed to stand from his man from "the degree of contest", as you phrased it above.. They're two different things.. Obviously, a defender that is 3 feet away from a would-be shooter is nowhere near the tightest defense a defender can play.

    Any defender that thinks being within 3 feet is sufficient defense would never make it basketball.. Imagine a defender being 3 feet away from a someone taking a 8 foot shot and considering that "tight" defense... It obviously isn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by flpiii


    In making your arguments about illegal defense

    I don't make "arguments" about the Illegal Defense Guidelines.. I just post the rules themselves.. You guys are the ones that dispute the actual rules and make up false arguments against them that are opposite of what the rules actually say.

    i.e. you said defenders had to follow 3-point shooters to the 3-point line - this is not only false but really ignorant about how man-to-man defense works... Rule 2e allowed defenders to sag off 3-point shooters to the edge of the paint and also allowed them into the paint for 3 seconds - this is the same as today's rules allow.

    Of course, the previous rules also allowed legal paint-camping - it says so in black and white - but again, you guys dispute this and treat the rules as if they're written in a foreign language that we don't understand and therefore disputable..


    Quote Originally Posted by flpiii

    For the record, regarding the bolded, if an offense settles for sub-optimal shots, of course it will take less time to set up a shot
    So you agree - previous eras had faster pace because they didn't need to run as much offense to get the lower quality shots they were seeking.

    Again, if you removed the 3-point line and therefore didn't have higher quality shots available like 3-pointers, everyone would be forced to shoot lower quality 2-pointers and midrange, which would require less offense and provide a faster pace.

  13. #28
    NBA Legend and Hall of Famer 3ball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    that ghoulash joint
    Posts
    31,944

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by fpliii


    Jumpers do not have any further meaningful dropoff in expected value after you get to that three feet range.

    What a joke - the reason there aren't continuing drop-offs in efficiency after a defender is 3 feet away or further is because when a defender is 3 feet away from his man, his man has an OPEN SHOT.

    If a player takes a 10 foot shot and his defender is 3 feet away at the 7-foot mark, the shooter was OPEN... dumbass

    Your ignorance of basketball is stunning.. It's like you've literally never picked up a ball in your life - you're like an alien that doesn't have basketballs on his planet but learned the game by reading books.. What a joke

  14. #29
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by 3ball
    Bullshit - there's a MASSIVE difference from a defender being 3 feet away and 0-1 feet away.. Imagine a defender being 3 feet away from a someone taking a 8 foot shot and considering that "tight" defense... It obviously isn't.

    If you think a 3 feet distance results in equivalent defense to 0-1 feet away - well, that's why I stopped even debating you - this kind of willful and purposeful ignorance is a testament to your disingenguous posting and willingness to say anything to support your erroneous belief.
    I provided evidence for my claim, see the post above.

    If you know anything about me, I don't care about winning a debate. I care about being right, and reaching the correct conclusion. I never enter a conversation with my mind set, and unwilling to change. I'm not saying you don't, but I always have an open mind when entering a discussion. Otherwise, we are not debating in good faith.

    You're conflating the distance a defender is allowed to stand from his man from "the degree of contest", as you phrased it above.. They're two different things.. Obviously, a defender that is 3 feet away from a would-be shooter is nowhere near the tightest defense a defender can play.

    Any defender that thinks being within 3 feet is sufficient defense would never make it basketball.. Imagine a defender being 3 feet away from a someone taking a 8 foot shot and considering that "tight" defense... It obviously isn't.
    Then don't use that criteria for illegal defense, and call it the strictest of criteria.

    I don't make "arguments" about the Illegal Defense Guidelines.. I just post the rules themselves.. You guys are the ones that dispute the actual rules and make up false arguments against them that are opposite of what the rules actually say.

    i.e. you said defenders had to follow 3-point shooters to the 3-point line - this is not only false but really ignorant about how man-to-man defense works... Rule 2e allowed defenders to sag off 3-point shooters to the edge of the paint and also allowed them into the paint for 3 seconds - this is the same as today's rules allow.
    3ball...illegal defense is not a conversation topic I will entertain with you. I've learned over time, that there's no point in arguing a moot point. When you do so, you give an argument, regardless of merit, attention it does not deserve.

    I never disputed any rules. I said that if you left your man and didn't double somebody with the ball, you have three seconds to get to an adjacent zone. If you are not in an adjacent zone, this is an instance of illegal defense. I remember the last conversation we had on the topic very closely because I was watching some of a series between San Antonio and Golden State in the early 90s, and Robinson was drawn out of the paint, by a non-shooter. You had to double the man with the ball, or follow your man, into an adjacent zone.

    Of course, the previous rules also allowed legal paint-camping - it says so in black and white - but again, you guys dispute this and treat the rules as if they're written in a foreign language that we don't understand and therefore disputable..
    I'm not an idiot, and you're not either. Legal paint-camping only existed when there was a lack of spacing. If you have shooters, then you can't pack the paint. Don't play me for a fool and pretend it's a huge hassle to tip toe out of the paint or get within your man once every 2.9 seconds. Being able to roam the entire paint when your cover is within 3 feet of the paint isn't a huge advantage *if* the paint is not already packed with both offensive and defensive players, *compared to* having three seconds to step out or get close to your cover.

    Proper spacing is why the paint is empty defensively.

    So you agree - previous eras had faster pace because they didn't need to run as much offense to get the lower quality shots they were seeking.
    No, I don't agree. I agree that they had faster pace and that they weren't seeking the same shot (though some teams even in the two-point era sought to find the best shot...I refer you to Holzman's Knicks). But I don't agree that it's the only reason. Part of it, yes, but not the entire reason (we can debate this another day).

    Again, if you removed the 3-point line and therefore didn't have higher quality shots available like 3-pointers, everyone would be forced to shoot lower quality 2-pointers and midrange, which would require less offense and provide a faster pace.
    Depends. Smarter coaches would try and optimize offenses even without a three.

    It isn't true that 2 pointers are lower quality. A long two jumper from MJ or Dirk or Hakeem is much better than a three from a Barkley or Wade, if it's open. The data I provided speaks of averages.

    Superstars are rare in this league. When you get one, assuming he is a true superstar, you build around him. True superstars are outliers. If I was a GM, I would never tell Michael Jordan to start shooting threes. I would however surround him with quality three-point shooters, and if I have a guy playing off-ball who doesn't get the same attention, I'd see if he could develop a three (see Millsap, in recent memory, or Barnes).

  15. #30
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: Analytics: 3pt shot and distance from nearest defender

    Quote Originally Posted by 3ball
    What a joke - the reason there aren't continuing drop-offs in efficiency after a defender is 3 feet away or further is because when a defender is 3 feet away from his man, his man has an OPEN SHOT.

    If a player takes a 10 foot shot and his defender is 3 feet away at the 7-foot mark, the shooter was OPEN... dumbass

    Your ignorance of basketball is stunning.. It's like you've literally never picked up a ball in your life - you're like an alien that doesn't have basketballs on his planet but learned the game by reading books.. What a joke
    I didn't say anything up for debate. The paper I linked used actual data, from an entire season (2013-14). You are misinterpreting what I said. When I say:

    Quote Originally Posted by fpliii
    Jumpers do not have any further meaningful dropoff in expected value after you get to that three feet range
    I am telling you that the data demonstrates that there is no meaningful dropoff *as you get closer to your man* than three feet. I am not presenting a subjective point to you. I am literally reading off what the data states.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •