How much are 3 pointers worth?
John Calipari wants UK to take more threes, but not to be reckless. Where is the line between reckless and aggressive? What effect does taking more threes have on a team's performance?
There are a couple of basic facts that make it a good idea to take more threes:
They are worth 3 points instead of 2; that’s 50% more!
Excluding layups/dunks, most players don’t shoot much worse on threes (30-35%) than on twos (35-40%)
These basic facts indicate that teams should try to take either shots at the rim or three pointers. That’s the general pattern that has been in effect in recent years in college basketball and (more dramatically) the NBA.
However, there are some lesser known facts that can make it less clear whether threes are all that great:
Threes are missed more often than twos, even excluding shots at the rim, and opponents score a bit more effectively off a rebound than after a made shot
Players who take more threes draw free throws at a much lower rate than players who take more twos
Teams tend to commit fewer turnovers when working to get three pointers
So, how do all these work together in balance? In this edition of Hoops Insight I crunch the numbers to determine how a heavier focus on threes impacts a team’s overall performance.
Different types of shots yield different results beyond just point values
I looked into UK’s data this season to see how some key factors change when UK shot a three, a midrange two, or a shot in the paint. Those factors are:
The points per possession allowed after a rebound
UK’s offensive rebound rate
And obviously, UK’s field goal percentage
I also looked at how some factors changed at the player level as they took more threes, midrange twos, or shots in the paint. Those factors are:
Turnover rate
Free throw rate (FTA per FGA)
I found some key team data that differs based on shot type. First, opponents score more points per possession after rebounding a three (0.97) than a midrange two or paint shot (0.86). My hypothesis is this is because threes can generate longer rebounds with the floor more spread, and this yields more transition baskets. Second, UK has a higher offensive rebound rate after shots in the paint (39%) than after midrange twos (35%) or threes (29%). This makes sense, as the offensive players are closer to the rim when shots are taken closer to there. Also, UK hits 34% of their threes this season, 27% of their midrange twos, and 62% of shots in the paint.
The turnover rate and free throw rate of UK’s players vary according to the types of shots they take as well. UK players who take a higher percentage of their shots from three (like Davion Mintz or Dontaie Allen) commit turnovers at a lower rate than players who take more of their shots in midrange or the paint (like Olivier Sarr or Isaiah Jackson). Conversely, the players who take more threes draw fewer free throws than players who do more work inside the arc.
So now we can do some good old analysis!
Nothing but threes…Calipari’s nightmare!
I decided to analyze the outcome of three scenarios: a team takes all of their field goals from three, or from midrange, or from the paint.
THIS NEXT SECTION IS EXTRA NERDY, SO FEEL FREE TO SKIP IT!
I used the turnover percentage, shooting percentage, and free throw rate that corresponds to the shot type
If there’s a turnover, the opponent scores 1.19 points per possession (what UK allows after turnovers)
If there’s a made shot, UK gets points and the opponent scores 0.89 points per possession (what UK allows after a made basket)
If there’s a miss, UK can get the offensive rebound (which I credit with 0.97 points/poss and UK giving up 0.96) or give up a defensive rebound; the opponent’s points per poss depends on the type of shot
If there are free throws, I assume UK hits 73% (their season average) after a make the opponent scores 0.89 pts/poss, and after a miss I assume UK gets the offensive rebound 25% of the time and treat it the same as a missed FG. The only difference is I assume the opponent scores off a missed FT at the same rate as when they rebound a missed paint shot.
That’s a lot to get through!
WE WILL NOW RESUME OUR USUAL LEVEL OF NERDINESS
I found that taking shots in the paint is the very best type of halfcourt offense, with three pointers coming in second and midrange twos coming in a distant third. Here’s the points scored, points allowed, and margin per 100 possessions for each scenario:
This chart above is not just theoretical; it’s the value UK is creating this season from their threes, midrange shots, and shots in the paint. That feeling you get watching a UK game when they go cold from the field and give up a run…if you went back and charted those runs, you’d probably see UK taking a large share of shots from midrange.
What if you look at it as threes vs twos, and group midrange shots and paint shots together? Threes are still preferred because midrange is so bad, but the value of paint shots helps mitigate a lot of that.
UK’s horrid midrange shooting is really hurting them. If they hit 32% from the midrange instead of 27%, their margin per 100 on twos would actually be a little better than threes. If they took more shots in the paint or took/made more threes, they’d be even better. Even taking all of the other ancillary effects into account, more threes would help UK.
Now, can one of you just forward this to Coach Calipari?