Just about finished with non-conference play in Rupp. Now is one time in particular when I go through and evaluate my settings. I've got a guard that is set at the #2 position on the depth chart at PG, SG and SF. He gets about 17 mpg spread amongst the positions. I'm debating adjusting his 3 pt settings. He is currently shooting 38.3% from 3 (23 for 60), and about 76% of the shots he takes are 3s. I'm not unhappy with his performance at all, just trying to optimize...bumping his 3 pt setting down 1 should lower the frequency of 3 pt attempts, while leaving the % made about the same though, right? Problem when trying to analyze this is the kid is only 10 for 19 from shots that aren't 3s (I'm not decrying the 52%, just the small sample size) so I really don't have enough data to crunch to make a mathematical determination, so I guess the decision has to made more on experience or gut feeling. My gut is telling me to leave it alone for now, as the kid is scoring well and shooting pretty well...

Leave it alone. Results are acceptable and analysis shows he is currenty at a good balance between 2 and 3 pt shots.

Plus your team does not have that many outside weapons. Knocking him down to -1 will make you more susceptible to a - defense.

Generally, if he is hitting more than 33% of his threes, he's not hurting you there (Equivalent to 50% on two point shots - one point per shot)  

Mathematically, if a player can put up a 3-pt percentage that is at least 66.7% of his 2-pt percentage, it makes sense for him to shoot 3's. Last season Daniel Johnson's 3-pt percentage was .435, while his 2-pt percentage was .676 (3-pt percentage was 64.3%, too low). The year before he had a 3-pt percentage of .348 and a 2-pt percentage of .471 (73.9%, which was more than high enough). The problem of course, as you alluded to, is that the sample size is a bit small. But so far this year, with a 3-pt percentage of .383 and a 2-pt percentage of .526, he is actually coming in over 66.7% (he's at 72.8% to be exact), meaning his 3-pointers have been beneficial overall. If he keeps playing like this, you shouldn't change the settings unless you think you can do something to increase his 3-point percentage. If your goal is, as you say, to get him to take fewer 3's but keep his percentages the same, he will actually end up scoring fewer points for you over the course of the year, as long as these percentages hold.

Good thoughts here but keep it mind that 2 pt. FGAs tend to have added value in that they result in more fouls and FTs than 3 pt FGAs(and of course missed shots on fouls are not counted as a FGA...and made FTs are as good as a made shot). The simple percentage comparison might not tell the whole story.

I guess, but the difference would be negligible, especially since many times a foul results in what would have been an easily made shot turning into only a 1- or 0-point play. To be really generous you could add an extra 5% or so and say your guy should shoot 3's when his percentage is 71% of his 2-point percentage. Even then, this guy is on a good pace.

Posted by narcotico on 12/3/2010 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Good thoughts here but keep it mind that 2 pt. FGAs tend to have added value in that they result in more fouls and FTs than 3 pt FGAs(and of course missed shots on fouls are not counted as a FGA...and made FTs are as good as a made shot). The simple percentage comparison might not tell the whole story.

good point.

i used to target 3pters based on the 2/3rds comparison to 2pt %. but fouls are very important - a mediocre foul shooter will make say 70% of free throws, which is as many points per possession as 70% 2pt shooting or 47% 3 point shooting. but, you also draw a foul - which obviously has additional value. so then, i tried to factor this in as well.

the final component is how a player fits in with your team. for example, if you have a bunch of guys who can hit 2s, making fouls, that is fine. but if you are shooting too few 3s on the whole as a result, you see a lot of -2 and -3s which hit you harder than they would a balanced team. keep in mind this is more so in the NT when people are more likely to change their settings.

so i think it is important to try to plan in your 2pt vs 3pt attempts all the way back to recruiting. as you stray from a normal 3 pta ratio , your exposure to the +/- setting increases, and you are better off to get to a moderate 3 pta ratio through your players natural talents than by forcing a guy who is naturally better at 3s to take fewer or visa versa.

also the value of a foul changes a lot. if my guard draws a foul, he often draws against other guards. if my big draws a foul, he often draws against other bigs. so if you expect to hit say 18 fouls a game by your opponent, is it better to have 9 vs guards and 9 vs bigs or 6 vs guards and 12 vs bigs. obviously there is a lot of variation so you can have an intention and sometimes it will work out and other times it won't. but i think on average it is fairly important.

If you shoot alot of 3's at a high rate 40% + then the other guy has to come out to defend it.  Then if you have superior rebounding you will win the battle of the boards.  I try to have one guy who drives and one who shoots so i cant be stoped  (at least in my own mind)