Rayno: "Pomeroy chart: defense doesn't have much control over opponent 3P%?"

scher215

Active member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
6,609
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Rayno: "Pomeroy chart: defense doesn't have much control over opponent 3P%?"

One of the most popular complaints about the Gophers this season concerns their inability to stop the three.

Why can’t they get more aggressive, get in players’ faces as they’re shooting from the perimeter?

Well Ken Pomeroy says it wouldn’t make much difference. According to his plot charts posted here, the Gophers defense – like any defense – doesn’t have much control over whether a three-pointer goes in or not.

Essentially this: A defense can control whether an opponent will shoot a three. But players cannot control, in that defense, whether that team is able to make the three

Read the whole article here:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/140012983.html
 


Actually, the way I've always viewed it is that the Gopher defense encouraged people to shoot the 3. All it takes is for the opponent to shoot 33% or better (average at best) and they are getting the equivalent of 50% FG % production. They will get fouled less if they shoot more threes but they will turn it over less and the long rebound is also available. I think Tubby has done much better at discouraging the three this year- less chasing.
 

"A defense can control whether an opponent will shoot a three. But players cannot control, in that defense, whether that team is able to make the three." This seems like a very strange idea to me. If I can effect whether the guy is going to shoot, why can't I affect the percentage? I’m going to have to think about this more…

But like the above post says you don’t need to shoot a high % to score affectively from the 3point line. After reading Scher’s post I thought if these notes from a Walberg clinic from back when he was at Pepperdine.

Shoot 75 shots a game.
1/3 of our shot attempts should be 3 pointers.
Shoot 24 free throws, make 66% of them.
The above would give you the following:
On our 75 shots:
We want to shoot 25 3’s, make 8 of them, this is 32%
On your other 50 shots, a lot of which should come from around the basket, make 20 out
of 50, this is only 40%. Given that a lot of these will be lay-ups, that is not a very high
percentage.
If we get our 24 free throws, we want to make 16 of them, which is 66%.
The points that we generate are broken down below.
Eight 3’s = 24 points
Twenty 2’s = 40 points
Sixteen FT’s = 16 points
Total = 80 points
We generate 80 points on a night where we shoot 37% from the field, (28 of 75)
and 66% percent from the foul line. These are very attainable goals for our team.
Even on a night where we shoot 33% from the field (25 of 75), and 50% from the free
throw line, (12 of 24), you can still generate 67 points. (Assuming you hit 20 2’s and 5
3’s.) At the high school level, 67 points will still win you a lot of games.
A real key is to get those shot attempt numbers up around 75. We do this through pushing
the ball for 32 minutes, getting to the offensive boards, and most importantly using our
defensive pressure to get turnovers and increase the tempo of the game.
 

I disagree with him saying that defense on the 3 point shot doesn't matter whether he is going to make it or not. What is the difference in not playing D on the 3 or on the 2 ?
 

I think his chart lends more credence to the proposition that a team's effectiveness in defending the three in the first half of the season is not a good predictor of how how well the team will defend the three in the second half of the season than the point he was trying to make.
 


I think Pomeroy's point is based on statistics. Probably a lot of analysis on three point shots where he saw a guy was as likely to make the shot when open as when a guy was in his face.
 

Actually, the way I've always viewed it is that the Gopher defense encouraged people to shoot the 3. All it takes is for the opponent to shoot 33% or better (average at best) and they are getting the equivalent of 50% FG % production. They will get fouled less if they shoot more threes but they will turn it over less and the long rebound is also available. I think Tubby has done much better at discouraging the three this year- less chasing.

But shooting 50% in 2-point field goals is also pretty average. 7 of 12 teams in the Big Ten (including MN) shoot 51.6% or better from inside the arch.

This year in the conference, there is no correlation between making 3-pointers and wins. In fact, the bottom 6 teams in 3-point shooting percentage have a better overall conference record than the top 6. Michigan, Michigan St., and Ohio St. all are in the bottom half. Same goes for the 6 teams that shoot 3-pointers the least percentage of their total field goal attempts.
 

ESPN ran a piece like this as well. The basic premise was that there is no correlation year to year on teams ability to have a low 3P% defense. It varies wildly. The opposite seems to be true for 2P%. The story happened to focus on the Badgers, but it lays out this premise really well.

3P% Story on ESPN
 

But shooting 50% in 2-point field goals is also pretty average. 7 of 12 teams in the Big Ten (including MN) shoot 51.6% or better from inside the arch.

This year in the conference, there is no correlation between making 3-pointers and wins. In fact, the bottom 6 teams in 3-point shooting percentage have a better overall conference record than the top 6. Michigan, Michigan St., and Ohio St. all are in the bottom half. Same goes for the 6 teams that shoot 3-pointers the least percentage of their total field goal attempts.

Look this one up: The four top conference teams are also the top teams in giving up the fewest points from 3 point range. You can be a power team and not need much 3 point shooting and win a lot of games. But it's very tough to win a lot of games giving up a lot of 3 pointers. Again, this is an area that the Gophers have improve this year- and that's a credit to Tubby fixing an issue that has been hurting them.
 






Top Bottom