True or False: shooting 40% from three is just as good as shooting 60% from two

[MavsSuperFan]

4/10 from 3 = 12 points
6/10 from 2 = 12 points

[aj1987]

4/10 from 3 = 12 points
6/10 from 2 = 12 points
True. Also helps spread the floor.

[NumberSix]

Yes and no.

It's the same overall efficiency, but at the end of the game, if you have one shot to take, 60% is better than 40%

[Quickening]

When you miss a shot you're susceptible to fast break points... I think shooting 60 percent from two is more likely to lead to a win.

[TiagoSimoes]

Yes and no.

It's the same overall efficiency, but at the end of the game, if you have one shot to take, 60% is better than 40%

in a last play of the game situation ye the 60% is better. like someone said above, the 40% help spread the floor, and that leads to more space to your team.

its similar, not exactly the same

[NustABut]

When you miss a shot you're susceptible to fast break points... I think shooting 60 percent from two is more likely to lead to a win.

+1

long shots lead to long rebounds, given the overall athleticism of the NBA today, i'd rather give up 4 rebounds than 6 rebounds

[ArbitraryWater]

Yes and no. Same end result/product, however more missed shots/3's could lead to easier long rebounds/points for opponents...

and like said, with a shot game on line, you rather take the 60% one than 40% one.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Well mathematically yea but


When you miss a shot you're susceptible to fast break points... I think shooting 60 percent from two is more likely to lead to a win.

and you're most likely to get cold from 3 than the other way around.

And a 60% shot is still better than a 40% one, let's put it that way.

[Doranku]

When you miss a shot you're susceptible to fast break points... I think shooting 60 percent from two is more likely to lead to a win.

Not to mention that missed threes are more likely to lead to a fast break for another team than missed twos.

[Quickening]

Well mathematically yea but



and you're most likely to get cold from 3 than the other way around.

Well he just told us exactly what percentage they would shoot, so I don't take going cold into account.

[DMV2]

False because a player shouldn't be taking ten 3's a game.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

It's better. More offensive rebound opportunities.

[kentatm]

Well he just told us exactly what percentage they would shoot, so I don't take going cold into account.


:biggums:

but you kind of have to when you are playing the game in real life.

people aren't robots that automatically shoot the same clip all game every game.

you might shoot 4/4 in the first on 3's and then 0/6 the rest of the way.

when you take and make your shots matters just as much as your fg%

[Legends66NBA7]

The one that draws fouls better, so 6/10 from 2. You want to encourage scoring closer to the basket and not taking so many long range shots.

[Smook A.]

As some of the other people were saying, its good production wise. 12 points is 12 points. Now efficiency wise, its different. 60% > 40%

[ZenMaster]

There's a lot more to it than posting a few numbers and a few people saying longer shots gives longer rebounds.

Shooting 3 pointers, in the quantity that teams do now, forces longer closeouts thus opening up lanes for drives. It has changed so teams now can play a lot more from 4-1 formations than in the past.

Coaches want as many shots as close to the rim as possible, but to do that with the current rules as a team you have to be a 3pt threat.

Another thing to consider is how a team gets is 3's because it affects what happens on misses which is still the majority of shots.
You can get an "easy" 3pt shoot that's usually a bit contested or you can run offense to get the defense out of position getting open 3's.
Having run good offense that ends up with a 3 pointer which will usually have the defence out of position for the rebound from moving while rotating.

[kentatm]

There's a lot more to it than posting a few numbers and a few people saying longer shots gives longer rebounds.

Shooting 3 pointers, in the quantity that teams do now, forces longer closeouts thus opening up lanes for drives. It has changed so teams now can play a lot more from 4-1 formations than in the past.

Coaches want as many shots as close to the rim as possible, but to do that with the current rules as a team you have to be a 3pt threat.

Another thing to consider is how a team gets is 3's because it affects what happens on misses which is still the majority of shots.
You can get an "easy" 3pt shoot that's usually a bit contested or you can run offense to get the defense out of position getting open 3's.
Having run good offense that ends up with a 3 pointer which will usually have the defence out of position for the rebound from moving while rotating.

:applause:

great post

all %'s are not the same

I mean, statistically Shawn Marion and Devin Harris are equal shooting the 3 at 35% this year.

However, almost all of Marion's shots come from wide the hell open takes with the majority being in the corners. I can't think of a single one he has taken off the dribble or due to a screen or any sort of run play.

Meanwhile, Harris has the ability to set up the shot off a screen, can hit it with a person his his face, and often isn't in position for easy wide open looks b/c he is busy running the point.

[Pointguard]

If you go three's they are more unstable, as Kentatm said above. It will mean you will win more games by a big margin and lose more games overall. Chances are the better teams will be beating you.

Two other factors are important. One if the other team likes to run - Magic Johnson made you pay if you clanked. And if your team has good offensive rebounding like Chicago. Steady is more dependable and less subject to pressure. Best combination traditionally is a combination of post, shooting, driving.

[ZenMaster]

Other things to consider:

-I didn't count, but I think there are a lot more players who can shoot 40% from 3 than there are players who shoot 60% from 2.

-Most of the time somebody shoots 60% from 2 it is made possible because they have somebody else who shoots 40% from 3.

-A lot of teams focus more on transition defense than offensive rebounding to begin with. With that mentality you want a good shoot preferably lay up or 3, doesn't matter as long as it's open.

[Pointguard]

Other things to consider:

-I didn't count, but I think there are a lot more players who can shoot 40% from 3 than there are players who shoot 60% from 2.

-Most of the time somebody shoots 60% from 2 it is made possible because they have somebody else who shoots 40% from 3.

-A lot of teams don't focus more on transition defense than offensive rebounding to begin with. With that mentality you want a good shoot preferably lay up or 3, doesn't matter as long as it's open.
In the playoffs, the team getting the easier baskets will win one way or the other. And yeah, at 60% it is a lay up line.

[ZenMaster]

In the playoffs, the team getting the easier baskets will win one way or the other. And yeah, at 60% it is a lay up line.

My last point was supposed to be opposite, the best teams focus more on transition d than offensive rebounding.

[tgan3]

4/10 from 3 = 12 points
6/10 from 2 = 12 points

Shooting from two is likely to draw lots of fouls and easy free throws too. But shooting from three helps to open space on the floor for others. So there are pros and cons...

[bdreason]

False.

[oarabbus]

So you're basically asking if Kyle Korver or Marco Belinelli is as effective on the floor as Drummond or Tyson Chandler (in terms of offense STRICTLY).

Yes, they are.

[DJ Leon Smith]

False. If you just shoot threes the shot either goes in or it misses, there's no other opportunities created.

With twos (and I'm guessing you mean all two point shots, not just jumpers) you can take the ball to the basket and get fouled, and/or draw defenders and create open shots for teammates. Even missed twos can create opportunities (eg. take the ball to the basket, defense rotates, offensive rebounding possibilities open up for your bigs).

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Who the hell knows... its a stupid math question that isn't applicable to real life basketball

[kshutts1]

Not even accounting for fast break points, but a made shot just affords a team the opportunity to get their D set. A non-fast-break, yet still a non-set-D, puts the defending team at a disadvantage regardless.

I'd rather have both players, but if I needed to choose one, I'd go 60%.

[ralph_i_el]

Who the hell knows... its a stupid math question that isn't applicable to real life basketball

when teams play by the numbers they win more games :facepalm

[Demitri98]

6/10 from 2 because it's better efficiency thus less rebounds and possessions for the other team. Fewer possessions = less points = better chance to win