Calculation of Team Offensive Rating Favors Higher Offensive Rebounding and FT Rates

[3ball]

.
.................................................. ...Per Team, Per Game


............ 2PT ATT .......... 3PT ATT........ 3PT ATT as % of FGA ........... OREB %............ FT RATE %

1985.........86.1...................3.1........... ...............3.5%............................32. 9%................ 25.2%

2015.........60.9..................21.8........... .............26.4%........................... 25.3%.................21.5%


When evaluating Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg (they're the same number), it's important to know that higher offensive rebounding and FT rates increase at team's ORtg in the calculation.

Two-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, so the higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras (see above table) caused ORtg and DRtg to be higher back then.

On the flipside, today's game takes far more 3-pointers - 3-pointers have a lower offensive rebounding and FT rate, which lowers Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg.

Here's another important fact of basketball regarding how 3-pointers affect the game - they slow the game down... historically, pace has declined as 3-PT attempts have increased (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html).

The closer a shot is to the rim, the better it's percentage is maintained when contested - 3-pointers simply don't maintain their percentage when contested as well as two-pointers... Accordingly, they need to be more open than two-pointers, which requires teams to run more offense to get open looks... The purpose of running offense IS to get open looks, so running offense applies to 3-pointers more than 2-pointers.


CLIFFS: The higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras resulted in higher offensive rebounding rate and higher FT rate, which in turn resulted in higher offensive/defensive ratings... Two-pointer basketball also resulted in a faster pace, since tougher looks are more acceptable for two-pointers, so less offense needed to be run.
.

[navy]

So? Remember, You got to fit Jordan into all of this.

[sdot_thadon]

So? Remember, You got to fit Jordan into all of this.
Oh he's already implied man don't you worry, so is Lebron. Dude is devoted. I'm just trying to figure out where "off ball passing" and 351,000,000 chest to chest dunks fit in....

[KobesFinger]

So you're telling me Jordan's scoring is overrated? And LeBron's is underrated?

[ralph_i_el]

Just give it up man :facepalm

yesterday you said that running up the court and jacking two point jumpers was "superior basketball"

and that's just dumb

[SpanishACB]

hey 3ball why don't you make website call it coach 3b or something, your very own wikipedia so we don't have to put up with this bullshit?

can you even hit a jumpshot?

[3ball]

yesterday you said that running up the court and jacking two point jumpers was "superior basketball"


the OP doesn't take a side on which brand of basketball is better or worse.

it just says explains why two-pointer basketball results in higher offensive and defensive ratings, more scoring and faster pace.

whether or not that is a better brand of basketball is up to the individual viewer to decide.

personally, i think basketball WITH 3-pointers is better than without, but the league ruined it by getting greedy - they instituted defensive 3 seconds to satisfy the casual, dumb fan, which results in:

1) more rigidity in where players position themselves each time down the floor
2) more boring/predictable offensive possessions
3) less interesting type of shots taken (open shots, mostly jumpers, resulting in commodotized and diluted ....skill sets and weaker individual offensive repertoires at the 2-5 spots)

these things ultimately result in a boring game of jumpshooting and predictable passes amongst neat, marching band-like spacing.

[ralph_i_el]

the OP doesn't take a side on which brand of basketball is better or worse.

it just says explains why two-pointer basketball results in higher offensive and defensive ratings, more scoring and faster pace.

whether or not that is a better brand of basketball is up to the individual viewer to decide.

personally, i think basketball WITH 3-pointers is better than without, but the league ruined it by getting greedy - they instituted defensive 3 seconds to satisfy the casual, dumb fan, which results in:

1) more rigidity in where players position themselves each time down the floor
2) more boring/predictable offensive possessions
3) less interesting type of shots taken (open shots, mostly jumpers, resulting in commodotized and diluted ....skill sets and weaker individual offensive repertoires at the 2-5 spots)

these things ultimately result in a boring game of jumpshooting and predictable passes amongst neat, marching band-like spacing.

So you'd prefer what we had before, with 4 dudes standing around while one guy went 1-on-1 from the perimeter....or before that when it was 1 big man holding the ball while 4 dudes ran around him?

Did you even watch what the Spurs did last season? Or what GS is doing this year?

You make points that are true, and then you draw conclusions from them that make no sense. "Diluted skill sets and weaker individual offensive repertoires" When we have a bunch 6'10" dudes who can handle the ball, shoot, and run the offense. We have a league with at least 20 point guards who can look like all-stars any given night. We have tons of knock-down shooters who move great off the ball, but you disparage them as "spacers" with "weaker individual offensive repertoires" because they aren't taking dudes off the dribble like Mike.

Basketball is different than when MJ played. You have to play team O and team D or you're going to lose. You can't just play ISO-ball on offense and then expect man-to-man D to work. The game has changed and evolved....and I like it.

[gts]

Op combing the apbr metrics forum for old threads...lol

[GimmeThat]

you have 30 seconds left on the clock, you are down 4 points.

you have 1 time out left.




what do you do.

[3ball]

So you'd prefer what we had before, with 4 dudes standing around while one guy went 1-on-1 from the perimeter....or before that when it was 1 big man holding the ball while 4 dudes ran around him?


the bulls, celtics, and lakers were some of the best-passing teams of all time, whose offenses were more creative and exciting than anything we see today.

so you are the one saying inaccurate things here, not me - actually, just sheer ignorace you are spewing here my friend.. you obviously haven't seen previous eras play.
.

[fpliii]

Just saw this thread. Nothing really for me to add, just wanted to comment on this:


where setup time is not needed to get the standard, contested two-point/mid-range shot.

When was the goal ever to specifically get a contested shot? Even without the three, doesn't it make the most sense to get the best look? Whether or not it's a three (so worse spacing), the best look is usually an open shot. From back before the three became as featured as it is today, the goal of the offense would still be to get an open inside shot in transition, from mid-range if a guy can get open, or in the post if your big man has quality footwork/moves/counters.

[inclinerator]

you have 30 seconds left on the clock, you are down 4 points.

you have 1 time out left.




what do you do.
shoot the mid range jumper twice or 3 times for the win

[3ball]

Just saw this thread. Nothing really for me to add, just wanted to comment on this:



When was the goal ever to specifically get a contested shot? Even without the three, doesn't it make the most sense to get the best look? Whether or not it's a three (so worse spacing), the best look is usually an open shot. From back before the three became as featured as it is today, the goal of the offense would still be to get an open inside shot in transition, from mid-range if a guy can get open, or in the post if your big man has quality footwork/moves/counters.
in theory, the closer you are to the basket, the more you can maintain your accuracy in the face of defense.

accordingly, mid-range shots maintain their accuracy in the face of defensive contests better than 3-pointers do, which is why less offense was run to procure the mid-range shots taken in previous eras, than is run today to achieve the 22 three-pointers taken per game, per team in today's game.

so again, two-point basketball results in a faster pace and more scoring.

[KobesFinger]

in theory, the closer you are to the basket, the more you can maintain your accuracy in the face of defense.

accordingly, mid-range shots maintain their accuracy in the face of defensive contests better than 3-pointers do, which is why less offense was run to procure the mid-range shots taken in previous eras, than is run today to achieve the 22 three-pointers taken per game, per team in today's game.

so again, two-point basketball results in a faster pace and more scoring.

IYO is Jordan the GOAT mid-range shooter? Who runs him close? If not, who is?

[fpliii]

in theory, the closer you are to the basket, the more you can maintain your accuracy in the face of defense.

accordingly, mid-range shots maintain their accuracy in the face of defensive contests better than 3-pointers do, which is why less offense was run to procure the mid-range shots taken in previous eras, than is run today to achieve the 22 three-pointers taken per game, per team in today's game.

so again, two-point basketball results in a faster pace and more scoring.
It is about balance though. If you don't have a dominant big man, you're not going to be able to get great looks in the paint or on the block.

In that case, you're going to want to try and get an open jumper (which back then would be the midrange, since the 3 wasn't as popular before Rudy T).

[3ball]

It is about balance though. If you don't have a dominant big man, you're not going to be able to get great looks in the paint or on the block.

In that case, you're going to want to try and get an open jumper (which back then would be the midrange, since the 3 wasn't as popular before Rudy T).


that's not true - the bulls won 6 championships without a dominant big man.

the pistons used great teamwork with no dominant big.

then look at the celtics with mchale and parish - they combined with bird to make a very balanced front line... no one guy was responsible for attracting all the defense.

so the scenario you painted with the big man always attracting the defense and then kicking it out, is a remarkably limited view, and obviously is only one scenario of many - 2/3 of the league back then didn't have a dominant big man and most possessions consisted of skilled guards and forwards making plays both on-ball and off-ball.

the data in the OP shows how 26% of the shots taken in today's game are 3-pointers... 3-pointers simply don't maintain their accuracy in the face of defense as well as shots closer to the rim - accordingly, offense of some form (whether it be a simple pick and roll or something else), needs to be run to get open 3-point looks.

otoh, the same offense that was run to get the 22 three-point looks in today's game, wasn't needed for the mid-range and paint shots taken in previous eras, because these shots didn't need to be as open... unimpeded by the need to get bogged down setting up the spacing and running offense to get open 3-pointers, previous eras were free to play a faster pace score more - this is a stone cold fact that makes easy intuitive and deductive sense.. i'm not sure why you are refuting it.
.

[fpliii]

that's not true - the bulls won 6 championships without a dominant big man.

the pistons used great teamwork with no dominant big.

then look at the celtics with mchale and parish - they combined with bird to make a very balanced front line... no one guy was responsible for attracting all the defense.

so the scenario you painted with the big man always attracting the defense and then kicking it out, is a remarkably limited view, and obviously is only one scenario of many - 2/3 of the league back then didn't have a dominant big man and most possessions consisted of skilled guards and forwards making plays both on ball and off-ball
Perhaps, but the Bulls had one of the best non-7-footers at posting up (MJ has to be up there with Dantley and Chuck), and Detroit was a revolutionary team on the defensive end. The Celtics were an amazing passing squad, and played to find the best shot. Also, all three of these teams had plenty of guys who could hit the open 15-20 footer.

It might be limited, but remember, I only started watching in Shaq's rookie year (92-93), everything else I've seen is in retrospect, and is a very small percent of games that were played. But it seemed like a lot of the good teams had a dominant big (Shaq, Hakeem, Zo, Ewing, Robinson, etc.) at the time, so that's what my impression was. Teams like the Bulls are an exception anyway, you had two outstanding players (MJ and to a lesser extent Scottie) that allowed them to play the way they did.


the data in the OP shows how 26% of the shots taken in today's game are 3-pointers... 3-pointers simply don't maintain their accuracy in the face of defense as well as shots closer to the rim - accordingly, offense of some form (whether it be a simple pick and roll or something else), needs to be run to get open 3-point looks.

otoh, the same offense didn't need to be run for the higher proportion of mid-range and paint shots taken in previous eras, because these shots didn't need to be as open... previous eras simply didn't need to run the type of offensive sets used today that get 22 three-point looks per game, and this resulted in a faster pace and more scoring - this is a stone cold fact that makes easy intuitive and deductive sense.. i'm not sure why you are trying to refute it.
I'm not refuting anything though, and that's why superstars who are capable of making shots in the post and from mid-range are more adept at carrying their teams to championships than those who are not. We had this discussion over a year ago:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1275401

and I believe we agreed 100%.

[3ball]

Perhaps, but the Bulls had one of the best non-7-footers at posting up


sure, but MOST SG's and SF's back then could post and operate from the mid-range..

think about it - worthy, bernard king, alex english, george gervin, chambers.. you name it - wings back then could get their own shot and score ON their man in the mid-range and paint at a high level - if they couldn't, teams would've had trouble scoring because those were the only shots taken back then.

not as many guys can score ON their man very well in the mid-range area today, because so many 3-pointers are taken, that guys can just specialize at that and/or use the spacing to get open repeatedly (spurs won a championship with role players getting open repeatedly).

just look at a guy like kiki vandeweghe - super-skilled mid-range player and two-pointer expert - could score any way you needed... he didn't need to be open... here's his ISH thread with highlights: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360034

the same offense that was run to get the 22 three-point looks in today's game, just wasn't needed for the mid-range and paint shots taken in previous eras, because these shots didn't need to be as open... unimpeded by the need to get bogged down setting up spacing and running offense to get open 3-pointers, previous eras were free to play a faster pace and score more.
.

[fpliii]

sure, but MOST SG's and SF's back then could post and operate from the mid-range..

think about it - worthy, bernard king, alex english, george gervin.. you name it - guys could get their own shot and score ON their man in the mid-range and paint at an all-star level - not as many guys can do that today because so many 3-pointers are taken, that guys can just specialize at that and/or use the spacing to get open repeatedly.

just look at a guy like kiki vandeweghe - super-skilled mid-range player and two-pointer expert - could score any way you needed... he didn't need to be open... here's his ISH thread with highlights: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360034

the same offense that was run to get the 22 three-point looks in today's game, just wasn't needed for the mid-range and paint shots taken in previous eras, because these shots didn't need to be as open... unimpeded by the need to get bogged down setting up the spacing and running offense to get open 3-pointers, previous eras were free to play a faster pace score more.
Kiki was a terrific post player. His step back from the high post, wing, baseline, and counters from each spot are still being taught today. The other guys you named all were very good scorers (though they were past their primes or out of the league when I started watching). I'm not sure what your point is though. There are some guys who have limited scoring skillsets, but pretty much every guy who has won a championship as an offensive anchor, back then or today, can score in the post or from mid-range. Yes, fewer guys are settling for long twos, but that doesn't mean every single player is.

I'm not sure what the issue here is. It's a different game today, we know this. I don't think anybody will disagree with that.

[3ball]

I'm not sure what the issue here is.


you are forgetting that you asked me a question initially.

you asked me whether teams SOUGHT lower quality shots in previous eras, so i explained that since 3-pointers don't maintain their accuracy in the face of defense as well as two-pointers, more time needs to be spent running offense to set up open 3-point looks.

unimpeded by the need to get bogged down setting up spacing and running offense to get open 3-pointers, previous eras were free to play a faster pace and score more (and play more naturally and instinctively, rather than rigid and planned).

in response to the above, you stated that offenses back then all had a dominant big that attracted all the defense and got others open shots, at which point i reminded you that the game is more complicated than that, as evidenced by well-balanced front lines like the Celtics, who all shared the responsibility of shifting the defense... or the great teamwork of the pistons and bulls, neither of which had a dominant center.

then you responded by saying that the Bulls had the best-posting non-center in Jordan, to which i responded that MOST SG's and SF's were great post and mid-range players back then.. i think i cited Dantley, Drexler and Dennis Johnson as examples.
.

[fpliii]

you asked me whether teams SOUGHT lower quality shots in previous eras
Dude, I didn't ask about lower quality shots. I asked about contested shots specifically (as opposed to open shots). Here is my quote:


When was the goal ever to specifically get a contested shot?

So my initial query wasn't about lower quality shots in general.


in response to the above, you stated that offenses back then all had a dominant big that attracted all the defense and got others open shots
As I noted, this was largely a function of when I started watching. I said:


But it seemed like a lot of the good teams had a dominant big (Shaq, Hakeem, Zo, Ewing, Robinson, etc.) at the time, so that's what my impression was.

If your best post player is not a big man, regardless of era, then he's a severe outlier. I probably shouldn't have said "dominant big" specifically, but for the most part that's the case.


then you responded by saying that the Bulls had the best-posting non-center in Jordan, to which i responded that MOST SG's and SF's were great post and mid-range players back then.. i think i cited Dantley, Drexler and Dennis Johnson as examples.
There's a difference between great, and guys through whom you can run a championship-caliber offense as your offensive anchor though. I'm not denying that a lot of wings were excellent with their backs to the basket or isolating from mid-range. But special players in the league stand out. When you have guys like MJ, Dirk, Hakeem, etc. who can more than half of their mid-range shots at a high volume, and are threats to post up and score at a ridiculous clip, you're going to be a dominant team, and will consistently have success in the post-season.

[3ball]

If your best post player is not a big man, regardless of era, then he's a severe outlier.


the best player on a team is a PF or Center only about half the time, maybe less - that should be pretty obvious... SEVERE OUTLIER is pretty far from the truth.
.

[fpliii]

the best player on a team is a PF or Center only about half the time, maybe less - that should be pretty obvious... SEVERE OUTLIER is pretty far from the truth.
I didn't mention the best player on the team, I specifically mentioned best post player:

If your best post player is not a big man, regardless of era, then he's a severe outlier. I probably shouldn't have said "dominant big" specifically, but for the most part that's the case.
It's not typical that your best player with his back to the basket is a wing. :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

Dude, I didn't ask about lower quality shots. I asked about contested shots specifically (as opposed to open shots).


i interpreted "contested shot" to mean the same thing as "lower quality shot", but it's splitting hairs.

the goal was never to specifically take contested shots - but a higher level of contest is acceptable on paint and mid-range shots, since they maintain their efficiency better in the face of a contest than 3-pointers do.

without the need for as much daylight, paint and mid-range shots (the only shots taken back then) were obtained without running as much offense... teams didn't need to get bogged down setting up spacing and running offense for 22 three-point looks per game, so the pace was much faster and teams scored more.

without having to abide by rigid floor-spacing requirements and a higher level of pre-planned cuts and actions, players could pass, cut and make plays more naturally and instinctively.





I'm not sure what the issue is.


THREAD CLIFFS:

Two-pointer basketball results in higher offensive rebounding rate and higher FT rate, which in turn results in higher offensive/defensive ratings... Two-pointer basketball also results in a faster pace and more scoring.

[YouGotServed]

3ball owning this thread with facts. Cool thread, man.

[fpliii]

THREAD CLIFFS:

Two-pointer basketball results in higher offensive rebounding rate and higher FT rate, which in turn results in higher offensive/defensive ratings... Two-pointer basketball also results in a faster pace and more scoring.

Again though, I'm not disagreeing. :confusedshrug:

I don't think there's a problem my good man.

Maybe I just got caught in the crosswinds here. I see you mention Yao Ming's Foot and Prometheus in the OP as well, maybe this thread was the result of a debate with either or both of them.