Im Still Ballin
06-07-2024, 06:36 AM
I recently came upon a website that has league-average points per possession statistics for possession contexts. There's overall team PPP, After Made Shot PPP, After Def Rebound PPP, and After Turnover PPP.
The league averages for the 2023-24 regular season are as follows:
Overall: 1.14 points per possession
After Made Shot: 1.10 points per possession (55% of total offense; 52-57% variance)
After Def Rebound: 1.15 points per possession (35% of total offense; 33-38% variance)
After Turnover: 1.31 points per possession (8% of total offense; 7-9% variance)
Obviously, the last 2% is from miscellaneous sources. But that's more or less the majority of the points scored.
Now, to the topic of the thread...
We all know about the value of the three-point shot from an eFG% and points per possession perspective. We know how roughly 33.3% from three = 50% from two and 40% from three = 60% from two. Aside from the floor-spacing benefits opening up the court for shots at the rim, this is the main justification for the three-point shot.
But there are some inherent downsides to the three ball. Its rebounds are long and unpredictable, they draw less fouls and free throws (I believe?), and they naturally result in more missed shots.
On the other hand, the mid-range and post-up provide for a more stable, reliable scoring and creation option. The rebounds are shorter and more predictable, they're more likely to draw fouls and free throws (I think?), and they naturally result in more made baskets.
I'm pretty sure the mid-range and post-up shots are more likely to be offensively rebounded too. But I'm not 100% sure on that.
I've made this argument mentioning these points for several years now. But I didn't have access to these statistics I have now. With the newfound possession context statistics, let's do a little exercise to visualize the comparative value of the three-point shot vs. two-point shot:
4/10 3PT = 12 points and 6 missed shots
6/10 2PT = 12 points and 4 missed shots
Assuming no offensive rebounds, let's multiply the number of missed shots by the After Defensive Rebound 1.15 PPP league average. This will give us a rough idea of the numerical consequences of missing shots:
12 points from three - (6 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 6.9) = +5.1 points differential
12 points from two - (4 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 4.6) = +7.4 points differential
The two-point shot comfortably wins. However, only Jokic and Durant approach anywhere near 60% from the mid-range/post-up. So, let's drop the two-point shooting from 60% eFG down to 50% eFG.
4/10 3PT = 12 points and 6 missed shots
5/10 2PT = 10 points and 5 missed shots
12 points from three - (6 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 6.9) = +5.1 points differential
10 points from two - (5 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 5.75) = +4.25 points differential
Now that puts things in favor of the three-point shot. But this exercise doesn't include potential turnovers, fouls drawn, points from free throws, and points from offensive rebounds. If the mid-range and post-up does lead to more free throws and offensive rebounds, that number is probably way closer. But turnovers could mediate that somewhat.
This is all interesting to look at. I'm not making a case against three-point shooting. Rather, an argument for mid-range and post-up play, and a more balanced offensive shot selection that's indicative of high IQ basketball players with well-rounded skill sets. Because personnel dictates gameplan.
We all know how important and valuable these higher-percentage, self-created two-point shots are in the clutch. When the game is tied or has a one or two-possession lead, and there's only a handful of possessions left. Simply scoring - putting the ball in the basket - becomes more important than 2 vs. 3 points. And that heavily favors the long-two.
But it's cool to see that these two-point shots have more value in general play than many might think.
The league averages for the 2023-24 regular season are as follows:
Overall: 1.14 points per possession
After Made Shot: 1.10 points per possession (55% of total offense; 52-57% variance)
After Def Rebound: 1.15 points per possession (35% of total offense; 33-38% variance)
After Turnover: 1.31 points per possession (8% of total offense; 7-9% variance)
Obviously, the last 2% is from miscellaneous sources. But that's more or less the majority of the points scored.
Now, to the topic of the thread...
We all know about the value of the three-point shot from an eFG% and points per possession perspective. We know how roughly 33.3% from three = 50% from two and 40% from three = 60% from two. Aside from the floor-spacing benefits opening up the court for shots at the rim, this is the main justification for the three-point shot.
But there are some inherent downsides to the three ball. Its rebounds are long and unpredictable, they draw less fouls and free throws (I believe?), and they naturally result in more missed shots.
On the other hand, the mid-range and post-up provide for a more stable, reliable scoring and creation option. The rebounds are shorter and more predictable, they're more likely to draw fouls and free throws (I think?), and they naturally result in more made baskets.
I'm pretty sure the mid-range and post-up shots are more likely to be offensively rebounded too. But I'm not 100% sure on that.
I've made this argument mentioning these points for several years now. But I didn't have access to these statistics I have now. With the newfound possession context statistics, let's do a little exercise to visualize the comparative value of the three-point shot vs. two-point shot:
4/10 3PT = 12 points and 6 missed shots
6/10 2PT = 12 points and 4 missed shots
Assuming no offensive rebounds, let's multiply the number of missed shots by the After Defensive Rebound 1.15 PPP league average. This will give us a rough idea of the numerical consequences of missing shots:
12 points from three - (6 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 6.9) = +5.1 points differential
12 points from two - (4 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 4.6) = +7.4 points differential
The two-point shot comfortably wins. However, only Jokic and Durant approach anywhere near 60% from the mid-range/post-up. So, let's drop the two-point shooting from 60% eFG down to 50% eFG.
4/10 3PT = 12 points and 6 missed shots
5/10 2PT = 10 points and 5 missed shots
12 points from three - (6 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 6.9) = +5.1 points differential
10 points from two - (5 missed shots x 1.15 ppp = 5.75) = +4.25 points differential
Now that puts things in favor of the three-point shot. But this exercise doesn't include potential turnovers, fouls drawn, points from free throws, and points from offensive rebounds. If the mid-range and post-up does lead to more free throws and offensive rebounds, that number is probably way closer. But turnovers could mediate that somewhat.
This is all interesting to look at. I'm not making a case against three-point shooting. Rather, an argument for mid-range and post-up play, and a more balanced offensive shot selection that's indicative of high IQ basketball players with well-rounded skill sets. Because personnel dictates gameplan.
We all know how important and valuable these higher-percentage, self-created two-point shots are in the clutch. When the game is tied or has a one or two-possession lead, and there's only a handful of possessions left. Simply scoring - putting the ball in the basket - becomes more important than 2 vs. 3 points. And that heavily favors the long-two.
But it's cool to see that these two-point shots have more value in general play than many might think.