@DoubleDD
I don’t think 3pt shooting is luck, or fool’s gold.
I think 3pt shooting is just prone to runs of better and runs of worse shooting, like all kinds of shooting are.
We have a long run of missing few bunnies, then we have game where we miss a bunch of bunnies.
The thing about shooting close to the basket is that your bad runs seem to be shorter, and if you have decent front court players, your average FG% inside is tends to run higher that 3pta shooting percentages do.
There is something about shooting 3pt shots that seems to have longer runs hitting and missing, than shooting close in to the basket two point shots.
Also, shooting inside, assuming you have good front court players, you tend to be able to keep making a good percentage inside as you tire, and as injuries accrue.
3ot shooting percentage seems to decline as the game wears on and legs get more tired. And with injuries.
But there is also the argument that there is some point at which you increase the frequency of3ptas you make percentage increases significantly simply from repetitions.
Now to the mid range J. I have to say I am very prejudiced against it, so I may not be able to make as good of a case as some other s could.
But my take is this:
Outside the trey stripe 100% of the time you have a chance to make 3 points with one shot.
Driving into guys near the rim triggers a significant possibility for a 2 point basket at a high percentage and a foul and free throw.
At the mid range you can either only get 2 possible points, or you can drive into your defender and try to draw a foul, but its farther out than a drive inside and so you are likely to make a smaller percentage from mid range while driving into someone than you would driving into someone inside. And you have to drive into someone to get a chance of a 2 point basket and a foul.
But here is why I am such a “radical” thinker (relatively speaking) about this 3pt shooting stuff. Getting teams fouled up is only probable to occur against teams lacking quality depth. And since you can probably find other ways to beat such teams, why scheme your team to be able to foul up shallow teams, when the real problem is the team with quality depth IMHO.
Note: clearly Self does not agree with me. He argues that the farther you go the shorter the bench is, so foul up their starters, but I say the quality depth is still too good to make fouling the starters up worth the effort.
What I argue is that if you shoot vastly more treys, 50% 3ptas in on approach, and 80% 3ptas in another offensive scheme, the points produced will ramp up so much that it creates a bigger lead than getting them fouled up would trigger.
All for now. But we have an entire off season to sort through this.
