Can someone please explain this to me? (regarding 3-pt shots)

[scott91575]

Another factor is FTs. Players get fouled more often when shooting 2-point shots, and get more points-per-possession on those attempts, which don't show up under 2-point attempts (except as made baskets on And-1s).

If a team is fouled 8 times in the act of shooting 2-pointers that don't go in, and shoots 70% from the line, that's 11.2 points on 8 possessions, which improves the 'real' points per possession number for 2-point attempts.

Coaches might not be math majors, but they'll periodically look at numbers like that.

This, and add in put backs on 2 pointers. I don't have stats, but if a team is trying to take 3 pointers all the time the entire team will often be beyond the 3 point arc. Not the best place for offensive rebounds. Yet when attacking the basket there will be far more players in position for a put back.

So with shooting two pointers you may not get more points per shot, but you will get more free throws and more shots at the basket. That leads to more points.

There is a place for 3 point shooting, but making it the major weapon or the only one is not the best strategy.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Loyola Marymount under Paul Westhead in the early 90s took it to the extreme. They were fun to watch, and knocked a three seed scUM out of the tourney by scoring a ridiculous 149 points (while allowing 115).

That game was fucking hilarious.

Who can name these guys?

Spoiler

Bo Kimble, left, Hank Gathers and Jeff Fryer in 1990