PDA

View Full Version : Question about missed corner 3's



ikiru36
03-06-2011, 09:52 PM
I've heard it stated as an NBA truism that a "missed corner 3 always ends up as a layup, dunk or foul at the other end."

I have not myself nor have I seen this statement analyzed statistically, but anecdotally missing a 3 from the corner (and having it rebounded by the other team) does seem to lead to many easy fast breaks if the other team thinks to push the ball off the miss. If true at all, it makes some sense as at least one player (the shooter) is in especially bad position to help guard the break defensively (especially if he happens to try and follow his shot rather than immediately run back on D).

It sure seemed as if Duke was specifically trying to get Ryan open for those corner 3's and I actually thought he got some really good looks that simply didn't go down. Advantages of the corner 3 are that it's a slightly shorter distance shot(even moreso, I believe, in the NBA) and it is apt to become relatively open through good perimeter ball movement. Nevertheless, if it is a shot which when missed creates a likely defensive breakdown, should it be used more thoughtfully than other shots, with a specific mind towards adjusting one's transition defense accordingly?

Just wondering if anyone else has knowledge of this strategic issue and whether it is borne out in reality. If so, I can imagine that a strategy of shooting corner 3's might play into the hands of a Roy Williams coached team which pushes to fast-break whenever possible in transition (and, regrettably, looks to be highly efficient at it when run by Kendall Marshall). Of course, getting that open 3 shot for a 6'10" former McDonald's All-American 3 point contest winner, might genuinely be deemed worth the gamble, on average? :0)

Basically, just noting that Duke may have had a very good strategy in mind, which was encouraging Kelly to take those open 3's and, in general, a shooter should keep shooting if open. But if so, does anyone know if Duke's strategy for defensive transition takes the shot type and location into account?

It's just really painful to go from the excitement of seeing a good 3 point shooter firing up an open shot that you're hoping will go in, to the other team getting an easy basket at the other end. Just glancing at the play-by-play from yesterday, I don't see strong support that my stated concern led to LOTS of UNC points, but they did seem to make early offense attempts (shooting within 15 seconds) after most all of our missed 3's.

In any event, despite how well Carolina played, it still seemed like if Duke (Ryan and Kyle in particular) had just hit a couple of those open missed 3's (particularly in the first half), it might have been a very different game. As disappointing a loss as yesterday was, winning the ACC within the next week would take most all the sting out of it! Battle hard fellas!

Go Ryan!!!!!! Go Kyle!!!!!!!!!!! Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. So glad to see the women handle Carolina so beautifully down the stretch today, winning going away. Sure, the men's side generally gets me more hyped, but we beat the Holes for an ACC championship with some great seniors coming through in the clutch!!! It helps that I'm not currently living in N.C., but that largely salvages the weekend for me, WTG Duke Women's hoops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UrinalCake
03-07-2011, 12:36 AM
Interesting idea. UNC initiates the fast break as well as any team in the country. If you go to ESPN's game summary and view the highlight video, they show a play in which Duke actually makes the basket and UNC still inbounds and gets the ball up the court behind our defense. They have Marshall, a phenomenal passer who constantly looks to find defenders with their heads turned around, and Henson and Zeller who run the court incredibly well. So my point in all this is that UNC is going to beat you off the fast break regardless of where you shoot the ball from.

Another was of looking at this is that the corner three is the absolute best shot you can take, since it's the point where the 3-point line is closest to the basket. In the famous NY Times Magazine article that featured Shane Battier, he talks about how he always looks for these corner three shots. Houston keeps a whole database of teams/players and how often they take the corner three. If we've got a wide open look, I say we should take it.

throatybeard
03-07-2011, 01:28 AM
This is an interesting idea, but I'd need to see some empirical evidence that a corner three leads to the long rebound that results in a lightening fast break for the other team more often than does a three at the top of the key, or anywhere else. Or a 17-footer. Or a 12-footer with R Kelly's funky spin on it.

When I was in school there was a great SI article about Dennis Rodman and how he contributed inside and outside the box score. Some of it is the sort of things you read about Shane Battier now. He knew whose knee to sit on when the shot went up. But a lot of it was watching tape, and knowing that Jordan, or Pippen, or Kerr more often than not would miss to the the right, or the left, given the exact spot they shot it from.

I don't think most players are Dennis Rodman. I need to see some evidence that the corner three is disproportionately likely to be rebounded by the defense.

LSanders
03-07-2011, 02:43 AM
In the great NYT article on Shane, it was also explained that he would instinctively run to the corner because, statistically, that's the highest percentage 3-point spot on the floor. Shane being Shane was always squared and ready for a kick out.

Ryan may have had an off night - WHO HASN'T - But, he was playing the percentages and doing what, I'm sure, the coaches wanted.

throatybeard
03-07-2011, 02:45 AM
In the great NYT article on Shane, it was also explained that he would instinctively run to the corner because, statistically, that's the highest percentage 3-point spot on the floor. Shane being Shane was always squared and ready for a kick out.

Ryan may have had an off night - WHO HASN'T - But, he was playing the percentages and doing what, I'm sure, the coaches wanted.

I think this has to do with the discrepancy between the College 3 and the NBA 3. The NBA 3 is closer in the corner than up top. The College 3 is equidistant with any other point around the arc.

JG Nothing
03-07-2011, 08:31 AM
The College 3 is equidistant with any other point around the arc.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/wbb/CourtDiagram.pdf

If my math is correct, the three point line includes a straight line running 5 feet 3 inches from the baseline before the 20 foot 9 inch arc begins. The three point shot is actually slightly longer along this straight line.

RoyalBlue08
03-07-2011, 08:54 AM
I think you also have to take into account who is shooting the 3 in the corner. If one of your guards take it and miss it, your team is often left in an unbalanced situation in which an run out for the other team is likely. I think it is less of a concern when your 4 man is taking the 3, as presumably both guards are still up high for defensive balance.

My two cents.

ikiru36
03-07-2011, 11:10 AM
I think you also have to take into account who is shooting the 3 in the corner. If one of your guards take it and miss it, your team is often left in an unbalanced situation in which an run out for the other team is likely. I think it is less of a concern when your 4 man is taking the 3, as presumably both guards are still up high for defensive balance.

My two cents.

Thanks for the thoughts in response.

I, too, think that there might be a difference between this issue in the NBA as opposed to college hoops. It also definitely makes sense that when my concern is transition defense, having your 3 or 4 take the corner 3 is less problematic than when it's a guard. I suppose it might also depend on the opponent's defense. For example, if your point guard takes the corner 3 against a 2-3 zone, that may create more of a problem as their guards are likely closer to (your) hoop than one of your guards, should there be a quick transition opportunity.

Anyways, just something I've wondered about, and with Duke seeming to seek those corner 3's (which I still think were pretty good shots, that if made could have really changed the complexion of the game-sure would've been nice to pull Henson out of the lane, to reduce his shotblocking and rebounding), thought I'd bring it up.

Still interested in what strategies/philosophies govern Duke's transition D, as I don't remember it being talked about much. I wouldn't consider transition D a special weakness of ours, but teams would certainly rather score against us then than against our fully set half-court defense, so it is important.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!