Shooting from Downtown in MSG: A Case Study

[davekay1971]

This would surprise me, because the mid-range shot is the least efficient shot you can take in a game. 3-pointers and layups/dunks yield, roughly, the same number of points per attempt for an average team (with layups/dunks typically a bit higher). 2-point jump shots are always far below that; usually somewhere between 2/3 and 1/2 of the points per attempt as the other two. I would wager that our efficiency is higher when we increase our layups/dunks and 3s, and decrease our 2-point jumpers.

While you're absolutely correct in your argument that 3 pointers and layups/dunks yield a higher expected points-per-attempt than do mid-range jumpers, keeping mid-range jumpers part of the offense and arsenal is important with regards to offensive variety and stretching the defense. If scouting reports indicate that a team focuses almost entirely on taking 3s and jumpers/dunks, it allows the defense to commit to defending those two zones, leaving soft spots in the mid-range areas that are not exploited. You want to make sure the defense feels the need to defend the entire scoring-third of the court, thereby stretching the defense and, hopefully, improving offensive efficiency from all areas.

As for the OP's point about the two lines: having played on courts with two 3 point lines, the 2nd line does make a difference. There's a natural instinct to spot up on a line. Even when the player isn't "confused" (meaning that they are spotting up on the NBA line thinking it's the college line), if they're trying to spot up just outside the college 3 point line, they will tend to spot up on the NBA line instead, which may draw them a foot or two further out than if they were on a court without the NBA line. The line serves as a natural visual reference point, and it does appear to have trended our shot selection (in this one game) out a bit from where we usually shoot. Was it the line alone, St. John's defense, some combination of those factors, or just a random variance? I don't know, but the OP has made an interesting observation.

[pfrduke]

If you're playing HORSE that's true, but in an actual game the defenses are going to try to take away layups/dunks and three-pointers. The areas in between are often where you can get the most open looks. Nolan's runners and pull-up jumpers are probably the most "efficient" shots our team has because he hits them at such a high percentage.

Of course the defense is going to try to take away layups/dunks and three-pointers (although taking away both can be a difficult task). But it remains true that in an actual game (and not just in horse), teams score much more efficiently from layups/dunks and from 3s than they do from 2-point jumpers. At the risk of quoting myself, I actually looked at this in some detail after the 2007 season. Notice our numbers - in that season, we had a 2:1 ratio of "efficient" shots (layups/dunks/3s) to "inefficient" shots; our opponents, by contrast, had only a 4:3 ratio, meaning they took a lot more 2-point jumpers than we did. We scored at an almost identical ratio on those shots as our opponents did - we got .675 points per 2-point jumper, opponents got .673 - that's ugly, inefficient scoring. But we ended up with 1.06 pps overall, while our opponents converted just .926 pps, in large part because we took more "efficient" shots and forced our opponents to take more "inefficient" shots.

Pomeroy did a similar look during NCAAT play in 2007. Shooting percentages on two-point jumpers tend not to be good - usually no better (and in some cases worse) than on 3-pointers, and you lose the 1-point bonus (although you increase, somewhat, your chances of getting fouled). 2-point jumpers are just low value shots.

While you're absolutely correct in your argument that 3 pointers and layups/dunks yield a higher expected points-per-attempt than do mid-range jumpers, keeping mid-range jumpers part of the offense and arsenal is important with regards to offensive variety and stretching the defense. If scouting reports indicate that a team focuses almost entirely on taking 3s and jumpers/dunks, it allows the defense to commit to defending those two zones, leaving soft spots in the mid-range areas that are not exploited. You want to make sure the defense feels the need to defend the entire scoring-third of the court, thereby stretching the defense and, hopefully, improving offensive efficiency from all areas.

This is true, but the mid-range game should (I think) be looked at as a means to an end, rather than as an end unto itself. That is, being able to at least keep people honest with the mid-range should open up better shots (better shots being 3s and layups/dunks). But under no circumstances (and I don't read you to be suggesting this) should the offense be designed to maximize 2-point jump shots. I agree, though, that a developed mid-range game can be a tool as part of an offense focused on maximizing more high-value shot attempts.

[AZLA]

Cool discussion and great visuals. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the color of the NBA 3-point line appeared to be more prominent / brighter in color and the same color as the outline of the keys and baselines. Stark white. Whereas the traditional college three point line was dark and didn't catch the eye as much. Personally, I tend to think basketball players at this caliber are too smart not to know instinctually where they are on the floor at all times (even with their eyes closed). Couple that with memorable MSG games of the past, like when J.J. was bringing in can't-miss, long-range air support from near the middle of the floor against Texas, my first inclination is to think it's a little bit of both. But then that visual is a perfect overlay of the NBA line and (based on what someone wrote earlier) I'm more compelled to think it ultimately had more to do with St. John's press and pressure defense overall. Beyond the press, once over the half court, it appeared their game plan was to extend out the D and engage out beyond the NBA line. I recall a few turnovers where Nolan would attempt to run the offense sets at the top of the key, but the pressure was already there. Considering MSG is the location of all St. John's home games (outside of Carnesecca) -- maybe it's a specific strategy Lavin implements? Play tough man-to-man and engage beyond the NBA line. Only way to tell is to chart previous and upcoming opponent shot selections in MSG.

[Kedsy]

But you gotta wonder when so few shots were on or just a short step off the 3 point line and appearing to all be right up where an NBA line would be. Or the dude keeping the shot chart was recording them differently...who knows.

I was at the game and watching for this, and the shots didn't just appear to be "where an NBA line would be," our kids were definitely spotting up a few inches beyond the NBA line. I can't say whether it was confusion or whatever, but they were clearly doing it, and it wasn't because they were closely defended. Andre and Seth took several wide-open NBA threes and shot them short.

To me, it seemed we figured this out in the last few minutes and were taking a few shots from inside the NBA line, and whether it was coincidence or not that's when we started hitting them.

[mehmattski]

Cool discussion and great visuals. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the color of the NBA 3-point line appeared to be more prominent / brighter in color and the same color as the outline of the keys and baselines. Stark white. Whereas the traditional college three point line was dark and didn't catch the eye as much. Personally, I tend to think basketball players at this caliber are too smart not to know instinctually where they are on the floor at all times (even with their eyes closed). Couple that with memorable MSG games of the past, like when J.J. was bringing in can't-miss, long-range air support from near the middle of the floor against Texas, my first inclination is to think it's a little bit of both. But then that visual is a perfect overlay of the NBA line and (based on what someone wrote earlier) I'm more compelled to think it ultimately had more to do with St. John's press and pressure defense overall. Beyond the press, once over the half court, it appeared their game plan was to extend out the D and engage out beyond the NBA line. I recall a few turnovers where Nolan would attempt to run the offense sets at the top of the key, but the pressure was already there. Considering MSG is the location of all St. John's home games (outside of Carnesecca) -- maybe it's a specific strategy Lavin implements? Play tough man-to-man and engage beyond the NBA line. Only way to tell is to chart previous and upcoming opponent shot selections in MSG.

I thought you may be on to something. CBS has shot charts for only five St. John's home games. They have also completed their Home-and-Home with Notre Dame, so I included that chart:



I think it's pretty clear that Notre Dame changed their shot locations in MSG versus in South Bend. Notre Dame also takes a similar percentage of their shots from beyond the arc (37.5%) compared to Duke (37.1%). Georgetown takes a far fewer percentage of treys, and did not seem affected. Syracuse looks like they did chuck up a bunch from normal and NBA length. The Cincy game was played at Carnesseca, but I included it for symmetry.

If it was just St. John's defensive pressure, then ND would have taken a higher percentage of deep 3's at home too, right? There is the "desperation" angle-- ND won at home and had an offensive efficiency of 111.0, while in MSG they lost and had their worst offense of the season, a dismal 77.2.

Still, those two top charts paint a pretty interesting pattern!

[AZLA]

Thanks for these charts, I see your point. Which brings me to something I've often wondered. Each of these charts indicate a dead zone, mid range, on either side of the free throw line (just outside the key). It's like no man's land. Hardly anyone ever takes a shot from those areas. It's either a three point, or dead center in the free throw circle, in the paint or on the posts. I never understood why more teams don't take advantage of the midrange shot more. I seem to remember Roshown Mcleod being adept in those shots and being pretty effective. Also, missed shots from these areas seem to generate better opportunities for offensive rebounds, especially for the shooter following up on his miss (compared to the ever popular three pointer). Thoughts?

[Richard Berg]

Couple that with memorable MSG games of the past, like when J.J. was bringing in can't-miss, long-range air support from near the middle of the floor against Texas, my first inclination is to think it's a little bit of both.

The Texas game was at the Meadowlands, where we've had far greater success, historically. MSG has a similar "home game" feel but has been the site of some uncomfortable losses, like the first two games in fall '99.

So...anyone have a photo of the Izod court they wanna compare side-by-side?

[sporthenry]

The Izod center court didn't have the NBA 3 point line on the court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yaq-nJrRtG0

[UrinalCake]

I noticed Dawkins taking (and making) a few shots from NBA range last night, even though there was no extra line.

[MChambers]

Thanks for these charts, I see your point. Which brings me to something I've often wondered. Each of these charts indicate a dead zone, mid range, on either side of the free throw line (just outside the key). It's like no man's land. Hardly anyone ever takes a shot from those areas. It's either a three point, or dead center in the free throw circle, in the paint or on the posts. I never understood why more teams don't take advantage of the midrange shot more. I seem to remember Roshown Mcleod being adept in those shots and being pretty effective. Also, missed shots from these areas seem to generate better opportunities for offensive rebounds, especially for the shooter following up on his miss (compared to the ever popular three pointer). Thoughts?

See pfrduke's post above. A 15 foot shot just isn't an efficient shot for most players and teams.

[davekay1971]

This is true, but the mid-range game should (I think) be looked at as a means to an end, rather than as an end unto itself. That is, being able to at least keep people honest with the mid-range should open up better shots (better shots being 3s and layups/dunks). But under no circumstances (and I don't read you to be suggesting this) should the offense be designed to maximize 2-point jump shots. I agree, though, that a developed mid-range game can be a tool as part of an offense focused on maximizing more high-value shot attempts.

Agreed completely! There are exceptions, of course, for individual players who have mastered certain mid-range shots (Kyle's sweet mid-range jumper off the baseline screen is an example that comes to mind), but your point is well taken that for most players, the statistics dictate a higher average of points per shot attempt on good looks from the 3 and on layups/dunks.