The Oregon game got me to thinking about this. Basketball teams have been shooting more threes for several years, but in college, that trend has slowed and leveled off somewhat now. Nevertheless, I wonder if it is more and more becoming the weapon of choice for players and coaches. Larry Bird said not long ago that it seemed any gym he walked into, all the young kids would be practicing shooting threes, and nothing else.

When I watched the Oregon game, the score was within a bucket, with only 5 minutes to go, when Oregon's Chris Duarte hit a three. Then Cal's Bradley quickly fired up a three to try and keep pace, and missed. Duarte came down and made another three. Then Cal's Foreman tried a three and missed. Then Duarte knocked down another three, and Cal's Betley shot a three and missed. Duarte made his 4th three in a row, in about 2 and a half minutes, and Cal's Betley tried another three and missed. That was 8 three pointers hoisted up by the teams in about 3 minutes, with no other kinds of shots attempted by either team. This type of offensive play was highly successful for Oregon, and a total failure for Cal. Was it a tactic by both teams? Did the coaches on both sides plan or encourage this tactic? Or did it just happen in the moment?

If it was a tactic on both sides, to let it all hang out, one side gambling they could get a lead by shooting a bunch of threes, and the other team trying to match them three for three, then what would that mean for basketball?

Right now only about a third of the shots attempted in college games are threes, while two thirds are twos. The main purpose of shooting and making long distance shots is to draw the defense out to the perimeter, opening up the area close to the basket or at least the mid range area for higher percentage shots. The highest percentage shot is the open layup or dunk, say 98%. Free throws are shot at an average of say 65%. The close in shot by a big who is defended, is maybe 50%. The short to midrange jumper maybe 40-45%, and the three about 35%, the lowest percentage shot on the floor.

The game has changed so much from my youth, where if you shot a 25-30 footer, and missed, the coach would often yank you out of the game for taking such a low percentage shot (maybe 20-25%in those days, because very few players ever practiced that shot). If we move from a game of a few years ago of shooting threes to open up the area near the basket, all the way to going exclusively to shooting threes for stretches, like trying to blow a close game open with each shot counting an extra point, we will be doing the reverse. The skilled big man with a variety of shots near the basket might even make a return to the game as coaches will use the big men to force defenses to collapse on the area near the basket and leave the perimeter shooters open to shoot those low percentage threes.

I loved the three when I was a kid, even though my team received only 2 points for me making one. I was not a good athlete or a good player, but I could shoot, so I stayed on the floor, because I made shots. Today, I don't like watching the three as much. It was exciting to see Duarte make 4 threes in a row, but every one was a dagger in my heart. And every three Cal missed down the stretch gave me yet another dagger in the heart. I know, and all those players know, and both coaches know that Cal could have made 4 threes in a row and Oregon could have missed all 3 of theirs. I don't like seeing games left primarily to chance like that. I'd rather see teams use more clock in crunch time, work for good open looks behind screens, or open shots near the basket, and maybe mix in an occasional three. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

Good post

Yeah, that was such a heartbreak watching one player hit 4 threes in a row in a couple minutes when Cal was doing a solid job defending the ducks up until then

I saw he did it again in the next game too so it looks like he just got on a hot streak

Regarding the three in general, shooting 3s have steadily increased and as you said younger kids are shooting more of them now. Maybe partly the Curry and Warriors effect

But some argue from analytics that you should only shoot layups, dunks and 3s

Certainly layups and dunks are great when you can do them, but you can jack up a 3 on every possession if you want

To me, I think you should shoot as many threes as you can if you hit 33% or higher because the weighted probability is 50%, and shooting 50% is better than most teams in most games

But that's a simple rule and there are less obvious factors. Just one example, if you shoot more threes, you will probably shoot fewer FTs and rarely get opponents in foul trouble

SFCityBear said:

---

The Oregon game got me to thinking about this. Basketball teams have been shooting more threes for several years, but in college, that trend has slowed and leveled off somewhat now. Nevertheless, I wonder if it is more and more becoming the weapon of choice for players and coaches. Larry Bird said not long ago that it seemed any gym he walked into, all the young kids would be practicing shooting threes, and nothing else.

When I watched the Oregon game, the score was within a bucket, with only 5 minutes to go, when Oregon's Chris Duarte hit a three. Then Cal's Bradley quickly fired up a three to try and keep pace, and missed. Duarte came down and made another three. Then Cal's Foreman tried a three and missed. Then Duarte knocked down another three, and Cal's Betley shot a three and missed. Duarte made his 4th three in a row, in about 2 and a half minutes, and Cal's Betley tried another three and missed. That was 8 three pointers hoisted up by the teams in about 3 minutes, with no other kinds of shots attempted by either team. This type of offensive play was highly successful for Oregon, and a total failure for Cal. Was it a tactic by both teams? Did the coaches on both sides plan or encourage this tactic? Or did it just happen in the moment?

If it was a tactic on both sides, to let it all hang out, one side gambling they could get a lead by shooting a bunch of threes, and the other team trying to match them three for three, then what would that mean for basketball?

Right now only about a third of the shots attempted in college games are threes, while two thirds are twos. The main purpose of shooting and making long distance shots is to draw the defense out to the perimeter, opening up the area close to the basket or at least the mid range area for higher percentage shots. The highest percentage shot is the open layup or dunk, say 98%. Free throws are shot at an average of say 65%. The close in shot by a big who is defended, is maybe 50%. The short to midrange jumper maybe 40-45%, and the three about 35%, the lowest percentage shot on the floor.

The game has changed so much from my youth, where if you shot a 25-30 footer, and missed, the coach would often yank you out of the game for taking such a low percentage shot (maybe 20-25%in those days, because very few players ever practiced that shot). If we move from a game of a few years ago of shooting threes to open up the area near the basket, all the way to going exclusively to shooting threes for stretches, like trying to blow a close game open with each shot counting an extra point, we will be doing the reverse. The skilled big man with a variety of shots near the basket might even make a return to the game as coaches will use the big men to force defenses to collapse on the area near the basket and leave the perimeter shooters open to shoot those low percentage threes.

I loved the three when I was a kid, even though my team received only 2 points for me making one. I was not a good athlete or a good player, but I could shoot, so I stayed on the floor, because I made shots. Today, I don't like watching the three as much. It was exciting to see Duarte make 4 threes in a row, but every one was a dagger in my heart. And every three Cal missed down the stretch gave me yet another dagger in the heart. I know, and all those players know, and both coaches know that Cal could have made 4 threes in a row and Oregon could have missed all 3 of theirs. I don't like seeing games left primarily to chance like that. I'd rather see teams use more clock in crunch time, work for good open looks behind screens, or open shots near the basket, and maybe mix in an occasional three. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

---

Given the point differential, if the 3 pt shot has a 35% probability and the mid-range 45% (or even 50%), the 3 has a significant advantage. I'd argue that an uncontested 3 (fouling a 3 point shooter is anathema to coaches) actually has a better percentage than 35 unless the shooter is a bricklayer. I think the biggest flaw in the "three for all" approach is poor shot selection and number 2 is wrong player taking the shot. Those of us who learned the game 60-70 years ago may decry the demise of the mid-range shot but I've often heard "expert" commentators call it the worst shot in the game, one defensive coaches try to direct the offense to take.

SFCB, welcome to 2021, thanks for joining us (yes, I know sarcasm isn't your thing).

The game has changed and the NBA is leading the way here, the colleges are catching up. Recruiting is changing to reflect this. But the numbers don't lie, kids who were 10 when Steph Curry started are now in college, and those coming up are taking more 3s than ever, whether in games or their backyard. Times change, I gave up on the NBA during the Shaq era because I couldn't stand the way he over-powered people with what effectively was muscle, but not necessarily strategy (maybe others liked it, I did not). The era we are in now shows outside shooting is favored and working, the stats don't lie, but eventually teams will figure out more ways to combat it. However, I'd also argue that as kids shoot more and more from the outside, the percentage made will increase. Some kids are hitting 45% regularly now, I really wouldn't be surprised to see someone shoot over 50% from 3-point land (with over 500 shots taken). Think about how that changes the strategy, it's just a numbers game. If a team can hit 45% of 3s, but only 50% to 55% of 2s, it makes a lot of sense to jack up 3s all day long.

What Oregon did wasn't a fluke. I actually thought Cal played decent defense that night, but I almost think Oregon could have stepped on that gas pedal earlier. Had they done that, probably would have lost by 30.

I think the 3 is here to stay.

One of the subtle benefits of shooting 3 pointers is that the shooter can get back on D way faster than if he was attempting a layup (remember Manute Bol attempting 3s for the Dubs just so he could basket hang on defense?}. Plus the energy expended in attempting a 3 is significantly less than sprinting and leaping for a layup. In other words a team that shoots the 3 pointers well will see their defense improve as they have better floor spacing and more energy for defense.

Defending the 3 takes serious legs/lungs to cover all that perimeter. I always thought the Dubs had superiour fitness and could run around the 3 pt line to keep other teams less efficient at shooting the 3.

SFCityBear said:

---

The Oregon game got me to thinking about this. Basketball teams have been shooting more threes for several years, but in college, that trend has slowed and leveled off somewhat now. Nevertheless, I wonder if it is more and more becoming the weapon of choice for players and coaches. Larry Bird said not long ago that it seemed any gym he walked into, all the young kids would be practicing shooting threes, and nothing else.

When I watched the Oregon game, the score was within a bucket, with only 5 minutes to go, when Oregon's Chris Duarte hit a three. Then Cal's Bradley quickly fired up a three to try and keep pace, and missed. Duarte came down and made another three. Then Cal's Foreman tried a three and missed. Then Duarte knocked down another three, and Cal's Betley shot a three and missed. Duarte made his 4th three in a row, in about 2 and a half minutes, and Cal's Betley tried another three and missed. That was 8 three pointers hoisted up by the teams in about 3 minutes, with no other kinds of shots attempted by either team. This type of offensive play was highly successful for Oregon, and a total failure for Cal. Was it a tactic by both teams? Did the coaches on both sides plan or encourage this tactic? Or did it just happen in the moment?

If it was a tactic on both sides, to let it all hang out, one side gambling they could get a lead by shooting a bunch of threes, and the other team trying to match them three for three, then what would that mean for basketball?

Right now only about a third of the shots attempted in college games are threes, while two thirds are twos. The main purpose of shooting and making long distance shots is to draw the defense out to the perimeter, opening up the area close to the basket or at least the mid range area for higher percentage shots. The highest percentage shot is the open layup or dunk, say 98%. Free throws are shot at an average of say 65%. The close in shot by a big who is defended, is maybe 50%. The short to midrange jumper maybe 40-45%, and the three about 35%, the lowest percentage shot on the floor.

The game has changed so much from my youth, where if you shot a 25-30 footer, and missed, the coach would often yank you out of the game for taking such a low percentage shot (maybe 20-25%in those days, because very few players ever practiced that shot). If we move from a game of a few years ago of shooting threes to open up the area near the basket, all the way to going exclusively to shooting threes for stretches, like trying to blow a close game open with each shot counting an extra point, we will be doing the reverse. The skilled big man with a variety of shots near the basket might even make a return to the game as coaches will use the big men to force defenses to collapse on the area near the basket and leave the perimeter shooters open to shoot those low percentage threes.

I loved the three when I was a kid, even though my team received only 2 points for me making one. I was not a good athlete or a good player, but I could shoot, so I stayed on the floor, because I made shots. Today, I don't like watching the three as much. It was exciting to see Duarte make 4 threes in a row, but every one was a dagger in my heart. And every three Cal missed down the stretch gave me yet another dagger in the heart. I know, and all those players know, and both coaches know that Cal could have made 4 threes in a row and Oregon could have missed all 3 of theirs. I don't like seeing games left primarily to chance like that. I'd rather see teams use more clock in crunch time, work for good open looks behind screens, or open shots near the basket, and maybe mix in an occasional three. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

---

100 3 point shots at 35% scores 105 points
100 2 point shots at 45% scores 90 points.

It is simple math.

The strategy of the offense should be to maximize points per attempt. Not shots made per attempt. Every shot down the floor should be to take the best shot, factoring in the amount of points that shot receives. If they could somehow stop every time, look at their choices, determine what the percentage success is, and multiply by points, they should take the shot on average that yields the most points.

For years, the three point shot was undervalued. It is now around the right value.

Of course players don't always take the best shot. You have identified one thing that I think is something coaches need to do a better job of. The best shot on a trip down the floor has nothing to do with what just happened on defense. There is no reason to respond to a made three with a three point attempt and that mistake happens far too often, especially later in the game. Of course, at some point when you are down late, you need to consider whether you need to shoot threes to come back. But, going down 5 with 5 minutes to play is not a time when you need a three. It may or may not be the best shot at the time, but that has nothing to do with the fact that your opponent just drained a three.

59bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

The Oregon game got me to thinking about this. Basketball teams have been shooting more threes for several years, but in college, that trend has slowed and leveled off somewhat now. Nevertheless, I wonder if it is more and more becoming the weapon of choice for players and coaches. Larry Bird said not long ago that it seemed any gym he walked into, all the young kids would be practicing shooting threes, and nothing else.

When I watched the Oregon game, the score was within a bucket, with only 5 minutes to go, when Oregon's Chris Duarte hit a three. Then Cal's Bradley quickly fired up a three to try and keep pace, and missed. Duarte came down and made another three. Then Cal's Foreman tried a three and missed. Then Duarte knocked down another three, and Cal's Betley shot a three and missed. Duarte made his 4th three in a row, in about 2 and a half minutes, and Cal's Betley tried another three and missed. That was 8 three pointers hoisted up by the teams in about 3 minutes, with no other kinds of shots attempted by either team. This type of offensive play was highly successful for Oregon, and a total failure for Cal. Was it a tactic by both teams? Did the coaches on both sides plan or encourage this tactic? Or did it just happen in the moment?

If it was a tactic on both sides, to let it all hang out, one side gambling they could get a lead by shooting a bunch of threes, and the other team trying to match them three for three, then what would that mean for basketball?

Right now only about a third of the shots attempted in college games are threes, while two thirds are twos. The main purpose of shooting and making long distance shots is to draw the defense out to the perimeter, opening up the area close to the basket or at least the mid range area for higher percentage shots. The highest percentage shot is the open layup or dunk, say 98%. Free throws are shot at an average of say 65%. The close in shot by a big who is defended, is maybe 50%. The short to midrange jumper maybe 40-45%, and the three about 35%, the lowest percentage shot on the floor.

The game has changed so much from my youth, where if you shot a 25-30 footer, and missed, the coach would often yank you out of the game for taking such a low percentage shot (maybe 20-25%in those days, because very few players ever practiced that shot). If we move from a game of a few years ago of shooting threes to open up the area near the basket, all the way to going exclusively to shooting threes for stretches, like trying to blow a close game open with each shot counting an extra point, we will be doing the reverse. The skilled big man with a variety of shots near the basket might even make a return to the game as coaches will use the big men to force defenses to collapse on the area near the basket and leave the perimeter shooters open to shoot those low percentage threes.

I loved the three when I was a kid, even though my team received only 2 points for me making one. I was not a good athlete or a good player, but I could shoot, so I stayed on the floor, because I made shots. Today, I don't like watching the three as much. It was exciting to see Duarte make 4 threes in a row, but every one was a dagger in my heart. And every three Cal missed down the stretch gave me yet another dagger in the heart. I know, and all those players know, and both coaches know that Cal could have made 4 threes in a row and Oregon could have missed all 3 of theirs. I don't like seeing games left primarily to chance like that. I'd rather see teams use more clock in crunch time, work for good open looks behind screens, or open shots near the basket, and maybe mix in an occasional three. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts.

---

Given the point differential, if the 3 pt shot has a 35% probability and the mid-range 45% (or even 50%), the 3 has a significant advantage. I'd argue that an uncontested 3 (fouling a 3 point shooter is anathema to coaches) actually has a better percentage than 35 unless the shooter is a bricklayer. I think the biggest flaw in the "three for all" approach is poor shot selection and number 2 is wrong player taking the shot. Those of us who learned the game 60-70 years ago may decry the demise of the mid-range shot but I've often heard "expert" commentators call it the worst shot in the game, one defensive coaches try to direct the offense to take.

---

This last point is why going to a 2-3 zone against Oregon was not "great X's and O's." 2-3 zone was the standard zone and made sense before the 3 point shot when centers and driving to the basket were dominant ways of scoring because it was good for defending the interior. It was always vulnerable to outside shooting. With the 3 pt shot it is now obsolete unless you play a big, poor outside shooting team. If we go to a zone we should be looking at 3-2 or 1-2-2 and all the other variants that defend the 3-point line and defend the rim against easy baskets. Force teams to drive into the key and take the pull up jumper. Early in the shot clock is fine. It is bad percentage shots that you want your opponent to take, not time off the clock.

sandiegobears said:

---

SFCB, welcome to 2021, thanks for joining us (yes, I know sarcasm isn't your thing).

The game has changed and the NBA is leading the way here, the colleges are catching up. Recruiting is changing to reflect this. But the numbers don't lie, kids who were 10 when Steph Curry started are now in college, and those coming up are taking more 3s than ever, whether in games or their backyard. Times change, I gave up on the NBA during the Shaq era because I couldn't stand the way he over-powered people with what effectively was muscle, but not necessarily strategy (maybe others liked it, I did not). The era we are in now shows outside shooting is favored and working, the stats don't lie, but eventually teams will figure out more ways to combat it. However, I'd also argue that as kids shoot more and more from the outside, the percentage made will increase. Some kids are hitting 45% regularly now, I really wouldn't be surprised to see someone shoot over 50% from 3-point land (with over 500 shots taken). Think about how that changes the strategy, it's just a numbers game. If a team can hit 45% of 3s, but only 50% to 55% of 2s, it makes a lot of sense to jack up 3s all day long.

What Oregon did wasn't a fluke. I actually thought Cal played decent defense that night, but I almost think Oregon could have stepped on that gas pedal earlier. Had they done that, probably would have lost by 30.

I think the 3 is here to stay.

---

Agreed.

Civil Bear said:

---

sandiegobears said:

---

SFCB, welcome to 2021, thanks for joining us (yes, I know sarcasm isn't your thing).

The game has changed and the NBA is leading the way here, the colleges are catching up. Recruiting is changing to reflect this. But the numbers don't lie, kids who were 10 when Steph Curry started are now in college, and those coming up are taking more 3s than ever, whether in games or their backyard. Times change, I gave up on the NBA during the Shaq era because I couldn't stand the way he over-powered people with what effectively was muscle, but not necessarily strategy (maybe others liked it, I did not). The era we are in now shows outside shooting is favored and working, the stats don't lie, but eventually teams will figure out more ways to combat it. However, I'd also argue that as kids shoot more and more from the outside, the percentage made will increase. Some kids are hitting 45% regularly now, I really wouldn't be surprised to see someone shoot over 50% from 3-point land (with over 500 shots taken). Think about how that changes the strategy, it's just a numbers game. If a team can hit 45% of 3s, but only 50% to 55% of 2s, it makes a lot of sense to jack up 3s all day long.

What Oregon did wasn't a fluke. I actually thought Cal played decent defense that night, but I almost think Oregon could have stepped on that gas pedal earlier. Had they done that, probably would have lost by 30.

I think the 3 is here to stay.

---

Agreed.

---

well Curry opened many eyes and changed the game, but now we have LaMelo Ball. Better start practicing from half court!

One of the keys to Mike Montgomery's success at Stanford, which pretty much coincided with the adoption of the 3 pt line in 1986, was his recognition of the value of the 3 point shot. He recruited a series of shooting guards, who were not very athletic, might not be able to create their own shot, but could shoot lights out from 3 so he would set an off the ball pick to get them a shot:
Peter Dukes 5.8 per game at .470
Dion Cross 5.9 per game at .480
Chris Weems 5.2 per game at .426
David Mosley 5.0 per game at .449
Ryan Mendez 3.6 per game at .420
Michael macDonald 3.2 per game at .514
Matt Lottich 6.3 per game at .382
Chris Hernandez 5.3 per game at .472

He also had great 3 pt shooters like Casey Jacobsen, Josh Childress, Curtis Borchardt but they were more traditional highly rated recruits. The guys that were his "moneyball" especially early on, were the undervalued guys that could just shoot the 3. He combined them with big guys that could hit the weights, rebound, defend and set picks for the shooters, or score on a pick and roll.

Mark Few has a similar history, one of the reasons he wanted Jordan Mathews.

Braun's teams didn't do a good job getting shots for great 3 point shooters like Omar Wilkes and Theo Robertson.

Cal is currently #183 in 3pt% at .334
we are #64 in three point attempts.
The two grad transfers are our best 3pt shooters (though Brown and Celestine have hit a higher percentage, i'd Like to see more evidence).

calumnus said:

---

One of the keys to Mike Montgomery's success at Stanford, which pretty much coincided with the adoption of the 3 pt line in 1986, was his recognition of the value of the 3 point shot. He recruited a series of shooting guards, who were not very athletic, might not be able to create their own shot, but could shoot lights out from 3 so he would set an off the ball pick to get them a shot:
Peter Dukes 5.8 per game at .470
Dion Cross 5.9 per game at .480
Chris Weems 5.2 per game at .426
David Mosley 5.0 per game at .449
Ryan Mendez 3.6 per game at .420
Michael macDonald 3.2 per game at .514
Matt Lottich 6.3 per game at .382
Chris Hernandez 5.3 per game at .472

He also had great 3 pt shooters like Casey Jacobsen, Josh Childress, Curtis Borchardt but they were more traditional highly rated recruits. The guys that were his "moneyball" especially early on, were the undervalued guys that could just shoot the 3. He combined them with big guys that could hit the weights, rebound, defend and set picks for the shooters, or score on a pick and roll.

Mark Few has a similar history, one of the reasons he wanted Jordan Mathews.

Braun's teams didn't do a good job getting shots for great 3 point shooters like Omar Wilkes and Theo Robertson.

Cal is currently #183 in 3pt% at .334
we are #64 in three point attempts.
The two grad transfers are our best 3pt shooters (though Brown and Celestine have hit a higher percentage, i'd Like to see more evidence).

---

good post.
agree Monty had some ace shooters at stanford (and some elite wings like Childress), but seemed like what really made everything work was a strong post player. Seemed like their offense always involved a strong inside/out game

as for understanding the importance of 3 point shooting, that was my biggest complaint about Martin's offense. He had 2 elite three point shooters on the team yet our offense was always about Jaylen, Ivan and Wallace. That team had a lot of offensive firepower with it's starting five, but we didn't utilize it's shooting as much as we should have

Colorado scouted Cal well, as Cal doesn't defend the 3 very well at all. 12 of 21, 57%. Insane. They shot 53% from 2-point. If I was Tad Boyle, I wouldn't even have bothered with 2-point shots!

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

One of the keys to Mike Montgomery's success at Stanford, which pretty much coincided with the adoption of the 3 pt line in 1986, was his recognition of the value of the 3 point shot. He recruited a series of shooting guards, who were not very athletic, might not be able to create their own shot, but could shoot lights out from 3 so he would set an off the ball pick to get them a shot:
Peter Dukes 5.8 per game at .470
Dion Cross 5.9 per game at .480
Chris Weems 5.2 per game at .426
David Mosley 5.0 per game at .449
Ryan Mendez 3.6 per game at .420
Michael macDonald 3.2 per game at .514
Matt Lottich 6.3 per game at .382
Chris Hernandez 5.3 per game at .472

He also had great 3 pt shooters like Casey Jacobsen, Josh Childress, Curtis Borchardt but they were more traditional highly rated recruits. The guys that were his "moneyball" especially early on, were the undervalued guys that could just shoot the 3. He combined them with big guys that could hit the weights, rebound, defend and set picks for the shooters, or score on a pick and roll.

Mark Few has a similar history, one of the reasons he wanted Jordan Mathews.

Braun's teams didn't do a good job getting shots for great 3 point shooters like Omar Wilkes and Theo Robertson.

Cal is currently #183 in 3pt% at .334
we are #64 in three point attempts.
The two grad transfers are our best 3pt shooters (though Brown and Celestine have hit a higher percentage, i'd Like to see more evidence).

---

good post.
agree Monty had some ace shooters at stanford (and some elite wings like Childress), but seemed like what really made everything work was a strong post player. Seemed like their offense always involved a strong inside/out game

as for understanding the importance of 3 point shooting, that was my biggest complaint about Martin's offense. He had 2 elite three point shooters on the team yet our offense was always about Jaylen, Ivan and Wallace. That team had a lot of offensive firepower with it's starting five, but we didn't utilize it's shooting as much as we should have

---

I agree with most of this, except I think Martin's 2016 team did shoot enough threes per game. I think they just didn't have the right players shooting them. Brown, Wallace, Singer, and Domingo all shot threes at 30% or less, and should not have had all the green lights that they did. Cal had only two players who could be relied upon to make a three, Mathews and Bird, and one of those, Mathews could not create his own shot. Mathews was a born three point shooter, while Bird more or less learned it at Cal. He did not have an elite three point shot when he arrived at Cal. He did, however, have an elite mid-range to short range game, which Martin failed to utilize. Interesting too that Cuonzo's teams averaged more three point attempts than Mike Montgomery's Cal teams, 18.3 to 14.6 per game. Cal's offense was limited when Mathews or Bird came out of the game, because they had less options for three point shots. My biggest complaint was Cuonzo's lack of teamwork, depending too much on individual plays, and especially his "Take it to the rim offense".

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

One of the keys to Mike Montgomery's success at Stanford, which pretty much coincided with the adoption of the 3 pt line in 1986, was his recognition of the value of the 3 point shot. He recruited a series of shooting guards, who were not very athletic, might not be able to create their own shot, but could shoot lights out from 3 so he would set an off the ball pick to get them a shot:
Peter Dukes 5.8 per game at .470
Dion Cross 5.9 per game at .480
Chris Weems 5.2 per game at .426
David Mosley 5.0 per game at .449
Ryan Mendez 3.6 per game at .420
Michael macDonald 3.2 per game at .514
Matt Lottich 6.3 per game at .382
Chris Hernandez 5.3 per game at .472

He also had great 3 pt shooters like Casey Jacobsen, Josh Childress, Curtis Borchardt but they were more traditional highly rated recruits. The guys that were his "moneyball" especially early on, were the undervalued guys that could just shoot the 3. He combined them with big guys that could hit the weights, rebound, defend and set picks for the shooters, or score on a pick and roll.

Mark Few has a similar history, one of the reasons he wanted Jordan Mathews.

Braun's teams didn't do a good job getting shots for great 3 point shooters like Omar Wilkes and Theo Robertson.

Cal is currently #183 in 3pt% at .334
we are #64 in three point attempts.
The two grad transfers are our best 3pt shooters (though Brown and Celestine have hit a higher percentage, i'd Like to see more evidence).

---

good post.
agree Monty had some ace shooters at stanford (and some elite wings like Childress), but seemed like what really made everything work was a strong post player. Seemed like their offense always involved a strong inside/out game

as for understanding the importance of 3 point shooting, that was my biggest complaint about Martin's offense. He had 2 elite three point shooters on the team yet our offense was always about Jaylen, Ivan and Wallace. That team had a lot of offensive firepower with it's starting five, but we didn't utilize it's shooting as much as we should have

---

I agree with most of this, except I think Martin's 2016 team did shoot enough threes per game. I think they just didn't have the right players shooting them. Brown, Wallace, Singer, and Domingo all shot threes at 30% or less, and should not have had all the green lights that they did. Cal had only two players who could be relied upon to make a three, Mathews and Bird, and one of those, Mathews could not create his own shot. Mathews was a born three point shooter, while Bird more or less learned it at Cal. He did not have an elite three point shot when he arrived at Cal. He did, however, have an elite mid-range to short range game, which Martin failed to utilize. Interesting too that Cuonzo's teams averaged more three point attempts than Mike Montgomery's Cal teams, 18.3 to 14.6 per game. Cal's offense was limited when Mathews or Bird came out of the game, because they had less options for three point shots. My biggest complaint was Cuonzo's lack of teamwork, depending too much on individual plays, and especially his "Take it to the rim offense".

---

good point. I agree. although that team had two elite 3 point shooters, it dropped off fast from there. these days you need more than 2 good three point shooters

I remember the 3 point shot coming to the NBA in 1979. Amazing that it took the NBA 35 years to properly understand how to utilize it. I guess that was quicker than the NFL learned to go for it on 4th down.

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

One of the keys to Mike Montgomery's success at Stanford, which pretty much coincided with the adoption of the 3 pt line in 1986, was his recognition of the value of the 3 point shot. He recruited a series of shooting guards, who were not very athletic, might not be able to create their own shot, but could shoot lights out from 3 so he would set an off the ball pick to get them a shot:
Peter Dukes 5.8 per game at .470
Dion Cross 5.9 per game at .480
Chris Weems 5.2 per game at .426
David Mosley 5.0 per game at .449
Ryan Mendez 3.6 per game at .420
Michael macDonald 3.2 per game at .514
Matt Lottich 6.3 per game at .382
Chris Hernandez 5.3 per game at .472

He also had great 3 pt shooters like Casey Jacobsen, Josh Childress, Curtis Borchardt but they were more traditional highly rated recruits. The guys that were his "moneyball" especially early on, were the undervalued guys that could just shoot the 3. He combined them with big guys that could hit the weights, rebound, defend and set picks for the shooters, or score on a pick and roll.

Mark Few has a similar history, one of the reasons he wanted Jordan Mathews.

Braun's teams didn't do a good job getting shots for great 3 point shooters like Omar Wilkes and Theo Robertson.

Cal is currently #183 in 3pt% at .334
we are #64 in three point attempts.
The two grad transfers are our best 3pt shooters (though Brown and Celestine have hit a higher percentage, i'd Like to see more evidence).

---

good post.
agree Monty had some ace shooters at stanford (and some elite wings like Childress), but seemed like what really made everything work was a strong post player. Seemed like their offense always involved a strong inside/out game

as for understanding the importance of 3 point shooting, that was my biggest complaint about Martin's offense. He had 2 elite three point shooters on the team yet our offense was always about Jaylen, Ivan and Wallace. That team had a lot of offensive firepower with it's starting five, but we didn't utilize it's shooting as much as we should have

---

I agree with most of this, except I think Martin's 2016 team did shoot enough threes per game. I think they just didn't have the right players shooting them. Brown, Wallace, Singer, and Domingo all shot threes at 30% or less, and should not have had all the green lights that they did. Cal had only two players who could be relied upon to make a three, Mathews and Bird, and one of those, Mathews could not create his own shot. Mathews was a born three point shooter, while Bird more or less learned it at Cal. He did not have an elite three point shot when he arrived at Cal. He did, however, have an elite mid-range to short range game, which Martin failed to utilize. Interesting too that Cuonzo's teams averaged more three point attempts than Mike Montgomery's Cal teams, 18.3 to 14.6 per game. Cal's offense was limited when Mathews or Bird came out of the game, because they had less options for three point shots. My biggest complaint was Cuonzo's lack of teamwork, depending too much on individual plays, and especially his "Take it to the rim offense".

---

For different reasons, I think each of these four had trouble translating their shooting prowess into games, while at Cal.

Brown was so good at other things, that the 3 seemed lower on his priority list.
Wallace had clunky mechanics and was very good at driving, but his 3 actually seemed to improve over time.
Domingo had lots of anecdotes about what a great shooter he was, but his total game never seemed to materialize at Cal.
Singer just had the yips for his last two seasons.

BeachedBear said:

---

Singer just had the yips for his last two seasons.

---

Pretty sure those yips were throughout is career. I remember him airballing his first free-throw, lol.

sluggo said:

---

I remember the 3 point shot coming to the NBA in 1979. Amazing that it took the NBA 35 years to properly understand how to utilize it. I guess that was quicker than the NFL learned to go for it on 4th down.

---

The conservative mindset is hard to shake. Fear of failure, however unlikely, often trumps opportunity. Many of us are old enough to remember when the conventional wisdom of many coaches with respect to the forward pass was summed up: Only 3 things can happen and 2 are bad".

59bear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

I remember the 3 point shot coming to the NBA in 1979. Amazing that it took the NBA 35 years to properly understand how to utilize it. I guess that was quicker than the NFL learned to go for it on 4th down.

---

The conservative mindset is hard to shake. Fear of failure, however unlikely, often trumps opportunity. Many of us are old enough to remember when the conventional wisdom of many coaches with respect to the forward pass was summed up: Only 3 things can happen and 2 are bad".

---

I don't like the three point shot, and what it has done to the game I loved. Oh, the shot is fine, it always has been. and it has been in basketball since the invention of the game, as all shots were worth 2 points. I took advantage of the long range shot to earn a spot on basketball teams, when I couldn't do much else, and no one else could make them as well as I could in tryouts. What I don't like is the powers who make the rules deciding that they would decree that an artificial line would be painted on all courts, and shots made from behind that line would be given an extra point. This led to many instances where players had to take their eye off the basket and the defenders, and the game to look down at the floor and check where the line is and if their feet are safely positioned behind it before they launched their shot. There were instances of players inside the line running to get behind the line where the shot was worth an extra point. Teams with good outside shooters began to stand around and not run plays more complicated than tossing the ball around until it reached a shooter standing there wide open. Maybe I am conservative if I say that was not basketball. Anyway, all of this is still happening today, but less often, and players are finally getting used to where the circle is, and they don't have to look at the floor as often to find it. The whole idea of the artificial circle is one change that makes the game less interesting for some older fans, because there is much less movement of the players. I have a friend who always felt that the dunk should be worth 1 point, because it was such a simple shot.

Basketball has a lot of artificial features, many of which have changed or are new. The key used to be maybe 5 feet wide when I began playing as a kid in the '50s. Then along came Bill Russell and Wilt and they widened it, to where it was no longer resembled a keyhole, just to restrict those players' advantage, and keep them from hanging out in the paint. Because Russell began soaring above the rim and guiding his USF teammates' shots into the basket, a rule was made to keep players from touching a ball inside an imaginary cylinder. Kareem came along, and even though there were many players dunking, they banned the dunk, to take away his advantage. Now the dunk has returned. Then they decreed that a little semi-circle be painted on the floor near the basket to stop defenders who had perfected the flop to draw a charge close to the basket, and now we have players again looking down to see where their feet are, and make sure they are outside that little artificial line so the won't get called for a block. It really used to take tremendous skill to score over a Russell or a Chamberlain, and if they were playing today, they might laugh at the puny response to make it easier to score over them.

There are other screwball changes, like almost the complete elimination of the jump ball, which took away a lot of strategy from coaches. That change was probably necessary, because the players were much taller and could jump higher than most players of yore, and the shorter referees were having trouble throwing the ball up much higher, while still keeping it a perfectly vertical toss, and not giving either player an advantage. And finally, I'll end this rant with a question: What has happened to the half-court or mid-court line? Schools are painting designs on the floor, or using darker paints and the line is hard to find if it is still there. Last time I was in Haas, I couldn't see it. And on TV, it looks like Oregon's arena doesn't have a line either.

Maybe basketball isn't the most artificial game now, but it is fast getting there. I'm still a sucker for the the game, and like to see enough parts of it to still watch games, but not as much as I used to. It would help if Cal had a winning team again, and it might make it easier for me to swallow all these changes.

thanks SF for the history of the evolution of basketball

a comment on a few of the changes:

- my understanding was the semi circle under the basket was a safety thing. Also it was always there, but just not drawn, forcing refs to make judgements in the already impossible to ref game

- i don't like the jump ball except at the beginning of the game because it means that smaller players (e.g. guards) barely benefit from tying up a front court player. It also slows down the game

thoughts?

Hoop dreams:
Agree with the alternating possession jump ball tie up rule as in college.


SFCBear:
1. Threat of credible 3 offense forces defense to spread out, which opens lane for traditional bigs on the block like Wilt OR slashers like Mike. No more packing the paint with 5 defenders.

2. A larger percentage of missed 3's turn into O-boards than missed 2's. Long rebounds.

= So, when taking into account the MATH of equivalent shooting percentages, one should account for the two points above. Shooting the 3 is not just worth more in and of itself, it aides the 2's, and gives you a "refund" value as well.

Not sure if I read that anywhere above.

"It has been reported that former LSU coach Dale Brown charted every shot Maravich scored and concluded that, if his shots from three-point range had been counted as three points, Maravich's average would have totaled 57 points per game." Wikipedia

" In only three years playing on the varsity team (and under his father's coaching) at LSU, Maravich scored 3,667 points 1,138 of those in 1967-68 1,148 in 1968-69, and 1,381 in 1969-70 while averaging 43.8, 44.2, and 44.5 points per game, respectively. For his collegiate career, the 6'5" (1.96 m) guard averaged 44.2 points per game in 83 contests and led the NCAA in scoring for each of his three seasons." Wikipedia

Thinking of offense, does anyone remember Loyola Marymount 1990. Did they mostly use the 3 pointer when they averaged 122 a game?

Man they were fun to watch back then. I saw the game at USF which Loyola won. Think they scored around 140 that night. USF wasn't too shabby either, scoring over 120. Kimble, Gather, Fryer, and others. USF would score, but Loyola would be back downcourt with a shot up sometimes within 5 seconds.

I looked up the USF games; LM won 157-115 at home and 137-123 in SF. I was at the NCAA western regional's in Oakland when they beat Alabama 62-60. Alabama's coach Wimp Sanderson, slowed down the game and even ordered his team to stop any of their own fast breaks regardless. Never saw a team so emasculated by their coach. Of course the next day, UNLV killed LM in the finals on the way to winning the NCAA that year

Yes, we were there also. Behind one of the baskets in the Coliseum. IIRC, UNLV/Ball State was the other game played there.
No love for UNLV, but happy they destroyed Duke in the final.

The NBA Is Literally Becoming a Make-or-Miss League - The Ringer


https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting

bearister said:

---

The NBA Is Literally Becoming a Make-or-Miss League - The Ringer


https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting

---

Interesting. I'm looking for a job. I used to be able to shoot from downtown. I wonder if any team would give me a uni? The NBA line might be a reach, as I've lost some muscle tone over the years (about 50 of 'em), but I think a few weeks in the weight room and I can be ready. As long as I don't get hurt lifting the weights.

bearister said:

---

The NBA Is Literally Becoming a Make-or-Miss League - The Ringer


https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting

---

I've argued that Cal's strategy should be to load up on 3 point shooters. the problem is I think we've done that, but those 3 point shooters haven't knocked them down (when they have shot well, we've won the game or came close to beating a better team)

however the biggest problem is we've been terrible at defending the 3.

the thing about WSU's Williams is he started off 4-4 from 3 (finished 4-6) and then on defense uses his length to make it tough to shoot over

2K has this potential, and made Williams miss a couple shots. Hopefully 2K can turn into a similar player for us