Hacker News Reader

Comment by exDM69 | Hacker News Reader

How curious that there's a band of no shots that's right on the three point line. But then there are plenty of shots a foot closer to the hoop.

The explanation is probably psychological, you don't want to take shots that are as about as difficult as 3 point shots, but worth only two. But the situation isn't really any better if you take a single step forwards.

Of course, the positioning of the defensive players matters, they're usually just inside the 3 point line.

View on HN

Isn't it just that if you're half a step away from 3 points, you might as well take the half a step back and try for 3 instead of 2 with a shot that's pretty much the same in difficulty?

Yeah, but a jump shot is more difficult after a step backwards. Perhaps it isn't if you're Kobe Bryant? :)

It definitely isn't if you're James Harden.

> But the situation isn't really any better if you take a single step forwards.

Not following your logic...

A step forward doesn't take you that much closer to make the shot significantly easier. Of course, you're a little closer but not that much.

A step backwards moves your balance and you have momentum backwards so getting an immediate upright jump shot without losing power/accuracy is more difficult.

Two different things at play here. At least this is my experience as a former competitive basketball player...

I think it's situational and individual. For a big man catching the ball at the top of the key, looking for an opportunity to drive is the logical thought, but if you're a point/shooting guard, you're much more likely (through a combination of training, psychology and physical attributes) to move laterally or take a step back. And beyond the individual level, there's the near-universal truth that a spread floor is better than cramping everyone in the lane.

Wing players that are trying to represent a consistent dual threat of slashing or shooting shoot a high volume from that range. Often times you only have half a second to get the shot off with good balance.

I think it's more like they are going for a three point shot, and want to make sure it's actually in the three point area. Pretty wasteful being just over the line, and only getting two for the effort.

You two are saying the same thing (and are both right).

He's (presumably) trying to maximize points per possession. His shooting percentage is a decreasing function with respect to distance from the basket. And there's a jump in the "shot made reward function" at the 3 point line.

It's called practice. That area for a shooter is no-mans land. They either will setup outside the 3pt line or significantly inside the 3pt line. It is simply a spot no shooter, and particularly one like Kobe, would ever setup and wait for a pass or call for the ball from.

Not only practice, but also training. Every shooting coach in the league will tell you that the deep two is the worst shot in basketball. Kobe had it drilled into his head since he was seven years old that you never shoot a deep two.

I wonder if we'll ever see a maverick player perform well because he's taking these shots, trains for them, specialises in them, positions for them, in a world where defenders train supposing you'll position differently, and reposition rather than take the shot if you happen to receive a ball in a deep two position.

Probably not. Training for 3-pointers gets you 50% more points for (from what the outside seems like) a basically equivalent training perspective.

If you could shoot 100% deep twos, you'd only need to make 67% of 3-pointers to make it better to shoot 3's. The typical FG% is about 60% for layups, and 40% for 3's. You'd have to get better at these deep 2's than layups to make this worthwhile!

You won't because you're making it even easier on the defense. Trying to optimize for that spot would screw up the positioning for everyone else on your team. The defending team would have it easy because you've essentially killed all chance for high post plays, PnRs, and a good number of cut/backdoor type plays. It would take far more time than I have to breakdown the why, but the main factors off the top of my head are:

1. Remember the NBA has legal zone defense.

2. Additionally, help defense is a lot easier in today's NBA. Forced isolations would be very difficult and even if you do it, there is less ground b/w help defense and the attacker.

3. You have many more quick and/or lengthy 3&D type wings in the NBA today. Help and close-outs are easier.

4. Long shots mean long rebounds. Putting wings one step in means the offensive team would lose out on one of the main disadvantages of zones - inability to secure defensive rebounds.

5. That one player will also be a liability on transition D. He will always be one step behind in case the opposing team forces a TO and runs.

That's just scratching the surface, but there is a reason it's called no-man's land for shooters.

we talkin' bout practice?!!

A long two is the worst shot in basketball from an analytics perspective. I know that sounds incredibly obvious, but it's one biggest changes to game theory that the basketball analytics wave brought.

I'd say most of the time you're open in that band, you have time to take a step back and shoot behind the line.

I'd guess the few shots that are in that band came off of screens where you only have a brief moment to get a shot off.

I read this as: if he's outside of the 3-point line and open, it's in his best interest to get as close to the line as possible and take the shot. He'll never intentionally step just over that line and degrade down to a two pointer. This fact should really reduce the number of shots in the "just over the line" zone.

As you go in a bit, I suspect it's much less likely that he would have started open outside the arc. If a three isn't an option he would take the easiest shot available wherever it was, and "easiest" usually means "closer (if open)".

And finally, if he's just inside the arc and wide open, he's going to have time to move a step back to try the three.

So I think there are few situations where it would make sense to take the shot just inside the arc.

Well the defensive player guarding Kobe better be positioned next to Kobe!

Really, all the positioning is dictated by the offense. Defense ends up just inside the 3-point line because the offensive player sets up just outside the 3-point line, not the other way around.

Kobe (and pretty much all basketball players) are continuously planning how they will get open and where they will shoot from. Part of that plan is the knowledge that an almost-but-not-quite-3-pointer is a really dumb shot. So they'll usually catch the ball at the 3-point line and either shoot or dribble substantially closer to the basket.

This is true. But I've noticed that when playing basketball I'm more willing to give a shooter an open shot in this area than behind the arc or a few steps inside of it.

It made me realize why some players are willing to take a shot with one foot behind the line: because they're open!

I thought that was really interesting as well and would love to see if it hold true for other players.

It would, yes. Players are taught young a foot on the line is the "worst shot in basketball".

Guards are more likely to let down their defense if you step inside the 2-pointer zone, but are not close to the hoop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com