APBRmetrics

Mike G wrote:3-point specialists are among the weakest offensive rebounders in the league, at any position.
They're almost as bad at defensive rebounding.

3-point leading teams are among the weakest OReb teams, in general. Not surprising, given that their 3-pt shooters are almost all weak at OReb.

3-pt teams are also worse than avg in the TO department.

Given these facts, how is it possible that 3FGx are rebounded by offense as often as 2FGx?

\

My guess is that 3pt shots that are missed often lead to longer rebounds, away from the other teams big men who are underneath the basket and have a superior rebounding advantage

Mike G wrote:(1) 3-point specialists are among the weakest offensive rebounders in the league, at any position.
(2) They're almost as bad at defensive rebounding.

(3) Given these facts, how is it possible that 3FGx are rebounded by offense as often as 2FGx?

I think the first point is obvious: someone who spends a significant amount of time near the 3-pt line is less likely to be in good position for an offensive rebound.

The 2nd point is most likely due to selection bias. Players that are bad at defensive rebounding only get playing time because they excel at something else, in this case 3-pt shooting

I agree with italia13calcio that 3-pt shots probably lead to longer rebounds, but I'm also guessing that having a 3-pt shooter on your team might make it more likely for his teammates to crash the boards - if the 3pt shot was an 'Above the break 3', then the person shooting it is (hopefully) already providing defense against fast breaks. Players, who would otherwise shoulder that duty, might be more willing to crash the offensive board

I understand your perspective v-zero. Perhaps I should have left it that some including me would prefer to ideally work with a comparison that included turnover rates.

Here's a hypothetical game between 2 teams, one of which is all 3-point specialists, and the other doesn't shoot many 3's. Both teams rebounded a better % of their own missed 3's than 2's.

But the totals are: 20% of missed 3's and 40% of missed 2's were offensively rebounded.

Mike G wrote:Last season's team correlations with 3PAr (3fga/FGA)

Code: Select all

TS%        .649        OpTO%     .101 
eFG%       .644        OpFT/FGA  .084 
ORtg       .484        DRtg      .014
Pace       .372        SOS       .001
PythW      .317        Op.eFG%  -.085
MOV        .315        
SRS        .312        DReb%    -.352
Age        .295        OReb%    -.364
Attendance .286            
FT/FGA     .284            
FTr        .247            
TO%        .240            

I have to say that I'm a little confused about all the debate. Kirk Goldsberry presented data that 3 pointers do generate longer rebounds, but by all of about a foot (http://grantland.com/features/how-rebounds-work/). And Mike's already run correlations, copied above. Whether by design or happenstance, teams that take a lot of threes tend to take more free throws while turning the ball over more and rebounding it less. But, the increase in shooting efficiency is enough to outweigh those problems. So presumably if you are a team like those teams that have previously taken a good proportion of threes, you should also try to take a good proportion of threes. Maybe the question should be if the Lakers are the kind of team that can generate a good proportion of threes?

So, here are the Lakers' 3-pt shooters' 2014 stats:These players totaled 1219 3FGA last year, or 14.87 per game -- only Mem and NOP shot fewer.
Their combined .359 accuracy, however, is NBA avg. So they could be shooting more of them.

The problem is, there are too many guys listed as SG. Yes, Kobe could get more minutes; but only at the expense of others'.
Loading the lineup with 3-pt shooters, they get fewer rebounds, etc.

With minutes I've assigned them, at the rates shown, they would attempt 18.6 per game.