APBRmetrics

I would be grateful for any collective common-sense wisdom, research knowledge, or Internet linkage you could provide to answer the above question.

Try to think about this from the perspective of low-level high school basketball. Take three shooters of equal skill and experience, in a controlled setting. One is shooting threes from the corner, one from the wing, and one from the top of the key. In the high school game, it’s the same distance all around the arc 19’9”.

Is one of those three locations objectively, statistically better than the other two?

Is it easier to make a ‘lucky’ 3-pointer (unintentionally hits backboard or rim) from the wing, or the top of the key?

(In the NBA, i know the corner 3 is a statistical darling, but it’s also the shortest 3-point attempt around the arc at that level of play. Basically, my hypothesis is that the corner 3 is objectively a worse shot than any other 3-point attempt at the high school level, because the dimensions are the same and the corner 3 can’t possibly benefit from rim/backboard usage, even via luck, the way 3-point attempts from the wing or the top of the arc can).

I’m looking at this from the angle of coaching strategy. I cannot influence the fact that the three-point line dimensions are 19’9” all the way around, but I am wondering if it could be proven (or, even better, has already been proven) that the corner 3 is a suboptimal shot at the high school level for that reason.

If so, that’s some data I could present to players and fellow coaches. i.e., “Here’s why we tend to avoid that spot on the floor offensively, and instead build our offense around wing three-point attempts,” or, “here’s why our zone defense is intentionally soft in the corners - the data shows that’s the hardest shot to hit in high school basketball…”

Thoughts?


Thank you for your feedback guys.

I don't know personally of any research on this. Someone with a shot location database could probably query this... Evan?

It would need to be bins of equal length shots, with equivalent shot types (spot-up, off dribble).


As for the question--I doubt that there is a large difference.

I would suspect a larger difference based on shot type: spot-up>>off dribble. And making sure one's foot is not on the line--a shot anywhere near the 3 point line would be better off taken behind it.

I've seen a lot of corner shots that hit the front of the rim, go off the backboard and through the net.
I thought that was one of the reasons it's a better than average shot, for the distance.

Because it's away from the active middle of the court, it's suitable for players who are not effective near or in front of the basket. It spreads the floor, opening up the middle. Some guys have no offense other than the corner shot.

A diverse offense takes whatever the defense will give. If your opponent has a player who is good from the corner, he may thrive on that.

DSMok1 wrote:I don't know personally of any research on this. Someone with a shot location database could probably query this... Evan?

It would need to be bins of equal length shots, with equivalent shot types (spot-up, off dribble).


As for the question--I doubt that there is a large difference.

I would suspect a larger difference based on shot type: spot-up>>off dribble. And making sure one's foot is not on the line--a shot anywhere near the 3 point line would be better off taken behind it.

I tend to agree with this, and would even go a step further, and say that it's probably not a great idea to "teach" any general sort of floor location preference as a rule. The best floor location is where you can get the best shot for yourself (or your team). If that's a 16-23 footer, then you probably need some better players or better coaching to draw up better plays.

(And the opposing team's scouting report on your team would be super simple if they figured out you preferred one or two floor locations, anyway.)

I think this from Vantage Sports was some interesting evidence that the percentages on the corner 3 may be more about how they're taken than distance:
http://blog.cacvantage.com/2013/02/How- ... fense.html

In analyzing college hoops, my sense is that floor spacing would be a crucial consideration because transition defenses tend to be so bad. That is a criticism of the corner 3 at higher levels.

Thanks for your feedback and links, guys. I am very grateful.

To clarify Kevin's last point: "floor spacing would be a crucial consideration because transition defenses tend to be so bad. That is a criticism of the corner 3 at higher levels."

By this Kevin means: corner 3's are more likely to lead to transition opportunities the other way, because the shooter struggles to get back on D...and therefore, if I utilize the corner 3 in my offense regularly as a high school coach, make sure there's an offensive player at the top of the arc when the shot is taken to get back on D? Does that sound correct?

Thanks again everyone. I really appreciate your thoughts on this. I'd like to be a good coach that utilizes the stuff I've learned statistically about higher levels of basketball and make applications that benefit my team at a lower level.

Ken Pomeroy just took a look at this for college basketball.

Three Point Accuracy by Shot Angle

There is no distance bias as the college line is 20" 9' from the basket all the way around. And the corner three is still the most accurate, while the wing is the least accurate.

boooeee wrote:Ken Pomeroy just took a look at this for college basketball.

Three Point Accuracy by Shot Angle

There is no distance bias as the college line is 20" 9' from the basket all the way around. And the corner three is still the most accurate, while the wing is the least accurate.

That is a good study, but still has some potential for bias, both in shot type (spot-up vs. off dribble) and potentially shooter ID (shooters hang out in the corners, maybe?).

The CAC vantage study Kevin mentioned ( http://blog.cacvantage.com/2013/02/How- ... fense.html ) touched on the guardedness/shot type issues, but did not deal with player ID or distance issues.

DSMok1 wrote:

boooeee wrote:Ken Pomeroy just took a look at this for college basketball.

Three Point Accuracy by Shot Angle

There is no distance bias as the college line is 20" 9' from the basket all the way around. And the corner three is still the most accurate, while the wing is the least accurate.

That is a good study, but still has some potential for bias, both in shot type (spot-up vs. off dribble) and potentially shooter ID (shooters hang out in the corners, maybe?).

The CAC vantage study Kevin mentioned ( http://blog.cacvantage.com/2013/02/How- ... fense.html ) touched on the guardedness/shot type issues, but did not deal with player ID or distance issues.

Agreed on the bias. Does anybody compile statistics on three point shooting contests? That would be another method of removing the guarded/off the dribble bias (although an imperfect one)

Notsellingjeans - If you want to get really scientific, why not run an experiment and collect data? Have your players take a fixed number of unguarded shots from the corner, wing, and key and see how their accuracy varies.

I'm an assistant high-school coach and have been using various metrics for 6 seasons now. This off-season I intend to analyze more closely the shot selection data that I've collected. Similar to what others have posted, thus far I have found that location is less important than type of shot. The best shots are uncontested, feet set, etc. no matter the location on the 3-point line.

Overall, and I'm sure this goes without saying in this community, by far the worst shots in high school basketball are any 2-point shot taken outside of the key and basket area. Even high division-1 prospects are generally extremely inefficient in the mid-range areas of the high school court. There aren't many, but I can tell that some high school coaches almost forbid these shots, their teams take a high proportion of 3-pointers and shots around the basket. I think this teaching is somewhat ahead of the curve, in general, in high school. I find these teams can be difficult to defend because they spread the floor well and then attack the basket aggressively when they venture into 2-point territory. It puts a lot of pressure on the defense.

Again, a lot of this I'm sure is very common sense, but the concepts of floor spacing and shot selection are still often not executed well at the high school level.

Thanks again for the great feedback guys. I plan to start recording data on this next season. This response is a bit long-winded, because I literally thinking through a coaching strategic philosophy going forward with your help. Thanks for staying with it.

Basically, I am re-thinking how I would construct a defensive and offensive philosophy based upon what I have learned statistically about the game over the last 3 years (which, to my chagrin, means "un-learning" some beliefs that were ingrained into me from my playing days by coaches). The post in this same thread right above this one from a fellow hs coach hits the nail on the head for me:

*getting to the rim as much as possible, offensively
*drive and kick for open 3's, while eschewing a mid-range game. To do this, I think I pretty much have to station someone in one of the corners, which, based upon this thread, is fine, because there's no evidence to suggest that the corner three is objectively a worse shot. I like having a player there for two reasons: a.) floor spacing, and b.) because the dribble-penetrator can make a later decision on the kick-out when they are kicking to the corner. In a low-level high school offense, that player in the corner might be limited skill-wise - not a creator, not exceptionally quick, not a dribbler. Their one function in the offense is to shoot an open 3 if the ball is kicked to them. The ball shouldn't even be passed to them if they aren't open enough to shoot, because that puts one of our inferior dribblers/passers in a position where they are vulnerable to be trapped.

Perhaps most important to my (still evolving) philosophy:
*defensively, run shooters off the three-point line at all costs IF they are in a catch-and-shoot, feet-set situation. That means occasionally making closeouts that are out-of-control, and allowing a blow-by. But my hypothesis is that high-school shooters are dramatically worse off the dribble than with their feet set off a pass - even more pronounced than the difference at the higher levels.

So, what does a high school defense look like that incorporates this as it's guiding philosophy? I'm thinking a 3-1-1 zone, where my bottom player (tall, immobile) defends any pass to the post, my middle player defends any dribble penetration that gets past the first line of defense as well as the pass to the high post (which is what most hs offenses use to combat a zone), and the three top guys have the responsibly of never allowing a catch-and-shoot three (and dropping into the key and rebounding when they are on the weakside).

The hope would be to funnel the ball to the baseline for wide open mid-range 2's or even long 2's. That is an area of the court that I literally don't intend to cover, in the hopes that every other region of the half-court is covered exceptionally well.

I'm still not sure how that defense would defend the corner 3, especially off a pass from the wing. Probably having the center defender (the "middle" player in the 3-1-1) responsible for getting all the way out there...but only enough to stop the catch-and-shoot 3, so it can be somewhat of a wildly aggressive closeout, rather than choppy steps. If the ball is funneled into a baseline dribble drive in that situation, it is headed right into my one post defender. So basically I am allowing a pull-up baseline long 2 off the dribble at will.

Now, you have to assume this is all for the purposes of low-level high school basketball. So none of the players on the court are running around picket fence screens with all their momentum moving away from the basket, catching a pass, and launching shots. They don't have the body strength or athleticism to do that. They also don't have the athleticism to finish at the rim when they are driving baseline (if you've watched the college women's game, you can picture this). That's part of the motive for having one stationary shooter positioned in the corner, and the rest of the action moving toward the hoop (i.e., preferring back screens instead of pin-downs, and preferring on-ball screens rather than screening away from the ball).

There's more specialization here than the typical high school coach/strategy: 1) the one lumbering, tall player doesn't have to sprint to the corners on defense but instead covers every post pass without fronting; 2.) 1-2 of your offensive players should be shooting corner 3's for at least 30 minutes a day in practice, knowing that's their primary role in the offense, etc. But the payoff (in theory) would be that roles are more clearly defined, players are being asked to do things more within in their very narrow skillset at this lower high school level, AND spacing is improved, because players have specific areas of the court that they occupy (a similar concept to Dick Bennett's mover-blocker offense).

This is a far cry from the strict man-to-man only defense, and 3 out-2 in motion offense, that I was taught as a kid, where basically every player is required/expected to have an equal skill set and all perform the same tasks for it to succeed. I was basically taught as a kid that "movement is everything offensively," but I think that sometimes leads to movement without purpose, overcrowding specific parts of the court, and putting players into situations where they are non-threats. I now believe that "spacing is everything." I don't want players who can't shoot ever catching the ball above the 3-pt. line, or players who can't move laterally (but CAN defend the rim) ever defending a quick player on the perimeter. Instead, I want to optimize players in the areas of the court they can be most successful.

What would be your honest reactions/thoughts about these strategies/tactics as a guiding philosophy?

I'm no coach, so I don't want to comment on that as I'm not qualified to say, but I will say that what you have described is virtually exactly how the Rockets have been playing this season, very successfully, so if at any point you sit and watch tape, you may well be able to get examples from their games, which might also encourage the players into fulfilling their roles given that a star like James Harden plays so well in such a system.

Interesting post, notsellingjeans. Overall, I like the thought process of putting players in positions that suit their strengths (ie, set shooters on the perimeter, post players running to the rim, concepts like that).

I do agree with getting guys off the 3-point line if possible. However, a contested 3 is better than a player driving with a lane to the basket. We do teach hard/aggressive closeouts, but not so much so that you're blowing by a shooter. Strongly contested 3's are only made at about 20% or less, so if you're usually not defending great shooters, a contested 3 is usually good for the defense.

A defense you might be interested in, and that we use at times, is a 1-1-3 zone popularized by Bob Huggins. A link to it's basic concepts is below, and there plenty of books, videos, etc on it if you're looking for more info.

http://coachingbetterbball.blogspot.com ... fense.html