I wish Skiles had provided a bit of a rationale for his POV. Seems like a counter argument is that removing the three would compress the amount of court used (why take a long shot with a lower percentage if it isn't worth more?) by the offense, and subsequently make for tigher packed defenses, more fouling, etc. FYI - averages so far this year... 16.9 threes per team per game 0.353 shooting percentage (0.484 from two) 21% of FGA are from three
Shoot man. That's all you need to know. Teams are shooting the 3 intelligently. The math just works out. It also probably helps the 2P% by spreading the floor.
According to these numbers, teams are getting 17.9 points per 16.9 attempts per game. That's slightly better than the 16.46 points you would get from the same amount of shot attempts from two point range. This is counter to my philosophy, but the numbers can't be denied. Bombs Away!
I tried to tell you guys this way back when... http://www.pistonsforum.com/detroit-pistons-general-discussion/550-tre-how-use-fuzzy-math.html As KGreg said, if you're a Legit bomber [+40% average] then it's devastating ! Otherwise you're the Clippers. From that article... Gherardini's point is interesting, and one that smaller schools in Division I of the college game have adopted – that the three-point shot allows them to compete with the powerhouses in March because, while the Cinderellas generally have a size disadvantage, they have shooters like Bryce Drew who can keep them in a game. Moreover, it just makes for more exciting basketball. ----- We must be kept excited!!!!
