Shoot more 3 pointers?

[DCWildcat]

50% on 2's is considered a great FG%, but 33 1/3% on 3's is considered a bad FG%.

How does that work? From an EV perspective, they're the same. (they both average 1 pt./shot). Since most teams shoot around 40% ish on 2 pointers and 35% on 3's, is it clear that they shoot just shoot more 3's in general? Or is the %chance to hit a 3 too dependent on the quality of the "look" that a player gets to make this kind of assessment?

Some other arguments could be made for not shooting more 3's (easier for offensive rebounders, etc.), but would that be enough to cover the discrepancy? Whatever. Let's hear some discussion.

[hoyaboy1]

To make a small correction, most teams quite a bit better than 40% from 2. You also need to factor in the higher chance of getting fouled on 2 point shots.

[Pudge714]

In the SI basketball preview they had an article about "Moneyball for basketball" one stat was adjusted fg percentage where they take into account the risk reward element of shooting three pointers.

[Taraz]

This doesn't make much sense. Do you think that players who are capable of making 33% of their three point attempts pass up open looks from behind the arc? How are they supposed to shoot more threes? If they have open 3s, they take them. If they just jack up random shots, they won't make them at a 33% rate. Explain please.

And I'm not sure that 50% on strictly 2 pointers is that good of a field goal percentage. If you shoot only 2 pointers (like most centers) you are expected to shoot above 50% to be considered great.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
In the SI basketball preview they had an article about "Moneyball for basketball" one stat was adjusted fg percentage where they take into account the risk reward element of shooting three pointers.

[/ QUOTE ]

"effective Field Goal Percentage" or eFG%.

courtsidetimes.net