Ted Valentine refing MIch/Mary in Mich tonight.

[hawk-i bob]

One thing is for sure Mr M Block...we're not going to not defend the 3 point shot come Sunday..oh you may get some open looks...if you don't .. it will be because of our defense...not some KenPom statistical bull crap.

Fran is not going to tell Uthoff not to block the low arch shot of Irvin (defense)

Ask Forbes what he thought of the defense (mainly Clemmons) ..1-5 (0-3) ...

 

[Red87]

Dan: "Last thing......as far as a shooter only shooting when he is open? LOL...many of these guys have no clue when to shoot and when not."

This actually supports Block's earlier (correct) assertion: shot selection is (almost) entirely a function of the offense. What Block is stating (and the math supports) is very simple: teams have very little control of whether, once a shot is taken, it goes in or not. Teams have some control over which shots get taken, but once taken, making or missing comes down to luck essentially.

It's similar to BABiP (batting average of balls in play) in baseball. A pitcher has control over whether a guy hits the ball or not. But, once it's struck, his control of what happens to that ball effectively ends.

 

[Ronman]

And if you'd like to know probably the biggest reason Iowa's opponents haven't shot well on 3s this season: they have played poor shooting opponents for the most part. National ranks in 3 point percentage by game for Iowa opponents: 156, 288, 184, 198, 26, 175, 230, 71, 37, 119, 12, 112, 21, 117, 109. UMKC, W. Illinois, Drake, Notre Dame, and MSU are the only opponents to crack the top 100 nationally in 3 point shooting as a team. Even ISU has been way down shooting this season.

Those five teams are shooting 36%, 40%, 41%, 39% and 40% from the 3-point line. We held them to a collective 34%. So this was just dumb luck on our part?

 

[hawkinthelou]

Dan: "Last thing......as far as a shooter only shooting when he is open? LOL...many of these guys have no clue when to shoot and when not."

This actually supports Block's earlier (correct) assertion: shot selection is (almost) entirely a function of the offense. What Block is stating (and the math supports) is very simple: teams have very little control of whether, once a shot is taken, it goes in or not. Teams have some control over which shots get taken, but once taken, making or missing comes down to luck essentially.

It's similar to BABiP (batting average of balls in play) in baseball. A pitcher has control over whether a guy hits the ball or not. But, once it's struck, his control of what happens to that ball effectively ends.

Red,
If a pitcher had control over whether a batter hits the ball or not, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't let him hit it.

 

[Red87]

One thing is for sure Mr M Block...we're not going to not defend the 3 point shot come Sunday..oh you may get some open looks...if you don't .. it will be because of our defense...not some KenPom statistical bull crap.

Fran is not going to tell Uthoff not to block the low arch shot of Irvin (defense)

Ask Forbes what he thought of the defense (mainly Clemmons) ..1-5 (0-3) ...

Exactly. The defense prevented Forbes from shooting shots. That's good defense. If he was 3-5 (2-3), it would still be good defense on someone of Forbes' caliber. His not making shots isn't the measure you want to look at.

 

[hawk-i bob]

Dan: "Last thing......as far as a shooter only shooting when he is open? LOL...many of these guys have no clue when to shoot and when not." This supports Block's (correct) assertion: shot selection is (almost) entirely a function of the offense. What Block is stating (and the math supports) is very simple: teams have very little control of whether, once a shot is taken, it goes in or not. Teams have some control over which shots get taken, but once taken, making or missing comes down to luck essentially.

It's similar to BABiP (batting average of balls in play) in baseball. A pitcher has control over whether a guy hits the ball or not. But, once it's struck, his control of what happens to that ball effectively ends.

Take away the 30 sec shot clock (which seems to be ignored here) and you might have a point but now you have gone from % to shot selection...hell yes the offense is entirely a function of shot selection and taking "bad" contested shots is a function of the defense...WITHOUT defense the offense has smooth sailing (higher%)..without defense you also have one ticked off coach. (well maybe not yours ). With defense (lower%)..its that simple.

..of course the defense has no control once the shot is taken, whether it goes in or not (you are correct ).....but the defense does big time as to the type of shot, whether its a good % shot, whether its a low % shot. Sure offenses want to take high % (open) shots...well sometimes the defense doesn't allow within the 30 second shot clock...

 

[Red87]

Red,
If a pitcher had control over whether a batter hits the ball or not, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't let him hit it.

That's exactly what pitchers try to do: don't let them hit it.

 

[hawkinthelou]

That's exactly what pitchers try to do: don't let them hit it.

Agree, that is what they try to do, but they don't (can't) control it.

 

[hawk-i bob]

Exactly. The defense prevented Forbes from shooting shots. That's good defense. If he was 3-5 (2-3), it would still be good defense on someone of Forbes' caliber. His not making shots isn't the measure you want to look at.

..you & Blue guy have gone from shooting % to actual shot selection to now number of shots, There is no argument it is in the hands of the offense whether to shoot or not to shoot ... nothing earth shattering there. But it is the defense that is leading the offensive player in the decision making process...just like the pitcher is the driving force that leads to the batter's decision to swing.

Forbes may have decided not to shoot as often as he averages because of our defense...but sooner or later someone has to within the shot clock...so ya not making shots by your opponent is something you want to look at it...(coaches do)...a poor % normally means a pretty good defense & poor shooting.

 

[Red87]

Agree, that is what they try to do, but they don't (can't) control it.

Sure they can. Some just control it better than others. "Control" doesn't imply that they have 100% power over it or not, but the more control over it they have, the better they are. That's why strikeout rate, walk rate, and home run rate are such important measures of a pitcher's success. Pitches that are easier to hit lead to more balls in play, and more balls in play lead to more opportunities for hits or successful outcomes. Pitchers have the most solo influence over walks, strikeouts (contact), and homeruns allowed. Once guys make contact, it's out of their hands.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Agree, that is what they try to do, but they don't (can't) control it.

The term "control" in this context is really a measure of skill.

For example, Clayton Kershaw is a great pitcher. Probably the best in his generation. He has tremendous skill in not letting opposing hitters make contact, which is why he became the first pitcher in over a decade to strike out 300 batters last season. This part of his game is skill, and we can easily compare it with other pitchers.

However, not even Kershaw can prevent all hitters from making contact. Once an opposing player does make contact, they are hitting about .280 off Kershaw. Much of this is dependent on "luck" and the defensive players behind Kershaw. If a hitter hits a hard line drive right at an outfielder, Kershaw may get credit for getting an out, but he really only got lucky that the ball was hit right at a fielder. Similarly, if Kershaw gives up a line drive and one of his teammates makes a great diving catch, you can't say that the end result (an out) was due to any skill of Kershaw. He simply benefited from a great defensive play that a pitcher on another team may not have benefited from.

Thus, an extreme simplification would be this:

• Strikeout = skill (i.e., within the pitcher's control)
• Batted ball resulting in an out = luck (i.e., outside the pitcher's control)

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

One thing is for sure Mr M Block...we're not going to not defend the 3 point shot come Sunday..oh you may get some open looks...if you don't .. it will be because of our defense...not some KenPom statistical bull crap.

Fran is not going to tell Uthoff not to block the low arch shot of Irvin (defense)

Ask Forbes what he thought of the defense (mainly Clemmons) ..1-5 (0-3) ...

Yourself and DanL are not wrong in what you're saying, but I think you are both misinterpreting the meaning of the data.

When someone says "opponent's three point percentage is mainly dependent on luck", they are not saying that a player who is left open is just as likely to make a three pointer as someone who is closely guarded. Thus, I believe everyone in this thread would agree that it would not behoove a team to simply let their opponents take open shots.

What the statement "opponent's three point percentage is mainly dependent on luck" does mean is that over the course of a season, teams have very little control over the percentage of three pointers made, and the reason is largely due to the shot selection of their opponents.

For example, lets say we have Team A that is a great perimeter defending team, and Team B who is a very poor perimeter defending team. Assume further that their defense inside the three point line is equal. Further assume that opponents do not wish to take three pointers unless they are open (which is a reasonable assumption). Another assumption we can make is that no team can prevent their opponents from taking any open shots, no matter how good their defense is.

Over the course of a season, Team B would give up more "open" three point shots because their perimeter defense is not as good as Team A's. However, when we account for the preference of opponents taking open shots rather than contested shots, the ratio of "open" three's to "contested" three's is likely to be equal for both teams. Hence, while Team A may only give up 50 open three's over the course of the season while Team B gives up 100 open threes, if their opponents shot selection resulted in ratio of 2 open three's taken to every 1 contested three taken, at the end of the year we would expect Team A and Team B to give up identical three point percentages.

In this case, the statistics aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. We all know that a heavily contested shot is less likely to go in than an uncontested shot. Instead, the statistics are simply illustrating what we don't know, which can often be just as helpful. Specifically, in this situation the statistics tell us that just because we know Team A's opponents shoot 45% from three while Team B's opponents shoot 30% from three, that does not necessarily mean that Team B is a better perimeter defending team. There are other factors that may be influencing such percentages.

 

[hawk-i bob]

Yourself and DanL are not wrong in what you're saying, but I think you are both misinterpreting the meaning of the data.

When someone says "opponent's three point percentage is mainly dependent on luck", they are not saying that a player who is left open is just as likely to make a three pointer as someone who is closely guarded. Thus, I believe everyone in this thread would agree that it would not behoove a team to simply let their opponents take open shots.

What the statement "opponent's three point percentage is mainly dependent on luck" does mean is that over the course of a season, teams have very little control over the percentage of three pointers made, and the reason is largely due to the shot selection of their opponents.

For example, lets say we have Team A that is a great perimeter defending team, and Team B who is a very poor perimeter defending team. Assume further that their defense inside the three point line is equal. Further assume that opponents do not wish to take three pointers unless they are open (which is a reasonable assumption). Another assumption we can make is that no team can prevent their opponents from taking any open shots, no matter how good their defense is.

Over the course of a season, Team B would give up more "open" three point shots because their perimeter defense is not as good as Team A's. However, when we account for the preference of opponents taking open shots rather than contested shots, the ratio of "open" three's to "contested" three's is likely to be equal for both teams. Hence, while Team A may only give up 50 open three's over the course of the season while Team B gives up 100 open threes, if their opponents shot selection resulted in ratio of 2 open three's taken to every 1 contested three taken, at the end of the year we would expect Team A and Team B to give up identical three point percentages.

In this case, the statistics aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. We all know that a heavily contested shot is less likely to go in than an uncontested shot. Instead, the statistics are simply illustrating what we don't know, which can often be just as helpful. Specifically, in this situation the statistics tell us that just because we know Team A's opponents shoot 45% from three while Team B's opponents shoot 30% from three, that does not necessarily mean that Team B is a better perimeter defending team. There are other factors that may be influencing such percentages.

no mention of the 30 sec shot clock...why? a great defense will dictate shot selection as much as offense. You can assume opponents do not wish to take 3 pointers unless they are open..with seconds left on the shot clock they may not have a choice...or turn it over.

 

[DanL53]

My main argument with Kenpom's theory on this is the assumption that the shooter will only shoot open 3 point shots. He then compares it to free throws which of course are always open.

I would counter that sound three point defense is a relatively simple thing. Just make sure you close out on the shooters. If you don't, then expect some teams to hit very high percentages.

Think about it. We're talking about holding teams down to 30% or in some cases less! Is it consistent? No. A player hits 1/3 or 2/3rds...it's just a matter of luck quite often.

But the defense is holding the percentages down (forcing bad shots or blocking them), and is denying shots. It's just that once you get to a certain point it gets extremely difficult to do better.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

no mention of the 30 sec shot clock...why? a great defense will dictate shot selection as much as offense. You can assume opponents do not wish to take 3 pointers unless they are open..with seconds left on the shot clock they may not have a choice...or turn it over.

How many times do you think a team is forced into a last second three point attempt? Any last second shot is just as likely to end up in a two point shot attempt or even a turnover.

Bottom line, the statistics are what they are, and the statistics tell us that opponents' three point percentages follow a random walk, meaning they cannot accurately be predicted. When a particular event cannot be controlled, that means "skill" has a negligible factor (otherwise we could identified the most "skilled" players or teams).

You can try to come up with your own narrative to explain the statistics, but that doesn't change the fact that opponents' three point percentage is not an accurate metric for measuring the quality of perimeter defense.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

My main argument with Kenpom's theory on this is the assumption that the shooter will only shoot open 3 point shots. He then compares it to free throws which of course are always open.

You are again confusing the interpretation of the statistics.

The comparison to free throws is made for this reason: statistically, predicting opponent's three point percentage is the equivalent of predicting opponent's free throw percentage. We know, of course, that there is no such thing as defending free throws. Therefore, we should not expect any teams to be "better" at forcing opponents into a low free throw percentage.The significance of this statistical comparison is to show that while we think teams can control the three point percentage of their opponents, in reality it follows a random walk because by playing "better" perimeter defense (i.e., not allowing open three point shots), the result is that the opponent takes less three pointers rather than opponents making a lower percentage of three pointers.

The fact of the matter is that opponent's three point percentage follows a random walk. Arguing that opponent's three point percentage is not random is the equivalent of arguing that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. The only thing left to debate is how to explain the narrative that fits the statistical results.

I would counter that sound three point defense is a relatively simple thing. Just make sure you close out on the shooters. If you don't, then expect some teams to hit very high percentages.

This is actually a good example of how good perimeter defense is not reflected in opponents' three point percentage. Let's say the offense has done a good job of moving the ball and they get a good look at a three pointer and the closest defender has the choice to (1) close out hard on the shooter, or (2) be lazy and not close out. We know that if the defender closes out hard it will reduce the chance of the three pointer being made, and therefore we might describe this as "good" perimeter defense. However, the reduced likelihood of making the three pointer does not necessarily decrease the opponents' three point percentage in this instance, because a hard close out means that the opponent is more likely to pump fake and drive the ball resulting in a two point field goal attempt. The opponents' choice of whether to attempt a contested/uncontested three pointer is the main contributor to the statistical finding that opponents' three point percentages follow a random walk.

 

[spoke8]

As a Michigan fan, I'll just say this...Michigan is in huge trouble at Iowa this Weekend.
I've been watching both teams for a long time(born and raised in Iowa)...Iowa is so good defensively, maybe
the best in the country. They are so long and quick that open shots are tough to find.
Iowa is a streak shooting team but has an NBA stud in Uthoff and many weapons.
Without Caris Levert...Michigan will struggle greatly to score.
Sorry blockM2...not optimistic. By the way, really enjoyed watching the Breslin Beatdown

 

[DanL53]

You are again confusing the interpretation of the statistics.

The comparison to free throws is made for this reason: statistically, predicting opponent's three point percentage is the equivalent of predicting opponent's free throw percentage. We know, of course, that there is no such thing as defending free throws. Therefore, we should not expect any teams to be "better" at forcing opponents into a low free throw percentage.The significance of this statistical comparison is to show that while we think teams can control the three point percentage of their opponents, in reality it follows a random walk because by playing "better" perimeter defense (i.e., not allowing open three point shots), the result is that the opponent takes less three pointers rather than opponents making a lower percentage of three pointers.

The fact of the matter is that opponent's three point percentage follows a random walk. Arguing that opponent's three point percentage is not random is the equivalent of arguing that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. The only thing left to debate is how to explain the narrative that fits the statistical results.



This is actually a good example of how good perimeter defense is not reflected in opponents' three point percentage. Let's say the offense has done a good job of moving the ball and they get a good look at a three pointer and the closest defender has the choice to (1) close out hard on the shooter, or (2) be lazy and not close out. We know that if the defender closes out hard it will reduce the chance of the three pointer being made, and therefore we might describe this as "good" perimeter defense. However, the reduced likelihood of making the three pointer does not necessarily decrease the opponents' three point percentage in this instance, because a hard close out means that the opponent is more likely to pump fake and drive the ball resulting in a two point field goal attempt. The opponents' choice of whether to attempt a contested/uncontested three pointer is the main contributor to the statistical finding that opponents' three point percentages follow a random walk.

I appreciate your efforts and the respectful manner you presented your view. I understand KenPom's stats but I think he is stuck with one problem. Pretty much every team closes out on shooters and that isn't the hardest task in the world. If teams didn't, it is my assertion that shooters would be making a much high percentage of threes.

Think about this. Many shooters must come off of screens to get open and when they do they are not in position and thus shoot a much lower percentage. If the defense wasn't out there denying them shots they wouldn't have to take those harder shots. You know, the easiest three is receiving a pass from under the basket while in a set position. Don't deny that, and defenses will get killed.

The reason, in my opinion, Ken Pomeroy's stats don't reflect the efforts of 3 pt defenses is that it isn't the hardest thing in the world to close out on a shooter. Teams either do, or they don't. And no coach will last a year if his team doesn't close out on shooters.

So all teams do it about the same, it doesn't show up in stats because stats look for variances.

There you go, I believe I have solved why statistically no advantage between one team and another (for the most part) can be found yet we all have seen teams playing defense against the three.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

There is pretty good evidence that opponent 3 point percentage has little to do with your defense. Sometimes when opponents shoot poorly from 3, it's because they are bad shooters. Other times it's bad luck. It's generally not related to the quality of your own defense, or at least as much as most fans think.

Or to put it another way, it's more like opponent FT shooting than 2 point shooting. Whether they miss or not is mostly out of the control of a defense.

This is why I love the move to advanced metrics and statistical analysis. It's made baseball fans much more knowledgeable. You put to bed old myths, like a player being "clutch". The sooner we can get less focus on things that are mostly irrelevant the better.

 

[RocknRollface]

I appreciate your efforts and the respectful manner you presented your view. I understand KenPom's stats but I think he is stuck with one problem. Pretty much every team closes out on shooters and that isn't the hardest task in the world. If teams didn't, it is my assertion that shooters would be making a much high percentage of threes.

Think about this. Many shooters must come off of screens to get open and when they do they are not in position and thus shoot a much lower percentage. If the defense wasn't out there denying them shots they wouldn't have to take those harder shots. You know, the easiest three is receiving a pass from under the basket while in a set position. Don't deny that, and defenses will get killed.

The reason, in my opinion, Ken Pomeroy's stats don't reflect the efforts of 3 pt defenses is that it isn't the hardest thing in the world to close out on a shooter. Teams either do, or they don't. And no coach will last a year if his team doesn't close out on shooters.

So all teams do it about the same, it doesn't show up in stats because stats look for variances.

There you go, I believe I have solved why statistically no advantage between one team and another (for the most part) can be found yet we all have seen teams playing defense against the three.

This is correct.

Some teams only shoot threes when open, others shoot allot of contested ones, coming off screens off the dribble ect.

The teams that shoot contested ones tend to have better shooters, If you took defense completely out of the equation percentages would go up drastically. Its completely insane to argue otherwise.

Statistics go up and down every year in college primarily because both teams change just about every year.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Sure they can. Some just control it better than others. "Control" doesn't imply that they have 100% power over it or not, but the more control over it they have, the better they are. That's why strikeout rate, walk rate, and home run rate are such important measures of a pitcher's success. Pitches that are easier to hit lead to more balls in play, and more balls in play lead to more opportunities for hits or successful outcomes. Pitchers have the most solo influence over walks, strikeouts (contact), and homeruns allowed. Once guys make contact, it's out of their hands.

This is absolutely correct. I was one of those skeptics in the advanced baseball metrics until I started looking into the issue more closely. What we are seeing in this thread is there are still some old school guys, just like we still find in baseball, who don't believe in statistical analysis, or they don't understand it. While I'm not very educated on the basketball advanced metrics, I understand the point KenPom is making because we've seen it time and again with baseball.

For example, the old schoolers like to talk about certain guys being clutch hitters. When in reality there is no such thing, or the it's so minute it's not worth discussing. The numbers show that players hit in clutch situations at about the same avg they do in non-clutch situations. The difference in numbers from year to year is small sample sizes. People used to rave about what a clutch hitter Jeter was because he seemed to always hit well in Oct. Well, the reason Jeter hit well in clutch situations was because the guy was a good hitter, period. His avg in clutch situation wasn't any better, but because we tend to over focus on the "clutch" situations we think Jeter was much better in those situations.

Your BABIP example is a good example to the 3 pt percentage. Every year the BABIP fluctuates and it's mostly related to the singles a player has during a season. The "luck" hits are almost always singles. When a hitter sees a spike in his BABIP, he's probably been unusually lucky that year with bloop hits, balls getting through the infield, than he has in previous years.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I appreciate your efforts and the respectful manner you presented your view. I understand KenPom's stats but I think he is stuck with one problem. Pretty much every team closes out on shooters and that isn't the hardest task in the world. If teams didn't, it is my assertion that shooters would be making a much high percentage of threes.

Think about this. Many shooters must come off of screens to get open and when they do they are not in position and thus shoot a much lower percentage. If the defense wasn't out there denying them shots they wouldn't have to take those harder shots. You know, the easiest three is receiving a pass from under the basket while in a set position. Don't deny that, and defenses will get killed.

The reason, in my opinion, Ken Pomeroy's stats don't reflect the efforts of 3 pt defenses is that it isn't the hardest thing in the world to close out on a shooter. Teams either do, or they don't. And no coach will last a year if his team doesn't close out on shooters.

So all teams do it about the same, it doesn't show up in stats because stats look for variances.

There you go, I believe I have solved why statistically no advantage between one team and another (for the most part) can be found yet we all have seen teams playing defense against the three.

If all teams "do it about the same", then why do we have variances in the number of 3 pointers taken? Good defense can limit the number of 3 pointers, but the percentage made is based more in luck than quality of the defense played.

If you disagree, maybe you could show us some statistical analysis or an article which supports your hypothesis.

 

[blockm2]

I appreciate your efforts and the respectful manner you presented your view. I understand KenPom's stats but I think he is stuck with one problem. Pretty much every team closes out on shooters and that isn't the hardest task in the world. If teams didn't, it is my assertion that shooters would be making a much high percentage of threes.

Think about this. Many shooters must come off of screens to get open and when they do they are not in position and thus shoot a much lower percentage. If the defense wasn't out there denying them shots they wouldn't have to take those harder shots. You know, the easiest three is receiving a pass from under the basket while in a set position. Don't deny that, and defenses will get killed.

The reason, in my opinion, Ken Pomeroy's stats don't reflect the efforts of 3 pt defenses is that it isn't the hardest thing in the world to close out on a shooter. Teams either do, or they don't. And no coach will last a year if his team doesn't close out on shooters.

So all teams do it about the same, it doesn't show up in stats because stats look for variances.

There you go, I believe I have solved why statistically no advantage between one team and another (for the most part) can be found yet we all have seen teams playing defense against the three.

See, the thing is that KenPom isn't really presenting a theory. He's presenting facts. Defenses have very little influence on opponent 3 point percentage. That's a fact, not a theory. Theory implies it might not be true. He's simply describing the facts.

Now does defense impact opponent 3 point percentage beyond what a player would shoot in an empty gym? Overwhelmingly likely, but that isn't what is being discussed. What is being discussed/compared is how 1 team in college compares to every other team in college (specifically within D1). And D1 teams don't influence their opponent 3 point percentage made more than other teams, except to a very small degree. So we can argue subjectively all day about things like 30 second shot clocks and closing out on shooters, but when you compare 1 team to another those things don't show up as meaning much of anything in this regard.


As for his comparison to FT shooting defense, he's simply making the analogy because we all intuitively understand there is no defense on a FT attempt. It's obvious to all. The 3 point defense issue isn't so obvious at first glance which is why he showed how mathematically they are far more similar than 3 point defense and 2 point defense are.

Last night's game highlighted some of the randomness of 3 point defense. MSU came in top 3 nationally in lowest opponent 3 point percentage made on the season. How did Iowa manage to go 10/22 behind the arc? Did MSU get lax in their normally stout 3 point defense or is Iowa simply a very good 3 point shooting team? I'd say it's simply that Iowa can shoot the 3 very well.



3 point shooting defense can be best measured by opponent 3PA% or basically how many 3s your opponents take, not what percentage they make.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I appreciate your efforts and the respectful manner you presented your view. I understand KenPom's stats but I think he is stuck with one problem. Pretty much every team closes out on shooters and that isn't the hardest task in the world. If teams didn't, it is my assertion that shooters would be making a much high percentage of threes.

Think about this. Many shooters must come off of screens to get open and when they do they are not in position and thus shoot a much lower percentage. If the defense wasn't out there denying them shots they wouldn't have to take those harder shots. You know, the easiest three is receiving a pass from under the basket while in a set position. Don't deny that, and defenses will get killed.

The reason, in my opinion, Ken Pomeroy's stats don't reflect the efforts of 3 pt defenses is that it isn't the hardest thing in the world to close out on a shooter. Teams either do, or they don't. And no coach will last a year if his team doesn't close out on shooters.

So all teams do it about the same, it doesn't show up in stats because stats look for variances.

There you go, I believe I have solved why statistically no advantage between one team and another (for the most part) can be found yet we all have seen teams playing defense against the three.

Dan, I don't think we disagree on any substantive issue. Instead, I simply think you are slightly misinterpreting what the statistics are telling us. What this discussion really boils down to is a true or false question.

• True or false: opponents' three point field goal percentage is an accurate metric for evaluating the quality of perimeter defense.

The statistics tell us this is false, and the only issue to resolve is why that is false. You and hawk-i-bob seem to believe that the explanation is that it shooting percentage is unaffected whether a shooter is open or guarded. This explanation is obviously bullcrap, and therefore you reject the underlying statistical premise. You are correct that such an explanation is bullcrap, but that does not mean the underlying statistic is incorrect. Rather, it means that there is a more nuanced narrative to form, and the central thesis of the narrative is that quality of defense affects the shot selection of the opposition.