A Detailed Breakdown of Points Per Possession (PPP)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 07. 2024
- The game of basketball has become inundated with analytics and statistical analysis in the last 10 years. Teams are shooting more 3pt field goals than ever before, and some teams (Alabama specifically) have gone as far as eliminating mid-range jump shots all together.
In this video, you'll get a thorough explanation of Points Per Shot and why shooting layups and 3FGs gives you a statistical advantage.
This video is sponsored by HoopsKing. To get your customized board, here's the link www.hoopsking.com?aff=166
LinkTree - linktr.ee/thebasketballfilmroom - Sport
To get your customized board, here's the link www.hoopsking.com?aff=166
I think the most undervalued part in the discussion of analytics vs traditional basketball is shot quality. The one thing that hasn’t changed is offenses are more efficient when the ball touches the paint (drive, cut, post). Some teams just take horrible shots and say that’s analytics, when in reality it’s bad shot selection.
Great point!
True; if they have a wide open mid-range jumper, better to take that when you can imo. No guarantee you'll get a better shot in that possession, assuming the shooter can hit from there consistently.
At the end of the day, ball needs to go through the hoop. Easier to do when nobody's close enough to block you.
See the Celtics! In recent years they have been at first places in 3pa, but when at 18 sec White cross the half court and passes to Smart who takes a 3 that’s just bad offense, good for regular season and this is why to me they underachieved in all of these years although having a great roster. Curious for this year. The point is PPP is a great measure that must be considered with your own arsenal and especially team rhythm
There’s another element that a lot of people miss out on when discussing the mid range.
Let’s assume a guy is a 50% mid range shooter and a 33% 3pt shooter.
Mid range: 50/100 = 50 made shots, 50 missed shots.
3 pt: 33/100 = 33 made shots, 67 missed shots.
Why is this important? The rebound rate is only slightly higher on mid range shots than 3 pt shots.
The offensive rebound OPPORTUNITIES are going to be much higher for 3pt shots (17 more chances in this scenario) which leads to more 2nd chance points and shots off of offensive rebounds are usually some of the most efficient shots. If you then assume teams are getting 30-40% of their offensive rebounds, it makes you wonder why anyone messes around with the mid range.
This is something I haven’t thought about, and is a great point! Very insightful. Thanks for sharing - always love learning.
The best players all take a good amount of midrange because they have the unique value of being able to be generated at any point with relative ease (if the player is good at it). Ofc roleplayers shouldnt take middies and the bulk of a stars shot selection should still be layups and 3s but midrange has its place.
@@jojoprocess2820 To me this can easily turn into Melo syndrome though. 2 things are true:
1. Carmelo Anthony was an elite scorer based on his individual talent.
2. Melo was heavily reliant on the mid range and tanked the Knicks offensive efficiency every season due to his iso mid range game.
Even if you’re elite you’d have to maintain a shooting percentage of close to 60% to actually reach high level efficiency from the mid range which just isn’t feasible. The other issue is that mid range shots are very iso and off the dribble heavy because no off ball players station themselves in the mid range. By nature, these shots are almost always taken from a higher degree of difficulty besides the fact that the point value doesn’t justify them.
James Harden is an elite scorer and he proved that you can be a dominant high-volume scorer without having to settle for mid range shots. During his time with the rockets they were one of the most elite offenses of all time while he was there.
I very much agree with this!
I was trying to explain this concept to a few more casual basketball fans, and they just kind of looked at me blankly. I was explaining how UConn defended Zach Edey one on one and basically dared him to score in isolation against them. You look at the stats at the end of the game, and you think, "wow, Edey had a great game!" And he did. Except, it's a terrible strategy for Purdue against UConn. If Edey shot 55% over Clingan in isolation, that would be pretty good, right? Well, that would be 1.1 points per possession. UConn, as a team, had an adjusted offensive rating of 126 for the season, which equates to about 1.26 points per possession. Therefore, an isolation post up by Edey is FAR less efficient than UConn's average possession. Purdue shot nearly 40% from three on the season. The average Purdue three pointer is more efficient that a Zach Edey post up over Clingan.
Obviously, Purdue shot that well from three because of the open looks generated by teams double teaming Edey. UConn wasn't going to do that though. Everyone knew that going into the game. Instead of coming up with some other way to spring Purdue's shooters, the coaching staff decided to just keep running into the wall over and over again by giving it to Edey in isolation. At the end of the day, Purdue only takes 7 threes. That's bad coaching. There are so many other ways an offense can generate two on the ball other than an isolation post up. Purdue didn't do any of those things.
The Celtics blew out Miami in game 1. They took 49 threes in the game. The best team in the NBA can generate nearly 50 threes in a game. There's no reason other than very poor strategy and perhaps a lack of understanding of modern basketball that the second best team in the NCAA only manages to get up 7 in a championship game.
Then, everyone bemoans all the three point shooting. It's not just about jacking threes though. Getting open threes is really about generating layups and dunks. That's the nuance that almost no one understands. The spacing from the three point shooting opens the paint for the most efficient shots in basketball. You can't get layups and dunks if there's defense standing in the paint. You have to move them from the paint to allow those highly efficient shots.
Very impressed with your understanding. I couldn’t agree more & credit to UConn because they had a great game plan going into that game, the players bought into the statistical reality and won a championship because of it. Thanks for sharing!
What other ways do you suggest an offense get two on the ball ? I presumse the idea is to get two on the ball to get a wide open three?
I like your expxlanation a lot. I think that mid-range does need to be morphed into the modern way as a component of the modern game as well however. Because there are a lot of players where a mid-range shot is basically the same thing as a layup to them. A decent amount of players out there have that capability. A lot of those paint misses are due to players not being able to finish over their man or a big waiting. I think at some point, a helper is willing to sink deeper into the paint leaving a 3-pt shooter wide open because they are willing to take the percentages of that wide open 3. But if a guy can hit 70-80 percent mid range then the helper at some point won't want to sink, and leave a wider penetration gap for a paint shot to the person driving to the basket. I'm willing to bet a mathemetician can figure out integrating that to further increase the PPP. An open mid-ranger is actually higher percentage for a lot of players than certain variations or conditions they may face from the defense in the paint.
And also, a lot of nights, teamsjust don't hit threes well. So re-integrating midrange those nights I think can beat the PPP you will get if you keep jacking the 3 up when your team is cold.
@@anthony-kr9bm There's no one that can shoot 70 to 80 percent on midrange shots. Kevin Durant is the greatest midrange shooter in the world right now, and he shoots about 50% on them. And he's Kevin Freaking Durant, a 7'0" tall basketball savant who can shoot over just about anyone any time he wants.
That's not to say that the midrange shot doesn't have a place in the modern game. When the defense really clamps down and shuts down all the other options, and it's late in the clock, it's nice to be able to give it to a guy who can create a very makeable midrange shot whenever he wants. That's very valuable. It's just not something you center your offense around.
As for how Purdue could have created more threes... I feel like they got away from something that was working in the first half. Purdue went on a little run in the first half and even took the lead for a possession. During that run, Braden Smith was running a bunch of pick and roll with Edey. Castle was having trouble navigating the screens, and he was letting Smith get to his right hand. He had a few nice drives to the basket. One ended in a layup for him. Two others ended with him hitting Edey on the roll (including that big dunk over Clingan). UConn was hesitant to send help, so Edey was kind of getting whatever he wanted on that roll.
When Clingan went to the bench, Purdue really focused on just giving it to Edey in the post where he was just way too much for Johnson to cover. Edey either scored or was fouled on like 3 or 4 straight possessions in the post against Johnson. When Clingan came back in, Purdue just kind of forgot about the pick and roll that was working and went to straight post ups. Clingan held his own enough that UConn never had to bring help. Edey got tired. UConn made a run, and that was the ball game.
I feel like they could have used the pick and roll more and just generally kept Edey away from the paint more. UConn would have had to send help on Edey rolling, that leaves someone open.
One thing that UConn did with Clingan was use him in zoom action on the weak side of the court. If a roll or lob wasn't available, Clingan would kind of hang out on the weak side around the three point line. Clingan's defender would stay home because Clingan isn't a shooter. However, non-shooters can be used really effectively in DHOs and as screeners for shooters. (Think of Draymond Green catching the ball at the top of the key and then immediately looking for a DHO with Curry or Klay Thompson). I think Purdue could have done some of that with Edey.
There's just so many things that they could have done to get Edey in motion going towards the hoop or get him really deep position on a switch (like UConn does with Clingan). Instead, they just posted him up on the block all game.
And this is crazy long for a CZcams comment, but I just feel really passionate about getting the bigs away from the block on offense. Bigs who just post up on the block all day clog the lane for everyone else on their team. Even if you want to get post touches for a guy like Edey, I think there are much better ways to do it than to just have him go to the block and call for the ball. With very few exceptions, I don't want my big guys to have to dribble more than once before putting up a shot. If they have to back a guy down using several dribbles and a series of fakes before getting a shot off, that's bad offense even if they score a lot of points doing it.
@@mar21182 But that's a somewhat out of context statistic with KD! Those are contested or pull up midrangers. I am referring to 70-80% of spot up mid range wide open shots is possible. For college and pro level shooters, a wide open mid ranger is very close to a layup. Maybe even a higher percentage in a lot of circumstances than in the paint when there are contested shots from congestion in there.
Recent example, look at the Iowa State women's freshman center. In the playoff game against Stanford, she kept missing paint shots with deep positioning that were contested. She had trouble with Cameron Brink's length defending her, despite her large size in compoarison to her defender. In that situation, working a play for a wide open mid-range shot would have been a higher perecentage shot than a paint shot that she kept struggling with due to a lenghty defender. It would have served them well.
I view that example as a situation where thaving a duality of threes (which they did a good job of) and working for open mid-rangers as a more workable situation than a duality threes and paint points. They struggled in the paint against Cameron Brink. Had they elected for working for open mid-rangers as their replacement for paint shots, and included 3''s, they would have won.
Let me read the rest of your post! Thank you forgetting back to me.
@@anthony-kr9bm70-80% is absolutely not possible by any human currently alive. No matter the circumstance. Midrange IS a statistically horrible shot, although the absolute best players still take them at a good clip which suggests theres more to it than raw stats
Awesome breakdown! As a fan it was amazing to see how the team basically created the best example of how to create efficient offense during the tournament(other than UCONN who was just a juggernaut ). My big thing is the floor spacing. That’s what separates this style from many others. Having the constant in and out of close out then defending drives wears on defenses throughout the game. It’s almost a kin to the spread offense in college football, defending more areas of the field then isolating your best match up to create the most efficient plays to march the ball down the field. The math bears this out. Excellent stuff.
Thanks so much for your kind words. I bet as a Bama fan this was fun to watch. And the comparison to spread offense in football was a great analogy! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. #RollTide
Threes, layups and free throws are the most efficient possible and should be prioritized over other shots. However, the points per possession is an average, which could be detrimental for teams in the playoffs if they aren't getting their shots in. Furthermore, there are different contexts that could lead to a mid-range shot being good. I.e. A shooter taking a wide open mid range shot off of a pindown in the final 2 minutes of the game. Other possible scenarios can occur that favor mid-range shots (i.e. deep drop coverage and late shot clock situations)
On the other hand, threes and layups go hand in hand. 3s and layups create spacing and easy advantages in an offence. This can open up cuts that weren't previously available and are a high value shot. The spacing also creates advantages, such as close-outs and 2 on 1 situations. Overall, I believe mid-range shots should be taken with much more selectivity but shouldn't be removed entirely.
Note: A possible scenario that could occur on a team is that if there are non-shooters on the team. This isn't necessarily good for the team's offence but there are ways around this. This can include timely cuts and screens. Recently, there have been many coaches in nba, ncaa and euroleague who have used non-shooters on the perimeter to catch the ball from a closeout and quickly give a handoff to a shooter, which mitigate the consequences of non-shooters.
Great points! I agree with everything you said. Thanks for commenting 🤝
I’m not sure I agree with mid range shots being fine against drop coverage. To me, that’s part of the reason why drop coverage was invented to begin with, to bait the inefficient off the dribble pull up mid range shots.
@@connorking3523 That’s a pretty good point if applying the ppp. There’s always other options, like 3 point pull up, layups, lobs etc. You could even get the screener to set a gortat screen against drop coverage. But the game of basketball is never perfect. Usually shot clock is what influences players to take the mid range against drop coverage. What if there was a tall rim protector at the basket who could both take away the layup and the lob whilst the on ball defender takes away the 3 and the other defenders stay home on the perimeter players? What if there was a non-shooter in the weak side dunker spot and another non-shooter in the weak side corner? Whilst 3s, layups and free throws should be the main means of scoring, there could be a variety of reasons/contexts as to why the mid range would benefit some players against drop coverage. In a perfect scenario, mid range shots would be non-existent. However, a basketball game is never perfect.
@@hopsx6613 the issue is that you’re describing a lesser of 2 evils scenario and not an offense designed to have any sort of elite success. If i have 2 non-shooters and I have to play one of them in the strong side corner and thus shooting a mid range becomes a more viable option than anything else I can gain, then that team is destined to fail regardless. If the pull up mid range shot becomes my most efficient option (there’s almost no chance this is ever a reality), then that’s a losing team every time.
The reason Rudy Gobert and Donovan Clingon at the college level are so effective is that their drop coverage baits the inefficient mid range due to their ability to handle the 2 on 1 at the rim. Tbh I think the pick and roll no longer becomes a viable option against a guy like that and that’s why rim protectors like that can literally turn any defensive rotation into an elite one all by themselves. Now having a pick and pop threat is probably the best way to nullify the coverage because he isn’t forced to shoot the 3 off the dribble and it removes the big’s help at the rim. The issue is these guys are hard to find.
The foundation of your offense should certainly be based around Rim-FT-3P shots, otherwise you'll struggle to keep up.
However, from a team building/developmental standpoint I think there's still a ton of value in having 1-2 capable intermediate/post up (also deemed inefficient for most players) scorers.
The reason being that defenses are also now trained to be analytically sound. You often see or hear don't help 1 pass away, playing PNR in drop 2v2, and no doubles sent against post ups.
A lot of times against the elite teams you'll need a player or 2 who can get to a short mid range shot, a floater, or score via a backdown to keep the defense on there heels and as soon as they elect to adjust by sending more attention that way you then create more of the hyper efficient shots for your teammates.
Also, think shorter jump shots help as rhythm builders but that's a whole other conversation.
Thanks for sharing! I don’t disagree with your assessment. I lean towards the 80-20 principle. 80% of your attempts from the field should be those 3 main areas and 20% should be the midrange and floaters.
In the same regard, I think 80% of your team should be shooting those high ROI shots and the coach should delegate the top 20% of his scorers to be given the green light to shooter tougher shots. I appreciate your comment and your perspective.
@@TheFilmRoom1 Of course came across your channel recently, I’ve definitely been going through watching the ones that pique my curiosity as a basketball coach.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the channel. Let me know if you have any more questions as you watch.
as long as you take good mid ranges i think its fine, just cant take bad ones. there's a difference of taking one on a clear side ball screen where the big is in drop coverage and its an in ryhtym easy one or even a 3 pointer pump fake defender flys be and your wide open compared to one where you defender closes out you do a combo move into a contest from your man and the dude in the stunt from the person nearest to you. there's levels and every shot scenario is different, i would rather take a "B" midrange shot rather a D layup over 2 people ,maybe I'm biased because i am a player but these vids are making me more aware that everything has a time and a place.
Really like the thoughtfulness of your comment. I agree with you - and I think that’s the main takeaway. Understanding that there is, in fact, a lot that goes into shot selection, and players should be mindful of that rather than taking whatever shot they want, whenever they want. And I agree with you, a B grade middy is a better shot than a D grade layup over help defenders. I appreciate your comment!
Remember point per shot is simply an average, hence a hot or cold shooting night can still occur from any part of the floor. Shooting skills from different areas of the floor for individual players also makes a difference.
The reason lay-ups and threes has become a common heuristic is that the averages for those shots are better for most players. However, like all heuristics it doesn't replace actually analysing each situation in its own context.
I think you bring up a very good point. Which is why there were games that a very good Alabama team got beat by 12+ because they were cold that night. Also, why late game situations might call for a team’s best player to step up and make a few tough shots (midrange & long 2s) down the stretch. Thanks for your insightful comment.
I think it's one thing to have a plan only to shoot 3s and layups and a totally diffrent thing to achieve this goal in every single posession of the game. Never being forced to take a midrange shot because of the shot clock is not only analytics its great coaching and playmaking too.
Great point
I heard Of drop coverage in the NCAA tournament. The announcers said that it left wide open midrange shots and it’s there when they want to take it. Is that why they don’t take it as much? And also, do they have a time when to shoot midrange shots? Thank you for the breakdown.
You’re welcome. I do agree that drop coverage is designed to keep guards from shooting 3s off the screen, and bigs from getting lobs and passes on the roll. They’re willing to give up the midrange.
I do believe there’s times to shoot the midrange. In that scenario you brought up - if you can hit 1 or 2 mid range shots, it could cause the defense to change coverages, or play higher with the big & open up your roll man. I also think in late clock situations, it’s critical to have a guy who can create his own shot, and often times - that shot could be a midrange. So yes, I believe it’s valuable and necessary, but I also think it can be a hindrance when that’s the shot you’re hunting offensively.
My only thing as player and coach if I can hit a 3 pointer I should be able to hit a mid range jump shot regardless.
Is there a way that we could connect and chat? I am very interested in learning more about analytics and how to read/understand them, and the area I'm in has just not caught up to them yet.
Send me an email. coachmcbeth12@gmail.com
Rob Dillingham is probably the best or near the top for shot creator in this years draft. I think midrange is still a valuable shot but it's like you said it's a highly contested shot and a lot players don't know how to drill game like midrange shots on the move or they're just too lazy to drill it. On top of that it might affect floor spacing and since the 3 point line is 3 ft closer to basket in college than the NBA, the players are just naturally closer together so getting that shot off my be a bit more difficult..
I agree with you. I appreciate your thoughts, and you taking the time to comment. 🤝
love the breakdown, maybe do an nba version because of how many offenses had great seasons this year would love to see that
I would love to, but I don’t have access to NBA footage. Hopefully one day I will! Would love to do a video on that
@@TheFilmRoom1 what are the requirements?
I would need to be given access by the people who own the rights to the footage.
@@TheFilmRoom1 best of luck with that!
sometimes the defense just locks down the paint and the 3, and having a good mid range shooter saves you. that's how the rockets ended up bricking 27 3s because of the dogmatic stance of absolutely no midrange shot
Basketball is a rule-heavy sport (that's why you constantly see differences in officiating and their impact). If one really wants the mid range to make a "comeback" just make paint shots count for 1 point. Ofc I find that would not be ideal however it is a travesty that you can both have paint shots count as 2 and also have the 3sec rule. The way the game is played is somewhat inconsistent. If the 3-pointer is awarded 3 points due to its distance the arbitrary cutoff point doesn't really make sense. That would be like having in football (soccer) goals count as 2 outside of the box.
Idk 🤷🏾♂️ I’m torn…grew up shooting jump shots and it’s hard to turn away from it. I feel like it’s a lost art so to speak. Jordan made his living in the midrange, DeRozan midrange specialist, Chris Paul, K. Leonard, AD, Jamal Murray, KD. I thought as a player you want to get good efficient shots so, the further away you are from the basket the less efficient you become. Right??🤔 “Live by the three die by the three”
I’ve got a few thoughts on what you pointed out.
1. The guys you brought up are in the 0.001% of all basketball players. So what might be beneficial for them doesn’t exactly equate to everyone else. Same reason that lob plays vs zone are practically a guaranteed 2 points the first time a team runs it, but you don’t see it in the women’s game because they can’t do it.
2. I actually saw a post a couple years ago with the majority of those NBA guys you mentioned and their shooting percentage from midrange. KD was the only person who was shooting above 50% from midrange. So even guys who are considered “specialists” aren’t making them at a 1 PPS average.
3. The further you get away from the basket the lower the percentage until get to the 3pt line because the math changes. Something that is worth more is inherently worth that risk, and that’s why I think the midrange has been proven to be the worst statistical shot. Your logic is correct and so the worst shot in basketball is being the furthest possible distance away from the basketball while still only getting 2 points for it.
Just my thoughts! I appreciate your perspective.
PPS-focused offenses are even changing the Girl's game, down to the lowest levels. I watched a 15U team from West Virginia put up 30 3's in 40 minutes last weekend, pulling up on the break and shooting 3s even when they had numbers. If your daughter is playing ball, she better be shooting 3s. It's the future. At least until we get a 4-point line.
Wow, that’s interesting! Never would have known that, so thanks for sharing. That strategy also creates a lot of long rebounds, which leads to more offensive rebounds, which leads to more possessions in a game.
And long rebounds also make for fast breaks going the other way. Every system has pros and cons. So just make sure you’re drilling fast break defense
I am a U15 rec coach.. both girls and boys.. and a LOT of teams are running 5-out type spacing which lends itself to 3pt shooting and opening up the inside for drives. 30 @ 3pt attempts is a lot.. however I've had teams that have put up 20 @ 3pt shots in a game.. the trouble is.. at that age.. its not anywhere consistent even if your average is good. You don't tend to get more than one or two good long range shoots at that age level, even on recruited teams.
I coach 12 and 13 year olds. What PPP should I be aiming at?
I would recommend at that age that you focus on how many open layups you’re able to generate per game, and what percentage you shoot when you get them. At that age, I’m assuming you have maybe a couple players who can comfortably shoot 3s with some level of consistency. I’d focus on getting those players open looks at 3, and chart what percentage them make. Lastly, keep your FT percentage for your whole team. Show each player what they shoot from layups & from the FT line.
@@TheFilmRoom1 that's great advice. Thank you.
@@user-hv6mo5sc4q you bet!
Great video, but ppp is not the same as pps because you can have multiple shots in one possession.
That’s fair. Thanks for the comment!
Everything you point out is factual & correct in theory.
However, in high school & lower levels of play, I think it's important to consider what types of players you have to work with. Most players won't be able to space the court well & may be better to have them run classic 3 out 2 in sets, especially of they're athletic enough to have an offensive rebounding advantage.
At the pro level, I'm taking Dirk & MJs & KDs mid range game over 99% of the leagues paint shots. Of course, those are anomalies & they are one of a kind.
I don’t disagree with you. Good point and a good perspective. I do however think you can still have the same shot selection philosophy even in high school while running a 3-2 offensive system.
Lower levels is exactly where you dont want your players to take inefficient 2s. A shitty player who can barely hit 3s at a 30% rate is still better than jacking up high 30s to low 40s 2s
@jojoprocess2820 "Barely" hitting 3s at a 30% clip isn't shitty.
Midrange jumper is a lost art.
I don’t disagree. The game has definitely changed in good ways, and bad.