05-19-2021, 08:37 PM
Let me test one more piece of logic here. I believe it’s obvious that, by its very nature, volatility should be helpful, generally, when you’re the underdog and harmful, generally, when you’re the fav. See where I’m going?
Much has been said this week about the Mavs performing better than expected vs. winning teams and not so hot compared to expectations vs. losing teams. So maybe we’re on to something here?
But my original thesis isn’t that we should aim for less volatility. It’s that the relative volatility inherent in taking 3s vs. 2s* likely means an offense should try to shoot fewer 3s and more 2s in late-game situations when they have the lead—and maybe even when they don’t, if it’s close. (My guess would be the last half quarter or so.)
* The same logic probably holds for free throws, as even a 70% shooter has a 91% chance of making 1 of 2 freebies. (Math guys, feel free to correct me.)
Much has been said this week about the Mavs performing better than expected vs. winning teams and not so hot compared to expectations vs. losing teams. So maybe we’re on to something here?
But my original thesis isn’t that we should aim for less volatility. It’s that the relative volatility inherent in taking 3s vs. 2s* likely means an offense should try to shoot fewer 3s and more 2s in late-game situations when they have the lead—and maybe even when they don’t, if it’s close. (My guess would be the last half quarter or so.)
* The same logic probably holds for free throws, as even a 70% shooter has a 91% chance of making 1 of 2 freebies. (Math guys, feel free to correct me.)