(05-19-2021, 07:53 PM)U_L Wrote: I love this topic. The logic seems like it should be so clear. And it also seems like you should be able to find the data to sort out some tests.
It seems like a no brainer that if you are up by 2 possessions with a minute left, you put in Boban for a 2 pointer, and you have 60% possibility of being up by 3 possessions with 50 seconds left. It leaves a 40% chance of being up by 2 possessions with 50 seconds left. If the planned volatility by the other team works in their favor, they hit a 3 pointer within 10 seconds and your original lead has decreased - either by 1 or by 3 points. I think the Mavs stall-the-ball crunch time offense (that I do hate) follows a different logic.
Up by 2 possessions with a minute left, dribble in place for 20 seconds before jacking up whatever shot you can get in the remaining shot clock. We often see a contested 3 or a turnover. Worst case is you are still up by 2 possessions with 40 seconds left. So the question is how valuable are those 10 seconds? You might say the Mavs opt for 0 volatility for those 10 seconds. In terms of investing, it's like telling your 75 year old uncle to not play the ponies with his ss check this weekend.
Other arguments that I can think of for going for the 3 pointer that dont have to do with clock management include staying within the flow of the offense you've built or that you might have players on the court who are perimeter players (theirs because they need the 3 pointers and yours because you'll be defending the 3 point line)
Just noticed your profile tag line.
I have no second account for the record of course, but I do like your math & logic here.
Last night was interesting in the Lakers game as well btw. Tight game in the clutch minutes/seconds and the greatest 3 point shooter of all time at work. The Lakers hit just enough high percentage 2 pointers that were clearly helped by their size advantage.
Defense can't really be separated from offense here in terms of the end result. When comparing 2 pointers to 3 pointers its also comes into play whether you can force the opponent's best 3 point shooters to settle for 2's as well as getting your best 2 point shooters good looks spaced out by your best 3 point shooters.
The Lakers used their superior size well to get just enough edge over GSW using a double team + the freakish size/length of Anthony Davis to force Curry inside where he had to settle for more 2 point attempts than he would like, neutralizing his advantage as a 3 point marksmen and resulting in Steph and company missing just enough.