Follow me on twitter

The good stuff

At other venues...
  • ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s

  • Philosophy
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    Arizona, Belmont, and 3PA%

    by Ken Pomeroy on Wednesday, March 20, 2013

    We begin this piece with an e-mail…

    Hey Mr. Pomeroy,

    I’m a big fan of the site and it’s especially a joy to use at this time of the year. I mostly wanted to vent my frustration about analysts and the way they talk about team 3-point defense. They’ve caught on about a lot of advanced stats, but this doesn’t seem to be one.

    I’ve been thinking about this because I’m a big Belmont fan, and this time around, the reason we are a 1000% lock to win in the first round (being a perpetual Cinderella to-be in the eyes of the media is getting very old) seems to be that Arizona “doesn’t like to defend the 3.” Everyone has said this, it seems. Looking at their opp. 3P%, you could maybe conclude this (they’re 274th). But as anyone who has ever visited your site knows, that number doesn’t matter much.

    What I have heard no one mention is that Arizona shoots 3s at almost the same clip as Belmont, and is almost as accurate as a team. Furthermore, Belmont has proven to be pretty bad at preventing teams from taking 3s this season (304th bad). That seems to be the number that matters. So it actually could be that Arizona has the 3-point edge in this game, and they’ve completely reversed the story line. That was a digression, but I was curious if the public understanding of 3-point defense (in this case and others) frustrates you like it does me. Do you think guys like Gottlieb will ever come around on this?


    Colin Chappell

    Greetings, Colin. Anyone that recognizes the importance of 3PA defense has my instant respect, butI’ll admit I’m a little conflicted here. On the one hand, I share the frustration of using 3P% to define the thing called three-point defense. On the other hand, the acceptance of analytics by many of the folks covering college hoops far exceeds their acceptance in, as an example, college football to this point. So I don’t want to come off sounding like Mr. Grumpypants all the time. There are many on-air people using numbers for the betterment of everyone’s viewing experience.

    But yeah, the evidence is pretty strong the Arizona can have much more control over how many three’s Belmont takes than what percentage the Bruins will make and that message isn’t getting out to enough people. Arizona didn’t guard the three-point line well early in the season and tended to get burned (though their record didn’t reflect it). It’s hard to tell if they’ve improved in this area because the Pac-12 is one of the least three-happy conferences in the country, ranking 30th among 32 conferences in 3PA%. And that’s propped up by Arizona’s own desire to take more three’s than most teams.

    Unlike, say, an individual’s offensive rating, I don’t think this is a particularly difficult concept for the statistically-averse to grasp. Arizona needs to limit three-point attempts and Sean Miller’s defense is typically pretty good - although perhaps not great - at that. Belmont has great shooters and Arizona is not going to be able to affect that attribute much.

    Even if people still want to buy that Arizona’s poor defensive 3P% is because of some inadequacy of their players, at least acknowledge 3PA% as a statistic that adds tremendous insight into the match-up. Belmont takes 40 percent (41st highest nationally) of their shots from 3 and makes a lot them. Arizona allows 30 percent of opponents shot from 3 (81st lowest).

    The number of perimeter looks Belmont gets is an interesting aspect of this game. It’s such a basic concept that even the most casual tournament viewer could understand it and may be more compelled to watch the game because of it. Instead of discussing technical concepts like how Arizona will hedge ball screens or how Belmont’s motion offense works, just point viewers to this one thing. “It’s in Arizona’s best interest to limit three-point attempts. Let’s see how many Belmont takes.” Even if a viewer hasn’t watched a game all season, they can grasp that idea and observe it as the game unfolds.

    But as Colin points out, the other end of this match-up has gone entirely unnoticed. Arizona’s offense often features four players on the floor that are not shy about taking a three. Because of Belmont’s defensive tendencies, the Wildcats will likely be taking even more threes than usual. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing for Belmont being the underdog, but it’s another interesting and easy to grasp aspect of this game. We’re a long ways from this concept going mainstream in the way that points per possession has, but the more often we bring it up, the closer we’ll get to that happening.