what is considered a good 3 point percentage

Championisme authors

4 min read

·

18-12-2024

61

0

Share

The three-point shot has revolutionized basketball, transforming offensive strategies and demanding a new level of skill from players. But what constitutes a "good" three-point percentage? The answer, surprisingly, isn't a single number. It's a nuanced metric dependent on several factors, including league level, player position, and even the specific team's offensive system. This article explores the complexities of evaluating three-point shooting accuracy, drawing upon insights from basketball analytics and research while offering practical examples and analysis.

Defining "Good": The Context Matters

There's no magic number that universally defines a "good" three-point percentage. A percentage considered excellent in the NBA might be exceptional in college basketball or even unattainable in a high school league. Let's examine the context:

1. League Level:

The NBA features the world's most skilled players. A three-point percentage above 37% is generally considered very good in the NBA, while anything above 40% is elite. This is significantly higher than the average percentages seen in college or international leagues. For example, according to data often cited in basketball analysis (and readily available through public NBA stats websites), a player shooting 37% from three in the NBA consistently puts them in the top tier of shooters. However, reaching this mark requires extraordinary dedication and skill.

2. Player Position:

Position significantly influences expectations. Point guards, known for their ball-handling and playmaking, may not be expected to shoot as frequently or as accurately from beyond the arc as shooting guards or small forwards. While a 35% three-point percentage for a point guard could be excellent, reflecting efficient shot selection, the same percentage from a shooting guard specializing in long-range shots could be considered underwhelming. This is why advanced metrics like effective field goal percentage (eFG%) are becoming increasingly important. eFG% adjusts for the higher value of a three-pointer, giving a more comprehensive picture of shooting efficiency.

3. Team System:

A team's offensive strategy heavily influences individual three-point shooting percentages. Teams that emphasize three-point shooting (like the Golden State Warriors during their dynasty) may see players with slightly lower individual percentages but still contribute significantly to overall offensive efficiency. Conversely, a player on a team focused on inside scoring might have limited three-point attempts, leading to a smaller sample size and potentially skewing their percentage.

4. Volume of Attempts:

A high three-point percentage based on a small number of attempts is less reliable than a similar percentage based on a large number of attempts. Consistency is key. A player shooting 40% on 10 attempts per game demonstrates far greater reliability than a player shooting the same percentage on only 2 attempts per game. This highlights the importance of considering shot volume alongside percentage when evaluating a shooter’s overall effectiveness.

Beyond the Percentage: Contextual Factors from Scientific Literature

While readily available statistics provide a starting point, a deeper understanding requires exploring the nuances of shot quality and player contribution. While specific articles from ScienceDirect focusing exclusively on the optimal three-point percentage in basketball are limited (due to the inherent complexity of the game and the need for extensive datasets), the principles of statistical analysis and performance evaluation can be applied.

For example, research on sports analytics often focuses on:

• Shot location: Not all three-pointers are created equal. A corner three-pointer generally has a higher success rate than a long two-pointer or a three-pointer taken off the dribble. Studies in sport science often analyze these spatial aspects of shots, understanding the influence of factors such as defender positioning and shot angle.

• Shot selection: A player with a modest three-point percentage but high accuracy on open shots demonstrates good shot selection. Taking too many contested shots negatively impacts overall efficiency. This ties into decision-making, a critical component of basketball intelligence often studied in sports psychology research.

• Clutch Performance: Research frequently examines performance under pressure. A player may have an excellent average three-point percentage but falter in critical game situations. The ability to maintain accuracy under pressure is a critical skill differentiating good shooters from great ones.

These factors, though not directly reflected in a simple three-point percentage, are crucial in a comprehensive performance evaluation.

Practical Examples and Analysis

Let's consider some hypothetical examples:

• Player A: Shoots 42% from three on 8 attempts per game. This is considered excellent in most contexts and points to a highly effective player.

• Player B: Shoots 38% from three on 3 attempts per game. While the percentage is still good, the lower volume means the impact on the game is less significant.

• Player C: Shoots 35% from three on 12 attempts per game but takes many highly contested shots. This player might be deemed less efficient despite a respectable percentage.

Conclusion: It's More Than Just a Number

A "good" three-point percentage isn't a fixed value. It's a dynamic metric influenced by the player's position, the league level, team strategy, and the quality of their shot attempts. Analyzing three-point shooting effectiveness requires a holistic approach, incorporating shot location, selection, volume, and consistency—all factors that enhance a player’s overall impact on the game. While a simple percentage provides a starting point, a deeper dive into these contextual elements paints a more complete and accurate picture of a basketball player's three-point prowess. And, finally, keep in mind the evolution of the game itself – three-point shooting is continuously evolving, so what’s considered “good” may also subtly change over time.