The decline of shooting in NCAA basketball

by Glenn Logan on Aug 21, 2007 2:13 PM EDT in Kentucky Wildcats Basketball

Ever wonder why you hear so many basketball fans in general, and Kentucky fans in particular, claim that they wish we would recruit a "shooter?" I have heard it many times, and some may wonder why. Is shooting a lost art? How lost is it?

This isn't really a pressing question, but I think it deserves a little analysis.

First, let's look at shooting historically in the NCAA. Has it improved or degraded over the years? Thanks to the NCAA, who provides some of these aggregated statistics, I have performed a few analyses just for ASoB readers.

First, shooting historically. We will be looking at all NCAA Division I schools since 1948:

What we can see from this graph is that 2-point shooting among NCAA schools gradually improved until it peaked at 48% in 1981. What has happened since? Well, we can see that the shooting remained relatively constant until about 1989, when it began a steady decline. It reached its nadir in 2000 at 43.5%, and has not risen significantly since.

But surely, you say, the 3-point line had an effect on all that. It would seem that it did. Let's have a look at shooting since the inception of the 3-point line rule in 1987:

This graph is also kind of interesting. We can see that 3-point shooting, originally quite good at 38.4% for all of Division I, began an almost immediate decline, and seemed to take 2-point shooting with it.

But perhaps the most striking graph of them all is this one, which shows 3-point attempts vs. 3-point shots made. 3 point attempts have risen continuously since 1987, first sharply and then less so after 1995. But made 3-pointers has risen only very slightly since 1995.

So if it seems to you that shooting is worse now than ever in NCAA basketball, it's pretty much because it is. Shooters like Rotnei Clarke and Alex Legion are at a premium these days, it seems. If I were to posit a reason, I would guess that it is because young players work harder now on their moves to the basket and athleticism than shooting. This is most likely the fault of the AAU system and the changes wrought during the Sonny Vacarro years, where AAU teams began to play a faster style that focuses more on individual athleticism and getting off lots of shots, versus working the ball into the best possible position to score.

It remains to be seen whether or not shooting percentages and overall shooting skills will undergo a further decline in coming years, but given what we see here, we must really wonder what moving the 3-point line back is going to do to shooting percentage. My feeling is that if a guy can't make a 19'9" shot at better than 35%, his odds of shooting a higher percentage from further out are nonexistant.

Will the new line represent a return to more 2 point shooting, and stem the rise of 3-point shooting? Given this data, I would have to say the answer is likely to be "Yes".

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

tv

let's not forget about sportscenter and other highlight shows. all you ever see when watching clips is dunks, or some amazing move in the lane. rarely do you see shooting or defense unless it's a key play or something extaordinary (hitting 8 3s in a row, hitting from 40 ft. away...)

that's what all (ok, most) kids try to emulate.

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 21, 2007 2:33 PM EDT reply actions

New line = more twos???

"Will the new line represent a return to more 2 point shooting, and stem the rise of 3-point shooting? Given this data, I would have to say the answer is likely to be "Yes"."

Really Tru? You think so? I wish I had that faith. I'm more inclined to remember examples from our own boys... despite the fact that Joe, Ramel, and crew couldn't hit threes to save their lives last season; they still put them up there.

I'm afraid the result will be the same across the country. I'm of the opinion that despite the increased range, the kids will still heft up ill-advised three point shots in record numbers and you will see a corresponding drop in percentage made.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe that I am.

by chirop1 on Aug 21, 2007 2:46 PM EDT reply actions

I am ...

not altogether sanguine in that conclusion myself, but you have to figure the coaches will not be wanting people shooting below about 30%. That starts to be insane if you can shoot about 45% or better from 2.

by Glenn Logan on Aug 21, 2007 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

NBA

I lay the blame squarely at the feet of David Stern, the NBA, and the rise of the individual superstar.

I lover the NBA and watch every season but my favorite teams The Pistons and Spurs are about the only teams left not sporting all of the superstar hype.

David Stern made the league, which is the dream of every basketball player, all about the indvidual and not about the team and it is ruining the game. Kids see Lebron and Wade dunking over everyone but neither of them are great shooters so kids practice dunking not shooting.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 21, 2007 4:07 PM EDT reply actions

don't forget

the bulls...they play a superstarless system too.

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Aug 22, 2007 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Rhodes

http://www.kentucky.com/232/story/155682.html

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 21, 2007 4:39 PM EDT reply actions

Defense

We surely can't have a discussion of shooting skill without considering defensive skills against those shots. Yes, we see alot of clanging bricks tossed up by wide-open shooters and yes, defense is a foreign concept to some teams and players.

BUT.......overall, I'd have to say that better defense has something to do with the shooting percentages being flat or down over time. While I have no stats to support my theory...and besides, if a shot is missed we certainly can't statistically track whether it was good defense or poor shooting. I would propose two theories

Defense of the three point shot has improved. The shot itself had its own early evolution (remember how slow Denny was to adopt it?). The defense of the three also evolved...a curve slightly behind the adoption curve. Coaches eventually figured out better schemes for defending the 3, especially against certain shooters so it stands to reason the shooting percentages would drop
Overall defense has improved. I believe defenses today are better than ever. Tubby, Izzo, Rick and others demand a defensive intensity that wasn't always seen routinely in college basketball. Surely that had an effect on shooting percentages.

Just a thought

by run and gun on Aug 21, 2007 5:09 PM EDT reply actions

also ...

we have to remember other rule changes, like the 45 second clock in 1987, lowered to 35 in 1993. Both these changes encouraged faster shots and less half-court offense, and favored the defense.

by Glenn Logan on Aug 21, 2007 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Defense is ....

most definitely what caused the intial decline in 3pt shooting from it's inception into the NCAA. Once coaches started to figure out that it was affecting the outcome of the games, they decided they should probably figure out how to defend against it.

by blueblood on Aug 21, 2007 8:00 PM EDT reply actions

This sparks an interest....

in me for the correlation of 2pt percentage vs 3pt percentage in the years directly after the inception of the 3pt shot. Not that it directly relates to the original post... just would be neat to see how the overall percentages were affected by the inception and resulting defensive adjustments. Also, do these trends follow other rule changes in the game? I'm sure that I'm overanalyzing, but my daddy always told me to stick with what I'm good at...

by blueblood on Aug 21, 2007 8:08 PM EDT reply actions

Ohhh... look....

there is a graph comparison right there in the article...I've done it again.

Anyway, the graph does show what I expected, a slight rise in 2pt shooting during the initial decline in 3pt shooting. Must have been because the defensive adjustments necessary to bring the 3pt percentage down was aleviating defensive pressure on the inside game. They seemed to have it balanced out around '94-'95.

Hey tru.... where did you get the info for the months that there was no NCAA basketball? Just wondering if that would explain the sine wave appearance of these statistics in each year.

by blueblood on Aug 21, 2007 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions

The statistics ...

represented are just aggregates of each year of all NCAA teams. Since the data is aggregated over the entire basketball season, the months don't matter.

Yes, in the first couple of years there was a very slight rise in 2-point shooting and then the decline of 2-point shooting closely mirrors the decline in 3-point shooting.

Defensive schemes undoubtedly impacted the 3-point shot, but I would have expected 2-point shooting percentage to either increase or stay the same, not decline. I would figure that the two point shots taken would tend to be closer in, and therefore better shots.

Obviously, it didn't work out that way.

by Glenn Logan on Aug 22, 2007 6:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Shooting

I have for years theorized that the overwhelming popularity of Michael Jordan has as much to do with the dribble drive overtaking the open shot, as the most practiced play in basketball.

Very interesting timeline information, though. Jordan's popularity exploded in the US around the time that the shooting percentages began to drop, which is also roughly the same time that the 3-point shot was introduced. A confluence of separate forces which conspired to rob us of great shooters. Works for me.

Great shooters open up so much offensively for their teams, which only improves all offensive statistics. UT, last year, struggled mightily when Lofton was hurt. Lending credence to the theory that great players make good players, very good.

Jared Prickett's freshman year at UK was his best, as far as scoring average is concerned. Prickett's sophomore year, after Mashburn left, his scoring dropped dramatically, because defenses keyed on him without worry of Mashburn dropping a three, or driving his elbow through the basket as he posterized them.

Point being: Great shooters, and sometimes great scorers, help raise the shooting percentages of their teammates. Without as many great shooters, teams, overall, do not shoot as good of a percentage. Which of course adversely impacts the graphs that Tru posted, and expertly analyzed.

I must agree with just about everyone else who has posted on the subject. More than likely a combination of all posted theories are responsible for the declne in overall shooting percentages in the college game.

Personnally, I think Dale Brown is shortchanged by the national media. The impact his game-changing "freak' defense had on the college game is immeasurable. It altered college ball forever. Oh, where have you gone Dale?

by Ken Howlett on Aug 21, 2007 10:35 PM EDT reply actions

Fun with numbers....

Fun, fun, fun....I couldn't resist this one. Interesting numbers -- thanks for posting them. I have a theory. Instead of talking about shooting percentage, why not talk about "expected points?" Shooting percentage, in a way, is meaningless if different shots have different point values. If you can get more points by taking a lower percentage shot, then you cannot assert that lower shooting percentages are necessarily bad. What is bad is if you are not getting points!
So, let's say
A) the average expected points from a 2-point field goal = 2 * (2pt f.g. percentage)
B) the average expected points from a 3-point field goal = 3 * (3pt f.g. percentage)

Given that assumption, then at its peak (1981) the 2 point attempt was worth 0.96 expected points per shot. In 1987, it looks from the graph like it was worth approx. 0.93 expected points. Meanwhile, the new 3-pointer was worth 3*0.384=1.15 expected points.

Based on this, then clearly it is better to shoot three pointers in 1987. So, my theory says, teams learn this, adjust, and take more and more 3-pointers (using worse shot selection & worse shooters) up until the point that the 3-point shot is worth no more than a two point shot.

So, 3-point attempts continue to rise, and 3-point field goal percentage continues to decline, as shown in the graph, until the percentage is approximately 33% or 1/3, and the expected value of the 3-point shot is exactly 1.0 points, much closer to the approximately 0.88 (as of now) expected points of the 2 point shot.

So this theory explains, I think, why teams keep shooting more and more 3 pointers, even as three point percentage continues to decline, and would suggest that this trend will continue as long as the expected point value is higher than for the 2 point attempt. However, the data seem to indicate otherwise -- that it has leveled off.

I suspect this is because of the factors that have been left out of my simple assumptions. For example, other factors, like making more free throws -- including 3-point plays -- if you take it inside, would perhaps increase the expected point value of a 2-point shot attempt. Also, non-point factors would be valuable, such as causing opponent players to foul out by taking more shots in the paint. If this is true, then we would expect it to level out before the two values converge completely, as it seems to have done.

This theory does not explain the simultaneous decline in two point field goal percentage, though. And it certainly does not address the effects of recruiting 3-point shooters and all of that.

by johnr on Aug 21, 2007 11:06 PM EDT reply actions

Fun with formulas

Darn it, JohnR, you beat me to the point I wanted to make. What was lost in Tru's analysis is that while the introduction of the 3-pointer has lowered the overall shooting percentage, it has raised the effective field goal percentage (eFG=(FG + 0.5 x 3FG) / FG). A 35% 3-point shooting percentage is equivalent to a 52.5% 2-point shooting percentage. Going by the averages, average shooter of today scores more per shot than the shooter of 1981.

I really don't know if shooting skills of college players have increased or declined. It is obvious more players are shooting outside than before. I suspect that in yesteryear you only saw the Kyle Macy or Jim Master type shoot way outside. Now, we have centers hosting them up. While some players should never shoot 3s, it makes good sense for most perimeter players. Bradley shot less than 42% overall last year, but his eFG was a respectable 52%. However, last year UK shot 54% from 2-point range and 35% from 3-point range, making them slightly less effective from 3s than 2s. This makes sense to me as I remember them too often ignoring Morris who was our effective shooter.

by PapaKat on Aug 22, 2007 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Very good point ...

but it kind of dances around the question. Yes eFG% has increased, just as you say.

But why, oh why has 2 point FG% declined? Because of the 3-point shot, we now should see less shots in the 16-19' range, because they are so close to the 3-point line -- coaches would rather see players work it closer or kick it out.

Theoretically (at least to my simple mind), this should have resulted in more shots taken closer to the basket, which should have caused 2 point FG% to rise. But there is a counter-effect of good shooters taking fewer 2-point shots.

Kind of hard to figure, but fun to kick around.

by Glenn Logan on Aug 22, 2007 7:06 AM EDT up reply actions

I love this stuff

This is a great dialog.

Could it be that the reason is that a shot taken closer to the basket is also more likely to be contested? The mid-range open shot has been missing....And that shot was the bread and butter of great shooters pre-1987. Now the great shooters have moved beyond the arc and the few mid range shots that are taken, are taken by poorer shooters.

Not the whole puzzle perhaps...but a piece I would think.

by sylvar on Aug 22, 2007 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions

"are taken by poorer shooters"

Good point. Who was UK's mid-range shooter last season? Sheray Thomas.

by vickster3 on Aug 22, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Source of stats

Tru, did you get your numbers from the NCAA's all-time trend document (http://www.ncaa.org/stats/m_basketball/trends/all_time_trends.pdf). It looks like you did based on your graphs. The NCAA has done a poor job of not separately tracking 2-point shooting percentage apart from overall shooting percentage. When you mention numbers like 43.5% in 2000, this refers to the aggregate of 2-point and 3-point shooting. These FG% numbers do not indicate a decline in 2-point shooting as the NCAA has not separately tracked it. Overall FG% has declined because of 3-point shooting as you would expect. Only now are we seeing people like Ken Pomeroy (http://kenpom.com) track the 2-point shooting separate from overall FG%. Last year, UK shoot 54% from 2s and 35% from 3s (http://kenpom.com/sr.php?team=Kentucky).

by PapaKat on Aug 22, 2007 10:27 AM EDT reply actions

I did use them ...

but how do you know they aren't tracking them separately?

I can't tell that from looking at the data.

by Glenn Logan on Aug 22, 2007 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions

After looking long at this ...

I think you are right.

I'll have to re-analyze it and see how that affects my conclusions.

by Glenn Logan on Aug 22, 2007 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

They do

but I dont like them.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Aug 22, 2007 3:50 PM EDT reply actions

playing styles; the 3-point shot....

Most of this can be addressed to the advent of the 3-point shot. Even mediocre shooters take too many shots behing the 3-point line.

And you don't see as many players driving to the basket as much as they used to.

Actually your very best and wide open 3-point shots originate from a player driving to the basket and kicking it back out to a wide open shooter.

Instead most shooters nowadays just stand beyond the 3-point line and jack it up no matter if they're wide open or not.

Today's game is outside-in. Back in the older days it was inside-out.

The best teams in college basketball today almost always have the inside-out philosophy instead of the outside-in strategy most schools applied in the older days.

That to me is the main reason shooting has declined over the years.

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 23, 2007 10:56 AM EDT reply actions

messed up again as usual....

The best teams in college basketball today adhere to the inside-out philosophy instead of the outside-in philosophy. I misquoted myself in the next to last paragraph.

Sorry for the misuderstanding.

by ukcatfan191 on Aug 23, 2007 10:59 AM EDT reply actions