One of the reasons that NBA teams have increasingly relied on the 3-pointer is because teams realize that if you’re not going to be attacking in the paint (underneath the basket), then you are better off shooting 3s instead of long 2s. I wanted to investigate whether this claim is true, and I also wanted to see if higher 3-point attempts % and higher 3-point success % actually correlates with winning%
From my study, there is a correlation with 3-point attempts % and ORTG (NBA offensive rating)
Though not specified on this plot, I am assuming that the x-axis indicates the ORTG which is a players’ points per possession which measures their offensive performance. From your graph you could see a trend upwards that would indicate there is a positive correlation between a player’s ORTG and their three-point shooting %. But, as seen at points like (.256, 100) and (.17, 107), there are a few outliers in this graph which makes sense. It would be a good guess that those are forwards who shoot poorer from the three-point line or shoot fewer threes, but still score many points in the paint.
When I saw this post I remembered hearing recently about the correlation of three point attempts and winning in the NBA (I think it was on NPR, maybe). Anyways, this triggered a quick search, and the first hit in google was the following:
A similar observation was made in the MLB – batters who ‘swing for the fences’, that is, hit many home runs but with a low batting average, is becoming more popular in the MLB: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/baseball-is-overrun-by-adam-dunns/
Were you ever able to prove the correlation between higher 3-point success % with winning%?
A recent study I found interesting (take the reliability as you will) was that an increase in 3 point attempts/game resulted in an increase in points/game. To your question… wouldn’t teams with increased points/game also see an increased number of wins/year? I don’t see how they wouldn’t.