Jared Sullinger’s Future With Celtics Questioned In ESPN NBA Mock Draft

"Modern team-oriented offenses rely on the defense extending out to the three-point line to open everything up for ball movement and player movement. When done well, those three-point shots you hate will lead to those beautiful two-point shots that you love."

Plus 1

Judicious use of the three can really stretch the defense and be a devastating aspect of a complete offense.  

Here's a story that Anthony Davis plans on working on 3 point range for the reasons you stated in your post:

The mere threat of Davis hitting 3-pointers from the corners would stretch defenses and create a host of issues for opponents, said Ron Adams, an assistant with the Warriors.

“You can scoot him out on pick-and-rolls and disguise a lot of things,” Adams said. “It’s really a helpful thing.”

Adams cited the emergence of the Portland Trail Blazers’ LaMarcus Aldridge as a consistent presence from the 3-point line this season. After attempting 116 3-pointers through his first eight seasons combined, Aldridge attempted 105 of them during the regular season and made 35.2 percent. Aldridge has become reliable enough from long range that he often forces defenders to vacate the paint when he drifts to the perimeter, clearing space for teammates to drive.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/sports/basketball/pelicans-anthony-davis-considers-adding-a-3-to-his-arsenal.html?hpw&rref=sports&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

The question shouldn't be are three's good or bad but whether they can enhance the overall offense.

Outside,

Seventeen teams shot above 33%.  I didn't count among that number several that shot 33% and small change (but less than 34.0% in every case).  When making a statistical comparison of this type, one often eliminates the "grey area" figures in order to arrive at a more discriminating conclusion.  Because I was using the poorer shooting teams only as a basis for comparison rather than drawing a conclusion about their numbers, nothing of statistical value was lost.

Yes, my initial post only involved my reaction to the 33%-50% model that's often used and has been used on this board.  However, my point about the impact of free throws would be applicable to any hypothetical or real-life situation, but I used the 33/50 model for the sake of consistency.

My initial post was a commentary on what I feel to be a weakness in a frequently cited theory, not a treatise on.  You chose to attack the 33/50 element of the assumption with what you introduced as real life facts.  But the real fact is that it wouldn't matter what percentages one used; the two-point percentage would always be understated because it doesn't include drawn fouls.

You attempted to introduce ways in which the advantage for two-pointers could be offset or exceeded by measures such as better shooting of threes.  But there's a basic difference in our approaches. Mine is more theoretical, but the basic premise makes sense for all teams without any qualification, based on the rules and basic flow of the game.  Yours might make sense, but the qualifier is that it might make sense for some teams more than others—not because your assertions somehow support the theory I was disputing.

As for basketall real life over time, I probably won't be around to witness much of its evolution..  If threes are necessitated in order for a team to win a championship, then I hope the Celtics corner the market on three point sharpshooters, because the Celtics winning championships is the number one, two and three source of NBA satisfaction to me.

I think the three-pointer is patently boring, conducive of lazy habits, and antithetical to the interactive beauty of the game.  Nonetheless, I hope future generations can derive the level of thrills that I have experienced from Celtics basketball, whether the game succumbs to the power of the three-point shot or the championship is ultimately decided by a trampoline, a ball, and a degree of difficulty.

Sam