It’s not that difficult for teams to average 33% from 3. Teams rarely average 50% or better on 2 pt FG. They certainly average better than that at the rim. Hence people try to shoot 3s and get to the rim.

40% from 3 = 60% from 2.

The NBA has finally figured out that the game is about being more efficient than your opponent, or if you can’t do that, then you have to generate more opportunities for you to score than your opponent to make up for it. That part is correct.

Teams go awry when they decide that ancillary facts are the causation of why something is more efficient. For example, scoring efficiency has historically been much higher early in the shot clock. That includes almost all fast breaks, and early open shots, because otherwise players pass or dribble and look for a better opportunity. Teams then decide they want to go fast emphasizing the early in the clock thing and not the quality of the opportunity.

While it is true that extra quality opportunities can be generated by pushing fast and getting to opportunities before the defense recovers and sets, it doesn’t guarantee a better look and early shots are often forced and it makes for ugly basketball.

People complain that analytics are ruining the game, but, as always, it’s poor decision making that ruins it, not analytics. Analytics are simply a way of explaining what is working and potentially why.