Why Doesn't Holmes Shoot 3s?

Richaun Holmes Should Shoot 3s


  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
#31
The bigger question is should the Kings Team be shooting so many 3 point shots? Should they shoot them early in the shot clock with no one else near the basket to box out or board?

FYI The Kings are attempting about 4 more 3 pointers per game this season over last season.

Houston and Dallas are chucking that rock---> https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game?date=2020-01-12

The Kings as a team shoot better 3 point percentage than Houston:eek: ---> https://stats.nba.com/teams/shots-general/?sort=FG3M&dir=1
 
#32
Since he hasn't been shooting 3's in a few years, and since he hasn't been showing confidence in his jumpshot period, I think they should start him off by having him shoot 3's in practice (assuming this is not already happening). Maybe launch a few in games as the season comes to a close. But the goal would be to have him incorporate 3's into his arsenale beginning with next season. As to whether he should start with mid-range jumpshots and then move closer and closer to the 3-pt line, I leave that up to the long-range shooting experts.
 
#33
Team strategy notwithstanding, Holmes is a career 25.7% 3 point shooter. This isn't NBA 2k, you don't just magically can do it in the middle of a season.
Funny how you bring up NBA 2K...

If my memory serves me right, players have "attributes" for both FT shooting & 3PT shooting. It's possible in this video game you reference to increase your FT shooting while keeping your 3PT shooting the same (could be wrong as it's been ~5 years since I've played), but these are humans we're talking about. Improving your shooting accuracy from ~14ft (a free throw) likely has positive halo effects on shooting elsewhere. For example, if a player shoots 70% from the free throw line and 30% from 3, but that player worked to get his FT% up to 80%, would you think that this player still would only be able to knock down 30% of his threes? Or do you think that improved consistency at the FT line could lead to the 3PT% climbing to 33%, 35%, etc.

That's essentially the point I'm making by focusing in on his FT% and drawing conclusions on how it's likely his shot has improved overall. I went ahead and pulled the last 10 years of data for FTs & 3PTs. I essentially aggregated the amount of FTM, FTA, 3PM, & 3PA by person (so each person has 10 years worth of attempts). I filtered out players who had less than 100 FTM AND 100 3PM to help reduce some noise, and this is what the FT% to 3PT% relationship looks like:

1578855710924.png
Correlation = 46.46%

It's apparent that there is a relationship between FT% and 3PT%, and by improving one of those (FT% in Holmes' case), you're likely improving the other. Hence, why this thread was created. It's an anomaly that we have a player shooting 81.7% from the FT line and he hasn't taken a 3 let alone a midrange jumper. It's curious to say the least, and it has me asking the question: "does Holmes have more to offer"? (which is asking a lot considering the amount he's already given us)

EDIT: Just for fun, if we were to use the equation on the chart coupled with Holmes 81.7% FT shooting, the formula would predict that he is shooting 36.1% from three. However, the fact that the R squared is only 22% doesn't bode well for it's predictive capabilities.
 
Last edited:
#34
Another example to point out is that Brook Lopez only shot 31 3PAs in his first 8 seasons in this league. During that time, he shot 79.1% from the FT line. Then it became more or less acceptable for bigs/Cs to take 3s. In the next 4 seasons, he shot 79.8% from the FT line (not much change from the first 8 seasons), but his 3PAs went up to 1,408 and he has been hitting them at a 34.6% clip. Was it a drastic improvement in his 3PT ability or was it just that he was given the opportunity to take a shot that he was already capable of making?

Now do I want him taking 4, 5, or 6 3s per game like Lopez? No. The idea would be that he'd take the 3 if he's wide open in a catch & shoot situation. Those are the types of 3s I'd be okay with him trying out.
 
#35
The 3 point line for him is out of the question...
Was it out of the question when he shot 35.1% from 3 during a season? Was it out of the question when he shot 35.3% from 3 during college?

He has figured out how to shoot foul shots by a lot of hard work.
As far as him "figuring out how to shoot foul shots by a lot of hard work," when did he not know how to shoot foul shots?

He shot 71% as a Junior in college, 71% as a Senior in college, 69% as a Rookie in the NBA, 70% as a Sophomore in the NBA, 66% as a 3rd year player in the NBA, 73% as a 4th year player in the NBA, & now 81.7% as a 5th year player in the NBA. "Figuring out how to shoot foul shots" would be someone like Andre Roberson becoming a consistent 70% FT shooter. Holmes has consistently been in the 70% range for 6-7 years.

I think he "figured it out" awhile ago.

MOD NOTE: Post edited.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#36
MOD NOTE: A couple of posts have been edited. Claiming someone knows nothing about basketball or similar comments are in direct violation of Rule #1, which is "don't be a jerk." Poking the bear is unnecessary and never furthers the discussion.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#37
Why doesn't he shoot 3s? Because that's not what we need from him. IMHO we often expect way too much of our players. The guy is a treasure right now. I'm content to let him develop his current skills. Sometimes you can break something by continually messing with it.
 
#38
Why doesn't he shoot 3s? Because that's not what we need from him. IMHO we often expect way too much of our players. The guy is a treasure right now. I'm content to let him develop his current skills. Sometimes you can break something by continually messing with it.
Well with Bagley as a potential long term piece for this team, he ideally needs a big next to him who can stretch the floor. Holmes doesn't do that right now. It doesn't mean Holmes can't be a useful & impactful piece on this team (which he has been), but there's a question of will a Bagley & Holmes duo work going forward?

1578868095955.png

I'll admit the sample size for the Bagley/Holmes is very small at this point (~25 min) but it's something to consider. The offense & defense is worse with both of them on the floor vs. just one of them. If you look at both of them being part of the core going forward, how will that work long term if the team plays worse with both of them on the floor?

If Holmes had the ability to hit a wide open 3 (not saying he should be out there shooting 6 a game), it may help the long term potential fit of those two as our PF & C. Holmes is theoretically a great fit defensively with Bagley, but offensively, is where we'll likely have some issues especially since Fox isn't the best shooter either (a Fox, Bagley, & Holmes lineup is going to allow defenses to crowd the paint).
 
#39
If between Bagley and Holmes you average 3 3 point attempts and 1 make, would that produce the same spacing of having one big doing it?
That production seems like a reasonable expectation.
 
#40
thanks for the new information. Watching him shoot this year, it never dawned on me that he shot 3s in college or anywhere else.
This was the part of basketball I did not know anything about.
Sorry.
 
#41
Why doesn't he shoot 3s? Because that's not what we need from him. IMHO we often expect way too much of our players. The guy is a treasure right now. I'm content to let him develop his current skills. Sometimes you can break something by continually messing with it.
While I do agree with you atm, the problem is moving forward if the plan is to build around Fox/Bagley (which i hope is not the case), the reality is for him to be a starting C for the Kings he's probably going to have to shoot a decent clip like 35% on 2 attempts per game, the Kings atm are lucky they got Bjelly/Buddy who are elite 3 point shooters to space the floor for Fox/Holmes that will not be the case once Bjelly is older/beaten out/starting PF given to Bagley.

I love Holmes my favourite King but as the team is currently being "built" he won't be a good fit in a lot of ways for Fox/Bagley as a starter (which he's earned) unless he can extend his range.
 
Last edited:
#44
46% correlation is terrible.
What? No, it's not.

It indicates a moderate positive linear relationship. If it was below 0.3, it falls into the category of a weak positive linear relationship. If it was between 0-0.15, your description of "terrible" would hold more weight but 0.46 is hardly "terrible" as far as correlations go.
 
#45
I am a retired scientist. I have worked with statistics a lot. In order to prove significant correlation that will stand up in court, you need more like 80%.
 
#46
I am a retired scientist. I have worked with statistics a lot. In order to prove significant correlation that will stand up in court, you need more like 80%.
This is even more bizarre. The fact that our court system is using correlations to prove something is odd to say the least. Correlation does not equal causation, but your comment above makes me think you were using it for just that purpose.

This correlation shows that there is a moderate positive relationship between FT% & 3PT%. As FT% goes up, its likely that your 3PT% is higher. That’s all it says. It doesn’t say your FT% is the cause of your 3PT%.

Just take a step back and look at the scatter plot, is it fair to say as FT% goes up that it looks like 3PT% goes up as well?
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#47
I am a retired scientist. I have worked with statistics a lot. In order to prove significant correlation that will stand up in court, you need more like 80%.


A Pearson's R of 0.8 is actually *really* tight. With the kind of N that we're looking at here, you don't need to have anywhere near 0.8 to prove that a correlation exists (i.e. that the linear regression line has a slope significantly different from 0). There are at least 200 data points there, and a quick calculation with that R of 0.46 gives a p-value < 1e-6 (less than 1 chance in 1,000,000 that the correlation isn't real). I'm pretty sure I could make that stand up in court.

The corollary suggestion (raised, though certainly hedged, by twslam) that improving FT% (without working on three-point shooting) might have some sort of "halo effect" on three-point shooting seems very questionable to me, however, and certainly this data can't speak to it. You could design a test for that sort of thing in a controlled setting, but I think you'd find it extremely hard to glean box score data to find evidence for that sort of effect.
 
#48


A Pearson's R of 0.8 is actually *really* tight. With the kind of N that we're looking at here, you don't need to have anywhere near 0.8 to prove that a correlation exists (i.e. that the linear regression line has a slope significantly different from 0). There are at least 200 data points there, and a quick calculation with that R of 0.46 gives a p-value < 1e-6 (less than 1 chance in 1,000,000 that the correlation isn't real). I'm pretty sure I could make that stand up in court.

The corollary suggestion (raised, though certainly hedged, by twslam) that improving FT% (without working on three-point shooting) might have some sort of "halo effect" on three-point shooting seems very questionable to me, however, and certainly this data can't speak to it. You could design a test for that sort of thing in a controlled setting, but I think you'd find it extremely hard to glean box score data to find evidence for that sort of effect.
I left for a day and this post took a weird turn...