The Very Best NBA Players Aren't Dependent on Making 3s

Save for Steph Curry, the true superstars are 2-point specialists

This is a good topic prompt from a Pacers fan and ChatBCC contributor Joshua.

Tyrese Haliburton plays a fairly unusual style for a big name as he’s less ball dominant, and more of a passer. But I’m not here to weigh in on whether Haliburton is a superstar. Instead, I’m making the observation that a certain kind of elite player is less consistent: The ones more dependent on that analytics-friendly 3-point shot.

There’s an irony to this, as smart basketball observers have, for years, correctly encouraged more 3-point shooting. Retired players warning about “Don’t fall in love with the 3” ended up looking out of touch. I recall that, back in 2015, it felt like an ideological war to get the Warriors taken seriously by an NBA Old Guard that dismissed their 3-point shooting attack as gimmicky. When the Warriors initially stumbled against the paint-oriented Memphis Grizzlies, Phil Jackson infamously questioned their approach with, “How’s it goink?” Soon enough, though, it was goink very well for those Warriors.

So I’m mostly on the side of “more 3-pointers” when Charles Barkley criticizes Anthony Edwards for going from 6.7 attempts per game to 10.3. Edwards is a good shooter and the 3-point threat opens up driving lanes. There is a catch, though, or maybe it’s just a complicating factor, and it might relate to the “inconsistency” tag that gained traction as a knock on Edwards this postseason.

Nearly all hyper elite NBA players, the ones who almost never disappear on the playoff stage, share a quality in common: Most of their shots are two-pointers.

In no particular order: Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Nikola Jokić, Luka Dončić, Kawhi Leonard and LeBron James hoist most of their shots from 2-point range. Now here are some other big names who take half or most of their attempts from beyond the arc: Tyrese Haliburton, Anthony Edwards, James Harden, Jayson Tatum (roughly 50 percent of his attempts). I’ve yet to do a data dive on how high variance these players are relative to others but, subjectively, the latter group has more of a reputation for occasionally “disappearing” in playoff games.

I’m keeping an obvious name off the 3-point heavy list: Steph Curry. Of course most of Steph’s shots are 3-pointers, yet he’s a consistent playoff performer. I’d say Steph is the exception who proves the rule because a) He’s the greatest ever at making highly contested 3-pointers and b) He’s trained to impact the game regardless of whether those shots are falling. I’ve got a moment in my mind where, “How’s it goink?” fell apart. At some point of Game 4 in Memphis, when I was sitting behind the Warriors bench, Steph Curry passed, ran through the lane, then relocated along the baseline as the ball swung around the horn back to him. Even before Curry hoisted the corner 3, Steve Kerr was violently pumping his fist. This was the vision, an approach that deviated from Mark Jackson’s pick and roll offense: Curry would terrorize the defense off the ball, just as much as when it was in his hands. The impact was going to be constant, even if the shots sometimes missed.

The three-point shot is often a positive expected value choice, but it is a high variance one. Players are generally more likely to convert a closer attempt. Much as the mid range jumper has been derided as a “bad shot,” it is relatively consistent for those who master it. If a mid range master also has a knack for converting closer in, he’s just not going to suffer many truly off nights as a scorer. Gilgeous-Alexander was 1-of-4 from range last game and it barely impacts his scoring performance (34 points on 21 shots). Haliburton went 1-of-5 in the first three quarters and it seemed like that depressed so much of his would be impact.

It’s debatable as to whether consistency matters when the goal is just to win 4 of 7 games. Who cares if Anthony Edwards sometimes fades from a game, if he’s absolutely unstoppable when the 3s are raining?

Maybe. I’m mostly persuaded that it’s good for a team to lean heavily on 3-point shooting, but perhaps there’s a value in a superstar yielding a predictable output. I’m reminded of Football Outsiders arguing that a consistent running back is better than a “boom-or-bust” back. Put another way, a running back who gained 5 yards on all 20 of his attempts does more for your team than a running back who rushed for 90 yards on one carry and 10 combined yards on the next 19 carries. It’s the same box score either way, but one route to 100 yards on 5 a carry is superior. When you’re basing so much of your team’s overall attack on how one guy sets the table, positive predictability is a huge help.

The counter to this Stable Superstar idea that the Indiana Pacers are in the NBA Finals, Haliburton’s inconsistency be damned. And sure, but he averages a little over 14 shot attempts in these playoffs. The Pacers have a very egalitarian attack, distributed between a variety of skilled options. Indiana has a set up where, even if their main guy isn’t performing well, it’s not necessarily a detriment to the overall operation. Good on Haliburton for not commandeering too much of the offense in pursuit of status. Good on the Pacers for finding a way to be consistent, even if their superstar isn’t.