Jayson Tatum's Rise to the Top

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
It’s weird, because they were good, open looks. It wasn’t the case that he happened to have a bunch of step back or contested threes.

That said, I think the most likely explanation is just poor luck. Sometimes you flip a coin and it comes up heads four times in a row, it doesn’t mean the coin is rigged.
He had back to back wide open catch and shoot 3's from the corner down the stretch when the game was still in doubt. After missing the first I was sure he'd make the second, but again not that close. Was a back breaker in the game. At what point does it stop being luck though? He's been bad on open shots for half a season now.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
Tatum's shot is a bit weird. He has had periods where he completely lost it before, once notably after a broken hand early in his career.

To me, it's like a pitcher who suddenly can't find the strike zone. Not yips, just the mechanics are fucked. It'll snap back into the groove eventually, but who knows when.
 

cardiacs

Admires Neville Chamberlain
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,993
Milford, CT
Is it possible that Tatum is more affected by the new ball than others?
Also, I am really sick of Tatum et al. forcing threes when 1) they haven't been falling and 2) there are clear paths to the basket available. Last night's game and the sixers game had a ton of that.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
I don't know the numbers, but I'd disagree. He's been bad on step-back 3's all season. His open looks, in general, to me have been good.
He's shooting 31% on 3P (42 attempts) where closest defender is 6+ feet away. Last year he shot 52.4%. He's definitely shooting worse this year.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Is it possible that Tatum is more affected by the new ball than others?
Also, I am really sick of Tatum et al. forcing threes when 1) they haven't been falling and 2) there are clear paths to the basket available. Last night's game and the sixers game had a ton of that.
Last night, every time JT went to the hoop, there were three or more guys to meet him. I mean that's how the league plays him.

Contrast that to: (1) the number of times Bridges or Ball were able to go to the basket having to beat only 1 guy - because other defenders have to stay with 3P shooters and (2) how unmolested Romeo was when he went to the hoop - because no one is helping out to stop Romeo from getting to the rim.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
With the seemingly infinite coaching staff, someone has to be devoted to helping Tatum.

He can get his shot back. It doesn't seem like the yips (shots not off much) & he's not Westbrook.

I'm pulling for Tatum, he can fix this.
Sometimes (most?) the worst thing you can do when in a shooting slump is having multiple voices in your head. If the issue is mechanical with one fix that’s one thing but messing with his head by adding noise isn’t really the best choice. At the end of the day half a season is a small sample size compared to idk, his entire life. Of all this organizations issues I’d place Tatum’s long term shooting prospects behind a whole lot of other problems.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
Last night, every time JT went to the hoop, there were three or more guys to meet him. I mean that's how the league plays him.

Contrast that to: (1) the number of times Bridges or Ball were able to go to the basket having to beat only 1 guy - because other defenders have to stay with 3P shooters and (2) how unmolested Romeo was when he went to the hoop - because no one is helping out to stop Romeo from getting to the rim.
Exactly. I thought Jason's approach to the game was great, played within the offense, attacked the rim and drew help, kicked it out at least most of the time when he drew a crowd. IIRC most of his 3's were clean catch and shoot looks, just couldn't make em. Overall I'm not that upset with this game because offensively at least they were getting good looks all night.

Defensively they struggled with Bridges down the stretch, as they didn't have enough good defenders to match up with him, Rozier and Ball. Horford just got smoked the one time they tried him on Bridges. I'm not sure what Grant and Tatum were doing defensively. Richardson was on the bench, might have been more useful to have him out there instead of Grant. Oubre and Ball hit well behind the line 3's, and Rozier had a well contested one that finally sealed it, ball game.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,120
Santa Monica
Sometimes (most?) the worst thing you can do when in a shooting slump is having multiple voices in your head. If the issue is mechanical with one fix that’s one thing but messing with his head by adding noise isn’t really the best choice. At the end of the day half a season is a small sample size compared to idk, his entire life. Of all this organizations issues I’d place Tatum’s long term shooting prospects behind a whole lot of other problems.
Tatum's shooting is probably a top 3 determinant of the Celtics winning/losing on a given night. He's completely mechanical in his wind-up, it's not luck-based at all IMO. I listed the excuses the other day and I'm pretty bearish on him finding his 3pt shot this season. His ball is not even landing softly on the rim, it's missing by quite a bit. The best thing would be for him to skip All-Star game/weekend, go to St Louis for 4-5 days and work with his private coach. BUT everyone loves All-Star Exhibition festivities and I'm sure he wants that bad.

This mediocre team + rookie head coach + JAYs shooting regression = taking low expectations for this season even lower.

Expect Tatum will need a full summer with Hanlen to iron it out and come back firing darts next fall.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
It was just one game, but it just doesn't seem like this is their year. Personally, I'd rather see a lot of Pritchard, Nesmith, and Langford over the rest of this season to see/understand what we have there (or don't) than to see more of Schroder (and to a lesser extent - Richardson, although he has played well). With JRich, I see him having a role next season - so I wouldn't be looking to ship him out necessarily unless there was a good deal available.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Exactly. I thought Jason's approach to the game was great, played within the offense, attacked the rim and drew help, kicked it out at least most of the time when he drew a crowd. IIRC most of his 3's were clean catch and shoot looks, just couldn't make em. Overall I'm not that upset with this game because offensively at least they were getting good looks all night.

Defensively they struggled with Bridges down the stretch, as they didn't have enough good defenders to match up with him, Rozier and Ball. Horford just got smoked the one time they tried him on Bridges. I'm not sure what Grant and Tatum were doing defensively. Richardson was on the bench, might have been more useful to have him out there instead of Grant. Oubre and Ball hit well behind the line 3's, and Rozier had a well contested one that finally sealed it, ball game.
I thought one of the better plays that JT made last night was when he drove the lane and whipped a pass to the corner - except that GW had left the corner (for some unknown reason). Hopefully JT will continue to trust his teammates to be where they are supposed to because that's important to getting the ball moving.

On defense, yeah they really missed TL. Horford couldn't guard Bridges at all and Bridges also scored on two drives over JB so they didn't really have an answer for that. Plus Ball was getting wherever he wanted without a ton of resistance. Oh well.
 

Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
2,770
Boston, MA
I thought one of the better plays that JT made last night was when he drove the lane and whipped a pass to the corner - except that GW had left the corner (for some unknown reason).
Yes, I was at the game last night and had a perfect view of JT's great pass to Josh Richardson (who was on the bench). Grant totally blew it and would have had a wide open look from his sweet spot.

Its so weird. During the shootaround JT's shots are spot on but during the game, even when wide open, he is just missing badly.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
It's also not just the shooting that's a problem.

His D still hasn't recovered til his pre 2020 levels. His TO% is the highest of his career and he just hasn't made major strides in other areas you might hope between age 21 and 23.

Overall he's just not playing well and even if his 3 PT% was 38% instead of 31% it would still be a relatively disappointing season for him.

Is he sulking because he can't shoot? Still residual COVID issues? Just a prolonged slump? Teams have a better scouting report? I don't know the answer but Tatum not being a top 20 player in the NBA in his age 23 season is quite disappointing.
 
Last edited:

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
The idea that Jayson Tatum, a career 39% 3pt shooter, somehow "lost" his scoring ability at age 23 is impossible for me to fathom. That just doesn't happen to a player with his skillset.
Fine, but that doesn't make the ball go in. Your inability to believe he is missing doesn't mean he is making shots.

Also his (I know you don't believe it, but it happened) bad shooting this year has dropped him to 38%. And in 6 weeks maybe we are talking about career 37% shooter. You are pretty fond of saying this year is the outlier. But what if the artificially easy bubble (there is stat work showing this) was the outlier? Then without the bubble he is a 37% shooter and his shooting this year is his regression to the norm. I think that is more likely. Probably not a 40% guy when you shoot 31% for half a season. But not a 30% guy either. WHen you shot 40% as lower volume guy as a kid.

Can you concede the possibility maybe he shouldn't be such a high-volume 3pt shooter? That maybe, just maybe as great as he is at driving he should stop missing so many threes?
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
Its so weird. During the shootaround JT's shots are spot on but during the game, even when wide open, he is just missing badly.
I don't know where to find the stats, I'm sure they are out there somewhere - but it'd be very interesting to look at his %'s for open vs. stepback or contested 3s. I know he missed some open ones last night - completely agree. But, my feeling from watching the games is that, generally, he has been making the open ones and just really sucking at the step-back or contested 3s. I did a casual search for the stats, but couldn't find them.

Chris Forsberg - if you're reading this forum - this would be a great discussion for one of your Cisco WebEx segments.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,205
Lynn
Fine, but that doesn't make the ball go in. Your inability to believe he is missing doesn't mean he is making shots.

Also his (I know you don't believe it, but it happened) bad shooting this year has dropped him to 38%. And in 6 weeks maybe we are talking about career 37% shooter. You are pretty fond of saying this year is the outlier. But what if the artificially easy bubble (there is stat work showing this) was the outlier? Then without the bubble he is a 37% shooter and his shooting this year is his regression to the norm. I think that is more likely. Probably not a 40% guy when you shoot 31% for half a season. But not a 30% guy either. WHen you shot 40% as lower volume guy as a kid.

Can you concede the possibility maybe he shouldn't be such a high-volume 3pt shooter? That maybe, just maybe as great as he is at driving he should stop missing so many threes?
Coming into this season, he was a 40% career shooter from deep, on 1500 attempts. The previous two seasons, he’s been one of the best self created and high volume three point shooters in the league. So one half season shows that the previous MASSIVE sample isn’t accurate?

And you bring up the bubble, but they played 58 games that season before the shutdown, then only eight regular season games in the bubble, so that season’s percentage has nothing to do with the bubble effect.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
I don't know where to find the stats, I'm sure they are out there somewhere - but it'd be very interesting to look at his %'s for open vs. stepback or contested 3s. I know he missed some open ones last night - completely agree. But, my feeling from watching the games is that, generally, he has been making the open ones and just really sucking at the step-back or contested 3s. I did a casual search for the stats, but couldn't find them.
NBA.com has at least some of the ones you mention. Hopefully this link will take you to Tatum's specific page (and not a landing page): Jayson Tatum | Stats | NBA.com
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
Coming into this season, he was a 40% career shooter from deep, on 1500 attempts. The previous two seasons, he’s been one of the best self created and high volume three point shooters in the league. So one half season shows that the previous MASSIVE sample isn’t accurate?

And you bring up the bubble, but they played 58 games that season before the shutdown, then only eight regular season games in the bubble, so that season’s percentage has nothing to do with the bubble effect.
So why is he so bad this year? I keep hearing and reading here he is great shooter. One month ago, two months ago, a week ago people cited his career numbers that each game with more shots than points was just an outlier.
There has to be a better answer to him shooting badly than "He's a great shooter".
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,872
Fine, but that doesn't make the ball go in. Your inability to believe he is missing doesn't mean he is making shots.

Also his (I know you don't believe it, but it happened) bad shooting this year has dropped him to 38%. And in 6 weeks maybe we are talking about career 37% shooter. You are pretty fond of saying this year is the outlier. But what if the artificially easy bubble (there is stat work showing this) was the outlier? Then without the bubble he is a 37% shooter and his shooting this year is his regression to the norm. I think that is more likely. Probably not a 40% guy when you shoot 31% for half a season. But not a 30% guy either. WHen you shot 40% as lower volume guy as a kid.

Can you concede the possibility maybe he shouldn't be such a high-volume 3pt shooter? That maybe, just maybe as great as he is at driving he should stop missing so many threes?
Thats an easy one. He's been between 37-43%, between low volume early years and huge volume the last two. If he's a 37%+ guy on massive volume - which if you'd done even the smallest amount of research you would have seen has been - he should absolutely keep shooting threes.

I don't have time to look it up right now, but if I had to guess this is one of his worst stretches of shooting in his career. Three months of bad shooting should not be privileged just because you're upset the Celtics are losing.

He was getting open shots last night. He should take them and will continue to.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,872
So why is he so bad this year? I keep hearing and reading here he is great shooter. One month ago, two months ago, a week ago people cited his career numbers that each game with more shots than points was just an outlier.
There has to be a better answer to him shooting badly than "He's a great shooter".
Sure - you mean why is he shooting poorly? But why would any of us be privy to this information?

People go through shooting slumps. Players have wild swings in shooting year to year. Others have noted his shot looks mechanical. I'm sure he's working on it.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Someone smarter than me with stats....

What are the chances a career 40% (is that what it was starting the season?) 3PT shooter over 1507 attempts would shoot 31.7% over his next 344 attempts randomly?

10%? 5%? Less?
 
Last edited:

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Someone smarter than me with stats....

What are the chances a career 40% (is that what it was starting the season?) 3PT shooter over 1507 attempts would shoot 31.7% over his next 344 attempts?

10%? 5%? Less?
Paul Pierce says hello.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,205
Lynn
A ton of guys throughout the league are shooting MUCH worse from deep this season than their careers. On the Celtics alone, Al is shooting 8% worse than last season, 7% below his career. Jaylen is shooting 4% below last year, and far below his last 3 seasons overall.

Then around the league, Beal is shooting 7% below his career number from deep, Lillard 5% below, Steph 4.5 below. There’s plenty more examples, guys are just struggling with their shots this year, in comparison to the rest of their careers.

Tatum is just one of the extreme examples, but you can see his mechanics are out of whack. Not getting enough arc on the shot IMO, that’s why you see so many go halfway down then rim out. I think there’s a good chance that the dude is just somewhat worn down.
 
Last edited:

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
For what it's worth, DARKO thinks Tatum is about a 37 3PT% guy and his slump this year really hasn't knocked him down too much.

Perhaps the 40% range was a little over his head.

And one more just for fun.
 

Attachments

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
So why is he so bad this year? I keep hearing and reading here he is great shooter. One month ago, two months ago, a week ago people cited his career numbers that each game with more shots than points was just an outlier.
There has to be a better answer to him shooting badly than "He's a great shooter".
Olympics/no offseason? New ball? Random bad season?

Whatever it is I highly doubt he suddenly projects to be an awful shooter moving forward.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Fine, but that doesn't make the ball go in. Your inability to believe he is missing doesn't mean he is making shots.

Also his (I know you don't believe it, but it happened) bad shooting this year has dropped him to 38%. And in 6 weeks maybe we are talking about career 37% shooter. You are pretty fond of saying this year is the outlier. But what if the artificially easy bubble (there is stat work showing this) was the outlier? Then without the bubble he is a 37% shooter and his shooting this year is his regression to the norm. I think that is more likely. Probably not a 40% guy when you shoot 31% for half a season. But not a 30% guy either. WHen you shot 40% as lower volume guy as a kid.

Can you concede the possibility maybe he shouldn't be such a high-volume 3pt shooter? That maybe, just maybe as great as he is at driving he should stop missing so many threes?
Depends what you believe is more predictive going forward.

Of his 1771 three point attempts prior to this season (includes playoffs), over which he drained exactly 691, or 39%, the bubble games accounted for all of 175 attempts (of which he drained 69, or 39.4%). So, no, the bubble had nothing to do with his career shooting percentage prior to this season. Suggesting otherwise is ludicrous.

So, are those 1771 shots predictive going forward? Or is it the 344 since? Shots which came after a summer spent training for and playing in the Olympics.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
NBA.com has at least some of the ones you mention. Hopefully this link will take you to Tatum's specific page (and not a landing page): Jayson Tatum | Stats | NBA.com
Thanks for that link. So he's:

35% catch and shoot (15% of his total shots, 39% of his 3's)
27% on pullups (23/59%)

31% on wide open (13% of his 3"s)
33.5% on open (58%)
26% on tight (29%)

So really he's not shooting great in general.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,120
Santa Monica
So why is he so bad this year? I keep hearing and reading here he is great shooter. One month ago, two months ago, a week ago people cited his career numbers that each game with more shots than points was just an outlier.
There has to be a better answer to him shooting badly than "He's a great shooter".
posted this a few days ago

The Tatum shooting struggles are a head-scratcher. Here are some valid excuses IMO:
#1 Bad lineup construction. Playing with 3 non-shooters is leading to double teams and clogged lanes. Jaylen Browns 3pt% & FG% is also down noticeably.
#2 Bodybuilding focus. FTA led to 50pt bonanza's last season. So rightly JT focused on getting stronger so he could draw more fouls and play through contact. Unfortunately, the NBA decided to ref the games differently
#3 Better defense. Tatum hasn't been loafing on D as he has over the last 2 seasons. he's expending a lot of focus & energy on playing better D
#4 New system. Tatum has to adapt to IME's .5/move the ball quickly philosophy which has led to an uptick in TOs
#5 Olympics. Focused on winning Gold took him away from his Pure Sweat Summer with Hanlen
#6 More minutes. Seems like they are concentrated and sometimes JT doesn't leave the floor for extended Q4 periods. Tired legs = bad shooting, but that doesn't really explain why he opens up most games cold.
#7 New ball. The entire league is shooting worse but improving. Tatum went from old NBA ball to Olympic ball to new NBA ball over 4 months
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
posted this a few days ago

The Tatum shooting struggles are a head-scratcher. Here are some valid excuses IMO:
#1 Bad lineup construction. Playing with 3 non-shooters is leading to double teams and clogged lanes. Jaylen Browns 3pt% & FG% is also down noticeably.
#2 Bodybuilding focus. FTA led to 50pt bonanza's last season. So rightly JT focused on getting stronger so he could draw more fouls and play through contact. Unfortunately, the NBA decided to ref the games differently
#3 Better defense. Tatum hasn't been loafing on D as he has over the last 2 seasons. he's expending a lot of focus & energy on playing better D
#4 New system. Tatum has to adapt to IME's .5/move the ball quickly philosophy which has led to an uptick in TOs
#5 Olympics. Focused on winning Gold took him away from his Pure Sweat Summer with Hanlen
#6 More minutes. Seems like they are concentrated and sometimes JT doesn't leave the floor for extended Q4 periods. Tired legs = bad shooting, but that doesn't really explain why he opens up most games cold.
#7 New ball. The entire league is shooting worse but improving. Tatum went from old NBA ball to Olympic ball to new NBA ball over 4 months
So last year he was 52% on wide open shots, this year 31%. Similar % of overall shots. 38% on open vs 34%, again similar % of overall shots. So he is getting similar looks to last year.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
So last year he was 52% on wide open shots, this year 31%. Similar % of overall shots. 38% on open vs 34%, again similar % of overall shots. So he is getting similar looks to last year.
Interesting. Where'd you find that stat?
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
In his age 25 and 26 seasons Pierce suddenly turned into a .301 shooter from three, whereas he’d been a .387 shooter for his fist four years.
I see. I'm sure it's happened plenty of times.

Someone should be able to say a true 40% 3 pt shooter would shoot 31% over his next 400 shots X% of the time by random chance.

Just curious if its 10% of the time level weird, or 1% of the time level weird.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,020
Imaginationland
In his age 25 and 26 seasons Pierce suddenly turned into a .301 shooter from three, whereas he’d been a .387 shooter for his fist four years.
It really was an odd stretch for Pierce:

Ages 21-24: .387 on 1388 attempts
Ages 25-26: .301 on 775 attempts
Ages 27-37 (essentially the rest of his career as a useful player): .381 on 3368 attempts

Great shooters can go through long slumps. Pierce also had the second most turnovers in the entire league in his age 25/26 seasons (just two fewer than Steve Francis). Player growth isn't linear, which doesn't make any of this any less frustrating.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,120
Santa Monica
So last year he was 52% on wide open shots, this year 31%. Similar % of overall shots. 38% on open vs 34%, again similar % of overall shots. So he is getting similar looks to last year.
Sure, it's probably a little of all those 7 excuses.

Just to reiterate, his shooting mechanics are off, it's not luck. Would expect him to continue at this shitty pace the rest of the season. He really needs a full summer w/Hanlen.

Hope I'm wrong.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
For what it's worth, DARKO thinks Tatum is about a 37 3PT% guy and his slump this year really hasn't knocked him down too much.

Perhaps the 40% range was a little over his head.

And one more just for fun.
Yeah pretty much what I said. I don't think a 40% guy shoots 30 for half a year, but a 37% guy might. He trades two threes for two twos a game he is probably a better player.
Frustrating because if he was at even 35-36 they are probably ready to make a move in the east.
Kinda reminds me of Kobe in that he he wants to just shoot through bad games.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
Yeah pretty much what I said. I don't think a 40% guy shoots 30 for half a year, but a 37% guy might. He trades two threes for two twos a game he is probably a better player.
Frustrating because if he was at even 35-36 they are probably ready to make a move in the east.
Kinda reminds me of Kobe in that he he wants to just shoot through bad games.
Because that worked in every slump that he had before this year. He'd shoot through it, and suddenly he had a few 7-10 games in a month and the average is back to above average.

It's shocking to be that nobody has done a side by side of his shooting motion yet. Something is different.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,813
Someone smarter than me with stats....

What are the chances a career 40% (is that what it was starting the season?) 3PT shooter over 1507 attempts would shoot 31.7% over his next 344 attempts randomly?

10%? 5%? Less?
This seems like a cool problem.

There is a difficulty: the 40% over 1,507 attempts can itself be thought of as a certain probability outcome assuming a certain "true" 3-pt. shooting percentage (which others have kind of alluded to). And that will influence the answer to the problem. So for example: if Tatum is a "true 37%" shooter from three, there is a certain chance (say 12%) that over those 1,507 attempts, he will make 40% of them. Or he could be a "true 41%" shooter from three who happened to shoot a bit more poorly over 1,507 attempts. But the answer to the second part of the question depends on whether he's a "true 37%" or 41% or whatever percent shooter.

So I think to answer you'd have to make an assumption, and the easiest one to make is that he's a "true 40%" shooter, with those 1,507 attempts as evidence (which is certainly much better evidence than a couple of hundred attempts).

From there, I think I'd do a Monte Carlo simulation (there are probably some online), where you'd run 344 outcomes, with a 40% chance of each individual one being "hit" and the others being "miss." If you did a Monte Carlo with 20,000 runs (of 344 outcomes each) say, that should give you a pretty good sense of how often he lands at 31.7%. It might be useful to break the results into bands, so you could see e.g. what percentage of time he hit 31% to 32%, 32% to 33%, 33% to 34%, etc. Some thoughts ... I might look into this later if I have time. It is interesting.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
I see. I'm sure it's happened plenty of times.

Someone should be able to say a true 40% 3 pt shooter would shoot 31% over his next 400 shots X% of the time by random chance.

Just curious if its 10% of the time level weird, or 1% of the time level weird.
Sounds like something Eric Van would have posted. :)
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
This seems like a cool problem.

There is a difficulty: the 40% over 1,507 attempts can itself be thought of as a certain probability outcome assuming a certain "true" 3-pt. shooting percentage (which others have kind of alluded to). And that will influence the answer to the problem. So for example: if Tatum is a "true 37%" shooter from three, there is a certain chance (say 12%) that over those 1,507 attempts, he will make 40% of them. Or he could be a "true 41%" shooter from three who happened to shoot a bit more poorly over 1,507 attempts. But the answer to the second part of the question depends on whether he's a "true 37%" or 41% or whatever percent shooter.
Agreed. According to DARKO is looks like he was about 38% or so "true 3PT" shooter heading into the season. I would probably use that as the baseline for the calculations. I'm sure there is a relatively easy way to do it, probably some variation of what you posted.

I've seen stuff like this for baseball.... what are the chances a true 0.300 hitter will hit 0.200 for a couple months worth of at bats based on randomness. People generally tend to underestimate how likely weird results can happen in small-ish sample sized purely by chance.
 
Last edited:

greek_gawd_of_walks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2009
9,138
Wiscansin, by way of Attleboro
When there is that big of a discrepancy on open look fg % from one year (or Tatum's entire career until now) to the next, there has to be a mechanical issue somewhere. With Tatum, I doubt it's in his body posture (he's always falling away/ throwing his shoulders back to some degree it seems), although, I'd love to see them get him on the delayed break with top of key threes where he can dribble in rhythm into them early in games. But that would require them to be a better fast-break team.

What's really the issue is what's happening at the top of his shot. Tatum always had a strong, wrist action at the top of his release, but it looks even more exaggerated now. Could be tired legs (Olympics, COVID, extra minutes), but his shot looks to be more upper body. His shot is also just disjointed from when he goes up into his shoot and finally releases the ball. In all honesty, it looks a little like what Aaron Nesmith is working with (which I always thought was a funky looking, compartmentalized shooting motion). Just my casual observations. Definitely isn't anything yippy imo.

Lastly, it's definitely between his ears a bit right now. But the only way to cure that is to start making them.
 
Last edited:

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,179
San Francisco
This seems like a cool problem.

There is a difficulty: the 40% over 1,507 attempts can itself be thought of as a certain probability outcome assuming a certain "true" 3-pt. shooting percentage (which others have kind of alluded to). And that will influence the answer to the problem. So for example: if Tatum is a "true 37%" shooter from three, there is a certain chance (say 12%) that over those 1,507 attempts, he will make 40% of them. Or he could be a "true 41%" shooter from three who happened to shoot a bit more poorly over 1,507 attempts. But the answer to the second part of the question depends on whether he's a "true 37%" or 41% or whatever percent shooter.

So I think to answer you'd have to make an assumption, and the easiest one to make is that he's a "true 40%" shooter, with those 1,507 attempts as evidence (which is certainly much better evidence than a couple of hundred attempts).

From there, I think I'd do a Monte Carlo simulation (there are probably some online), where you'd run 344 outcomes, with a 40% chance of each individual one being "hit" and the others being "miss." If you did a Monte Carlo with 20,000 runs (of 344 outcomes each) say, that should give you a pretty good sense of how often he lands at 31.7%. It might be useful to break the results into bands, so you could see e.g. what percentage of time he hit 31% to 32%, 32% to 33%, 33% to 34%, etc. Some thoughts ... I might look into this later if I have time. It is interesting.
Monte Carlo simulation will work but computing the PDF of a binomial variable is a solved problem!
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
The probability you would get exactly 30% is even lower, I computed the probability you would observe <= 30%. What is hard to believe about it? 400 trials is a lot of trials.
Like I said above I would probably use 38% and 31.7% along with 344 trials. But yeah that's much lower than I would have thought honestly.

There are a bunch of guys in the NBA this year that have decent sized drops like that.

Based on % decrease, it's essentially the chances a .300 hitter will hit .250 for a little more than half a baseball season based on randomness.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,179
San Francisco
Like I said above I would probably use 38% and 31.7% along with 344 trials.

But yeah that's much lower than I would have thought honestly.

There are a bunch of guys in the NBA this year that have decent sized drops like that.
Yeah, if you use that it is 0.8% chance to observe <= 31.7% assuming a true skill of 38%.

This is all under the heavily simplifying assumption that 3p skill is fixed, represents a single skill which is a bernoulli variable, and we know neither of those things are true. For example, "shooting threes" can be decomposed into off the dribble and catch and shoot, and further broken down according to where it is on the floor (corner, above the break etc) and then according to how well defended a shot is. It is fertile ground for Simpson's paradox to peak out.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Yeah, if you use that it is 0.8% chance to observe <= 31.7% assuming a true skill of 38%.
Good stuff, thanks. Roughly a 1 in a 100 chance makes more sense to me.

Not saying Tatum's drop is all randomness or anything, there is obviously a lot of real world stuff that can go into this. Just curious how likely such a thing happening by chance would be.