3. Percentages of points from 2, 3 and FT by year

Percentages of points from 2, 3 and FT by year

  • approxinfinity

    Season Record NCAA Tournament Result FT% 3PT% 2PT%
    2024–25 21–13 First Round 13.6% 28.5% 57.9%
    2023–24 23–11 Second Round ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2022–23 28–8 Round of 32 ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2021–22 34–6 National Champions ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2020–21 21–9 Second Round ~15% ~29% ~56%
    2019–20 28–3 Tournament Canceled ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2018–19 26–10 Second Round ~15% ~31% ~54%
    2017–18 31–8 Final Four ~16% ~32% ~52%
    2016–17 31–5 Elite Eight ~15% ~33% ~52%
    2015–16 33–5 Elite Eight ~14% ~34% ~52%
    2014–15 27–9 Round of 32 ~15% ~33% ~52%
    2013–14 25–10 Round of 32 ~16% ~32% ~52%
    2012–13 31–6 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~31% ~54%
    2011–12 32–7 National Runner-Up ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2010–11 35–3 Elite Eight ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2009–10 33–3 Second Round ~14% ~33% ~53%
    2008–09 27–8 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2007–08 37–3 National Champions ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2006–07 33–5 Elite Eight ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2005–06 25–8 First Round ~14% ~33% ~53%
    2004–05 23–7 First Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2003–04 24–9 Elite Eight ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2002–03 30–8 National Runner-Up ~15% ~32% ~53%
    3 B 1 Reply
  • approxinfinity

    Historically high percentage of points from 2, low from 3, low from FT.

    0
  • approxinfinity

    Heres Uconn under Hurley:

    Season Record NCAA Tournament Result FT% 3PT% 2PT%
    2024–25 24–11 Second Round ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2023–24 37–3 National Champions ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2022–23 31–8 National Champions ~15% ~31% ~54%
    2021–22 23–10 First Round ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2020–21 15–8 First Round ~13% ~29% ~58%
    2019–20 19–12 No Tournament (COVID) ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2018–19 16–17 No Tournament ~13% ~28% ~59%
    0
  • approxinfinity

    Heres Villanova under Jay Wright:

    Season Record NCAA Tournament Result FT% 3PT% 2PT%
    2021–22 30–8 Final Four ~16% ~32% ~52%
    2020–21 18–7 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~31% ~54%
    2019–20 24–7 Tournament Canceled ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2018–19 26–10 Second Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2017–18 36–4 National Champions ~16% ~35% ~49%
    2016–17 32–4 Second Round ~15% ~34% ~51%
    2015–16 35–5 National Champions ~16% ~33% ~51%
    2014–15 33–3 Second Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2013–14 29–5 Second Round ~14% ~31% ~55%
    2012–13 20–14 Round of 64 ~13% ~30% ~57%
    2011–12 13–19 No Tournament ~12% ~29% ~59%
    2010–11 21–12 Round of 64 ~13% ~30% ~57%
    2009–10 25–8 Round of 32 ~14% ~31% ~55%
    2008–09 30–8 Final Four ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2007–08 22–13 Sweet Sixteen ~14% ~31% ~55%
    2006–07 22–11 Round of 64 ~13% ~30% ~57%
    2005–06 28–5 Elite Eight ~14% ~31% ~55%
    2004–05 24–8 Sweet Sixteen ~13% ~30% ~57%
    2003–04 18–17 NIT Quarterfinal ~12% ~29% ~59%
    2002–03 15–16 NIT First Round ~11% ~28% ~61%
    2001–02 19–13 NIT Quarterfinal ~12% ~29% ~59%
    0
  • approxinfinity

    Check out Duke’s breakdown for this year for something eye popping

    Season Coach Record NCAA Tournament Result FT% 3PT% 2PT%
    2024–25 Jon Scheyer 35–4 Final Four 18.3% 36.4% 45.3%
    2023–24 Jon Scheyer 27–9 Sweet Sixteen ~16% ~34% ~50%
    2022–23 Jon Scheyer 27–9 Second Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2021–22 Mike Krzyzewski 32–7 Final Four ~16% ~33% ~51%
    2020–21 Mike Krzyzewski 13–11 No Tournament ~14% ~32% ~54%
    2019–20 Mike Krzyzewski 25–6 Tournament Canceled ~15% ~33% ~52%
    2018–19 Mike Krzyzewski 32–6 Elite Eight ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2017–18 Mike Krzyzewski 29–8 Elite Eight ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2016–17 Mike Krzyzewski 28–9 Second Round ~14% ~33% ~53%
    2015–16 Mike Krzyzewski 25–11 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2014–15 Mike Krzyzewski 35–4 National Champions ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2013–14 Mike Krzyzewski 26–9 First Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2012–13 Mike Krzyzewski 30–6 Elite Eight ~14% ~33% ~53%
    2011–12 Mike Krzyzewski 27–7 First Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2010–11 Mike Krzyzewski 32–5 Sweet Sixteen ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2009–10 Mike Krzyzewski 35–5 National Champions ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2008–09 Mike Krzyzewski 30–7 Sweet Sixteen ~14% ~33% ~53%
    2007–08 Mike Krzyzewski 28–6 Second Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2006–07 Mike Krzyzewski 22–11 First Round ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2005–06 Mike Krzyzewski 32–4 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2004–05 Mike Krzyzewski 27–6 Sweet Sixteen ~14% ~33% ~53%
    2003–04 Mike Krzyzewski 31–6 Final Four ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2002–03 Mike Krzyzewski 26–7 Sweet Sixteen ~16% ~31% ~53%
    2001–02 Mike Krzyzewski 31–4 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~32% ~53%
    2000–01 Mike Krzyzewski 35–4 National Champions ~14% ~33% ~53%
    1999–00 Mike Krzyzewski 29–5 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~32% ~53%
    1998–99 Mike Krzyzewski 37–2 Runner-Up ~16% ~31% ~53%
    1997–98 Mike Krzyzewski 32–4 Elite Eight ~15% ~32% ~53%
    1996–97 Mike Krzyzewski 24–9 Second Round ~14% ~33% ~53%
    1995–96 Mike Krzyzewski 18–13 First Round ~15% ~32% ~53%
    1994–95 Mike Krzyzewski 9–3* No Tournament ~16% ~31% ~53%
    1993–94 Mike Krzyzewski 28–6 Runner-Up ~15% ~32% ~53%
    1992–93 Mike Krzyzewski 24–8 Second Round ~14% ~33% ~53%
    1991–92 Mike Krzyzewski 34–2 National Champions ~15% ~32% ~53%
    1990–91 Mike Krzyzewski 32–7 National Champions ~16% ~31% ~53%
    1989–90 Mike Krzyzewski 29–9 Runner-Up ~15% ~32% ~53%
    1988–89 Mike Krzyzewski 28–8 Final Four ~14% ~33% ~53%
    1987–88 Mike Krzy
    0
  • D

    That’s a lot of freebies by Duke.

    2
  • approxinfinity

    Houston under Sampson:

    Season Record NCAA Tournament Result FT% 3PT% 2PT%
    2024–25 35–5 Runner-Up ~16% ~32% ~52%
    2023–24 32–5 Sweet Sixteen ~15% ~31% ~54%
    2022–23 33–4 Sweet Sixteen ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2021–22 32–6 Elite Eight ~15% ~31% ~54%
    2020–21 28–4 Final Four ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2019–20 23–8 Tournament Canceled ~13% ~29% ~58%
    2018–19 33–4 Sweet Sixteen ~14% ~30% ~56%
    2017–18 27–8 Round of 32 ~13% ~28% ~59%
    2016–17 21–11 No Tournament ~12% ~27% ~61%
    2015–16 22–10 NIT First Round ~13% ~28% ~59%
    2014–15 13–19 No Tournament ~12% ~27% ~61%
    0
  • rockchalkjayhawk

    @approxinfinity I think attempts would be a good way to help visualize this data, put it in context, too.

    2
  • bskeet

    Took me awhile to make sense of this-- I think this is distribution of points by source (these always add up to 100%, right?)

    2
  • bskeet

    Surprisingly, the stat that seems most corollary with a high-achieving team is FT% ~16% (or above, like Duke this year - holy mackerel!)

    It kind of makes sense: Late game situations, teams that can A) draw fouls and B ) make foul shots, will have a better chance of winning.

    It seems to be more important than whether the team is generating 33% or 30% of their scoring from 3 (teams get to the FF in that range and don’t get to the FF in that range).

    2
  • rockchalkjayhawk

    Interesting for sure though. generally way closer %s than i thought they’d be.

    1 bskeet 1 Reply
  • bskeet

    @rockchalkjayhawk Yeah… Not much variance. But maybe there’s a tipping point on some of these…

    2
  • approxinfinity

    I think that 16% FT is def worth striving for.

    2
  • approxinfinity

    My stats may be bogus. I’m using chatgpt to parse some data for me. Now i’m getting different results. Please hold.

    1
  • B

    Chat GPT is often bad at math. lol

    1
  • J

    If you are using chat GPT your stats are almost certainly bogus

    0
  • approxinfinity

    Yeah i don’t have time to do this right now but what i am trying to do now is use it to break down the ratio in wins vs losses. I think this is a good thread to pull.

    Its gets us down the road.

    0
  • approxinfinity

    Its very possible that the above is all correct and what i am doing now is not since everything above is consistent and the new thing which requires more heavy lifting is not

    0
  • B

    @approxinfinity

    16% FT rate seems to be a real sweet spot for success for Self teams

    1
  • approxinfinity

    Chatgpt has dishonored this household… ive spent an hour or so slaving over a google sheet my own damn self… will let you know when the kinks are worked out.

    2
Log in to reply