I will pick up the thread from last offseason and continue to make the case these percentages are overrated. It's more important that you can hit threes, than that you hit them at a certain percentage. I'll use easy numbers so I don't have to break out the calculator. If you take 100 threes in a season, and shoot 35% of them, then you have hit 35 threes that season. If you take 100 threes and hit 40% of them, then you have hit 40 threes that season. Let's say you play 35 games that season, then you have hit 1 three per game in the first example, and 1.1 threes per game in the second. You have scored 15 more points over the course of the entire season.
To use real numbers: Colin Chandler took (178) and made (73) the most threes on the team, and shot the highest percentage (41%). If he had taken the same number of threes and only shot 35%, he would have made 62 threes over the course of the season. That's 11 fewer threes, 33 points, ie less than a point difference per game (we played 36 games). I'm not saying each point doesn't matter, and you obviously rather a guy shoot 41% than 36%. But if that same player can't drive the ball, can't defend, and is a lousy passer, you're better off with the 36% shooter who can do those other things better.
I believe the primary purpose of having three point threats on the court is to make it easier to score two-point baskets. If you force the defense to guard more of your guys away from the basket, you should have an easier time scoring the highest percentage shots in the game, which are those right around the basket.
Having a team that's good at three point shooting is one way to do that. As we saw with teams like Arizona and Florida this past season, there are other ways to ensure you get a lot of looks right around the rim. Offensive rebounding is becoming a bigger emphasis for the same reason.
Another way of looking at this is, it is more beneficial to replace a 20% shooter with a 30% shooter, than it is to replace a 30% shooter with a 40% shooter.
