Do the Spurs have the shooters to compete?

[Dex]

In the past two games, a glaring problem has surfaced for this shortened Spurs rotation: three-point shooting. This team, through its title runs, has always relied on a system of shooters surrounding Tim Duncan to provide spacing in the post and get easy treys.

However, in this series, the Spurs have struggled to get off from the arc, especially in the last two games. Take away George Hill's uncanny 5-6 performance from Game 4, and the rest of the team is a woeful 1-18 over the past two games.

When you look at the current buildup of this abbreviated Spurs team, all of the shooters are either missing from the lineup, or just plain missing shots.

Playoffs
Manu .348
Hill .600
Jefferson .250
Bonner .300
Mason .000
Temple .000
Bogans .000

Regular Season
Manu .377
Hill .399
Jefferson 316
Bonner .390
Mason .333
Temple .351 (.435 with Spurs)
Bogans .357
Finley .317

The only Spur shooting over his season average is Hill, and that is in a very small sample size. Manu's dip, while mostly negligible, is still apparent. And everybody else is either struggling, stuck to the bench, or playing for another team.

My real concern is that of our shooters, only Manu, Hill, and Jefferson are receiving reliable minutes, and Jefferson is in a funk. Unless he can rise above it, or unless another shooter such as Bonner, Mason, or even Temple emerges, I don't know if these Spurs have the shooting touch for a title run.

Thoughts?

[TIMMYD!]

I believe we do not need the three to win (see Game 3) but not being able to hit one has crowded the interior and made it harder for Tim.

[Bartleby]

If those numbers were weighted to reflect who is taking most of those threes they probably wouldn't look so bad, but yeah, at some point Jefferson, Bonner etc. are going to have to start making those shots.

[lrrr]

Agree that a major trait of the title teams was 3pt shooting and I am somewhat worried about the lack of 3's this team is making, but the Spurs ahve never had as many athletes who could attack the rim and get to the line as they currently do, so hopefully this will amke up for the 3pt deficiencies.

In the past there were guys like Bowen, Kerr and Finley who could knock down 3's but would almost NEVER drive or get to the line. This year seems like the reverse.

[m33p0]

a few treys is nice but mid range jumpers is enough imo. this team has the athleticism (huh? whowuddathut) to beat the mavs off the dribble.

[Mel_13]

My real concern is that of our shooters, only Manu, Hill, and Jefferson are receiving reliable minutes, and Jefferson is in a funk. Unless he can rise above it, or unless another shooter such as Bonner, Mason, or even Temple emerges, I don't know if these Spurs have the shooting touch for a title run.

Thoughts?

I understand the point you are making in your post but I hope RJ stays in the funk he's in for the rest of the playoffs. He leads the team in field goal percentage, effective field goal percentage, true shooting percentage, and points per shot. He may have abandoned the 3 pointer, but the rest of his game has been been remarkably effective.

[DesignatedT]

Manu was shooting some ridiculously high percentage from 3 since all star break- i believe it was near 45% from behind the arc.

[HarlemHeat37]

The shooting concerns me, but it's still very possible to compete without elite 3-point shooting..shit, it's still possible to have an elite offense without significant 3-point shooting..

6 teams won NBA titles in the post-Jordan era with an average/below average 3-point % in the playoffs, around what the Spurs currently have(although the sample size is small)..2000 Lakers, 2002 Lakers(or the real champs, Sacramento), 2003 Spurs, 2004 Pistons, the 2006 Heat and the 2008 Celtics..

The Lakers' teams still managed to have an elite offense, even without good 3-point shooting..the other teams all won by having a good balance, but primarily dominating on the defensive side of the floor..obviously you have to make timely 3-pointers at some point during the playoffs, but there's nothing you can really use to quantify that..

It does concern me, but it's possible to still win, as long as they keep attacking the basket and playing great defense..

[easy7]

No, we don't, that is why we are down 3-1.

[SCdac]

As long as a Bonner or Jefferson or Bogans can hit a "timely" three, I think we'll be ok. Step up and knock it down when it's absolutely needed, whether late in the 4th or late in the 2nd going into the half, and I'm content. I'm partial to an inside-outside game more than the other way around - which I feel the Orlando Magic has tended to do, they take a whopping 27.3 three's per game and Dwight only takes like 10 shots a game. Once their three's stop falling like in the Finals last season, they fall apart. For the Spurs, we do need to make three's to comfortably win ball games I agree, but at the same time I love to see we're not completely dependent on it. If you look at the shot-chart for the last game, all of Hill, Jefferson, Manu, Parker, Blair, and Duncan had points in the paint. That is a thing of beauty, stark contrast from last season's team, and a big part of the reason we are dangerous. But against a team like LA where the paint is clogged more, perhaps long distance shooting will be more vital IDK.

[TD 21]

This is not a good three point shooting team. On the season, they're above average, but in the last at least final third of the season they shot the ball poorly from three. Really, Hill and Ginobili are the only reliable three point shooters playing extended minutes. Bonner's minutes are limited and he can't make a shot under pressure anyway, while Jefferson, Bogans and Mason (due to the torn ligament in his pinky) are all mediocre three point shooters.

Like Harlem said, as long as they keep attacking the basket, playing great defense and rebounding, it's still possible to win. There's this illusion amongst many Spurs fans that you need high level three point shooting to win a championship (probably because it's generally been a staple of the Spurs), but it's just not true. Obviously it helps, but I'd rather the Spurs be strong in the three aforementioned areas.

Even though I'm on record as saying they won't win it, I think most still consider the Lakers the third likeliest team to win the championship this season and they're verging on being terrible when it comes to shooting the three.

[Obstructed_View]

I believe we do not need the three to win (see Game 3) but not being able to hit one has crowded the interior and made it harder for Tim.

Timmy wasn't getting aggressively double teamed in the last game, he just wasn't really going very hard and was being defended well when he did. The Mavs are still giving up a ton of points inside. As I've said before, I'll be happy if the Spurs hit a higher percentage of the threes they take, but I'm more than pleased with the low number of attempts they've had.