The myth that SAS is shooting way more 3's

[Rummpd]

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/offense-per-game/sort/avgThreePointFieldGoalsAttempted

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/offense-per-game/sort/threePointFieldGoalPct

Spurs actually are 9th in NBA with attempts but are 2nd in 3 point FG% - of the good teams only Boston shoots signficantly less (surprisingly with Allen and Pierce etc.)

By comparison among strong teams:
Team Attempts Rank Attemps 3Pt% Rank %
Boston 14.5 28 0.378 6
Miami 18.4 18 0.388 4
Dallas 20.9 T7 0.368 9
Chicago 16.2 T12 0.362 18
LAL 18.3 15 0.362 12T
Orlando 25.8 1 0.362 14
SAS 20.6 9 0.395 2 (Golden State and Denver very close to SAS and all three shoot nearly 40% from the three.)



Orlando and Dallas (slightly) shoot more but Spurs by far shoot the best combination of attempts and 2pt FG%. Sure it seems they gun it from 3 land but in fact they only shoot about 2 3 point shots per game more than LAL or Miami. The only outlier is Boston that plays at a slower pace but one argues that maybe they shoot shoot the 3 more than they do. Chicago does not shoot alot but since they stink at it they should not anyway.


In the playoffs Spurs will probably shoot a little bit less from three land and drop off a little bit but so will other top teams most likely under the pressure of the playoffs and Spurs though going into the last part of the season and the playoffs do not have to significantly worry that they are gunning to many threes IMO (in my opinion).

[Dex]

Spurs actually are shooting more threes than they ever have before (20.6 3PA this season, as compared to an average of 18.4 3PA over the past six), and they are also making more of them. I think this also seems to be exaggerated with the emphasis on the guard play instead of Tim in the low post.

Interestingly enough, though, that seems to be the rising trend in the league. Even with the increased rate in shooting, Spurs are still right about where they usually have been compared to other teams.

2010-2011 - 9th - 20.6 3PA - .395%
2009-2010 - 11th - 18.9 3PA - .358%
2008-2009 - 10th - 19.8 3PA - .386%
2007-2008 - 10th - 19.6 3PA - .369%
2006-2007 - 7th - 19.0 3PA - .381%
2005-2006 - 16th - 16.6 3PA - .385%
2004-2005 - 12th - 17.0 3PA - .363%

The hot shooting is an obvious component of the hot start, just as three-point shooting is a vital component of the makeup of this team. But we all know the adage about living and dying by the three. It's hard to say where the line between these two concepts falls, but the Spurs may be toeing it.

[Rummpd]

Sure but it is not like Spurs are shooting 5 or 6 more a game and to me until the other team stops it why not keep shooting the threes? The Spurs effective FG% has to be way up there as well as they shoot threes. They are 4th in Hollingers TS%: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/effectiveFGPct

I am not worried at all as in the playoffs I believe Duncan is to play more minutes and the Spurs including him, Manu, Tony, Dice and others are going to go inside much more often and effectively against all the Western powers and the way things are set up the only big team in the West at least the Spurs will have to face will be either the Mavs or the Lakers as one will knock the other off (and right now I believe strongly Mavs will knock off the LAL in the 2nd round)

[Cry Havoc]

As long as we have Bonner, Manu, Neal, RJ, and even Parker, why not keep loading up from long range. It stretches the defense. And god knows that Laker team isn't young enough to run out on the wings for a full 48 over 7 games, so the looks will be there. If not, it means we have a lot of room in the lane for Tony to get penetration or for Manu to get to a good spot where he can score/get fouled.

The 3 is a great weapon this year especially against the older teams who have to make a decision to spread out their D and give up penetration or sag back and give us easy looks from deep.

[Dex]

As long as we have Bonner, Manu, Neal, RJ, and even Parker, why not keep loading up from long range. It stretches the defense. And god knows that Laker team isn't young enough to run out on the wings for a full 48 over 7 games, so the looks will be there. If not, it means we have a lot of room in the lane for Tony to get penetration or for Manu to get to a good spot where he can score/get fouled.

The 3 is a great weapon this year especially against the older teams who have to make a decision to spread out their D and give up penetration or sag back and give us easy looks from deep.

Don't get me wrong; the three-point shot is vital to this team's success, and it has been ever since we've had Duncan, Manu, and Ginobili getting the ball into the paint and then dishing out to shooters. As you mentioned, it also spreads the floor for the post players, and causes defenses to scramble and break down with good ball movement. Last but not least, it's the great equalizer. How many games have we seen the Spurs bring back, or pull away in, with a three-point barrage this season?

However, the problem with the three-point shot is, and always has been, that it is streaky. Even teams that are amazingly consistent with the three are capable of putting up stinkers like that 3-17 night against Philly. Sometimes the shots just don't go in, for whatever reason.

Suddenly, all of those misses not only become empty possessions, but they also become long rebounds that put more pressure on the transition defense. The longer you continue to clang away from outside, the more crowded the paint gets. Ultimately, if the Spurs don't perform from the arc, then it makes the game very difficult to win.

These games are easy to dismiss in the regular season, but if your team is reliant on the three-pointer in the playoffs, one or two off nights can be the difference between a ring and an early vacation.

It's a necessary bet that the Spurs (and really, all teams) are obliged to take, but it's still a gamble.

[Fabbs]

However, the problem with the three-point shot is, and always has been, that it is streaky. Even teams that are amazingly consistent with the three are capable of putting up stinkers like that 3-17 night against Philly. Sometimes the shots just don't go in, for whatever reason.

Suddenly, all of those misses not only become empty possessions, but they also become long rebounds that put more pressure on the transition defense. The longer you continue to clang away from outside, the more crowded the paint gets. Ultimately, if the Spurs don't perform from the arc, then it makes the game very difficult to win.

These games are easy to dismiss in the regular season, but if your team is reliant on the three-pointer in the playoffs, one or two off nights can be the difference between a ring and an early vacation.
Exactly! So is this where someone, like, i dunno a coach maybe could make an ad-just-ment to the offensive strategy during the game???

Nice about one of the new chuckers this year, Neal, is he is not worthless when his treys are not hitting. Will get his nose to the ball for a rebound, tipped pass etc.

[DJB]

Spurs actually are shooting more threes than they ever have before (20.6 3PA this season, as compared to an average of 18.4 3PA over the past six), and they are also making more of them. I think this also seems to be exaggerated with the emphasis on the guard play instead of Tim in the low post.


This.

[ChuckD]

Don't get me wrong; the three-point shot is vital to this team's success, and it has been ever since we've had Duncan, Manu, and Ginobili getting the ball into the paint and then dishing out to shooters. As you mentioned, it also spreads the floor for the post players, and causes defenses to scramble and break down with good ball movement. Last but not least, it's the great equalizer. How many games have we seen the Spurs bring back, or pull away in, with a three-point barrage this season?

However, the problem with the three-point shot is, and always has been, that it is streaky. Even teams that are amazingly consistent with the three are capable of putting up stinkers like that 3-17 night against Philly. Sometimes the shots just don't go in, for whatever reason.

Suddenly, all of those misses not only become empty possessions, but they also become long rebounds that put more pressure on the transition defense. The longer you continue to clang away from outside, the more crowded the paint gets. Ultimately, if the Spurs don't perform from the arc, then it makes the game very difficult to win.

These games are easy to dismiss in the regular season, but if your team is reliant on the three-pointer in the playoffs, one or two off nights can be the difference between a ring and an early vacation.

It's a necessary bet that the Spurs (and really, all teams) are obliged to take, but it's still a gamble.

The thing is, the nights with a lot of misses rarely just happen. They are a result of strong contests by a long athletic team, like Philly. LA no longer fits that profile. And, as Orlando showed today, you don't even have to hit a lot of them, you just have to take them to threaten and draw their defenders out. The Magic only shot 7-23, a pedestrian 30.4%, but that spaced them so that they could shoot 30-53 inside the arc.