http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...phic_part1.jpg
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...phic_part2.jpg
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...gs-come-in-3s/
Printable View
Yes. Recipe for playoff failure.
First of all, that chart isn't correct. Last year, the Spurs made 8.4 three-pointers per game, not 6.7 (they divided by 82 instead of 66 to account for shortened season). (And the "% off." column changes formatting halfway through...)
I don't think the Spurs rely on it too much. The league as a whole shoots it more and the improvements since 2007 have basically corresponded to the league's improvement. Last I checked, the rate at which the Spurs shoot the three is the same as 2007 once you factor in league averages.
That said, the Spurs do at times rely on it too much -- as has been the case since about 2000. I don't really want to see them shoot it any more than they do now. Making ~9 threes per game at ~39% is a good place to settle.
We do not have the force inside that's why we need to hit treys as effective as possible.
Tough making a living by that strategy in the playoffs
grammar off the window
No
What would you have us do when the entire defense collapses and leaves our shooters wide open? Isn't that the point of our offense? To get penetration inside for an easy 2 or to kick it out to an open shooter? If your gunners aren't going to take open shots, why even have them on the floor?
It's pretty obvious that it's by design when you're playing a specialist like Green who only has the 3 and the transition dunk in his offensive repertoire instead of game planning to force feed Splitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Green is also a plus defender, which is why he has the starting gig. The fact that he is a knockdown 3 point shooter (usually) only makes him more valuable. With Green and Kawhi I feel we have very good defense on the wings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Pop
Green still needs to prove in the playoffs that he's not another Bonner from the 3-point line.
Well that works when coparing him to Neal but we also have not one but two Manu Ginobili, the original being a way better defender, the second close enough to Green imo, to close to call even.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
The only advantage of Green is that you can switch him on PGs but I don't think TP needs it.
A few comparisons I just made for 3PTs% in offense:
Spurs 25%
Miami 25%
OKC 21% ( KD is 42/100 3Pts in 1076 minutes.....Ginobili is 38/110 in 605 minutes)
LAL 26%
LAC 20% (!)
CHA 20%
HOU 27%
NYK 34% (Everybody scores from 3pt land...Carmelo, Felton, Smith, Novak, Kidd)
If my quick calculations are correct (probably) even though the Spurs 3Pt% is increasing, that doesnt mean that other teams dont do the same thing.
In fact, looking at the top 7 scorers from each team, each of these teams have no more than 3 players shooting 35% (3pts/total offense).
So...average team in this kind of analysis...
Now...if they Spurs cant hit the 3 during PO...well, thats another story...who says the Knicks can...?
Circular answer. Is the system designed to get penetration in the key so the ball can get out to the three point shooters, or are the shooters there to open the lane for Parker, Ginoboli, and Duncan (to operate in the low post)?
If we aren't shooting layups, I prefer we shoot threes. Nothing worse than long twos.
Tell that to last year's Thunder squad in the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by cd98
:depressed
There is a true correlation this year between shooting well 3 pointers and being a good offensive teams. The 3 best 3 points shooting teams (heat, Thunder and Knicks) are the 3 best offenses in the NBA.
The only high octane offense team that doesn't rely on 3 pointers are the Clippers.
The three is the only reason the Spurs see the playoffs every year. They don't have the size or youth or talent beyond the big 2 and mediocre Manu to get it done any other way.
If a team hits 10 3's, it's effectively the same as getting 5 steals and converting on them at the rim (no fouls) all else being equal.
I'll take the 3 point shot from the Spurs any time they can get it.
Looking at those % of offense numbers year by year, what the hell happened between '93-'94 (0.09) to the following year (14.9)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NASpurs
I didn't do the math but I'm assuming the seasons 93-94 and before need to have their "% off." multiplied by 100 to fit the rest of the chart. In other words, it went from 9% to 14.9% .... not 0.09% to 14.9%. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by timvp
No, if that's one of your team's weapons you use it.
^This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
They made 249 3pts in '93-'94 and 434 in '94-'95Quote:
Originally Posted by NASpurs
And they had 8202 points so it's 9% instead of 0.09%
And thats why I hate the addition of zone D
Well yeah, Manu gets his 25+ minutes anyway. Green's a good defensive fill inQuote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Pop
nightmares of DirkbakaQuote:
Originally Posted by TwoHandJam
This sort of thread pops up periodically. Unfortunately, the numbers in the OP don't provide the necessary information, or context, to answer the question posed.
For those that reflexively answer the question in the affirmative, perhaps one of you would be willing to put forward the "correct" number of three pointers that the Spurs should take.
The issue isn't the number they take (as Mel alluded to) but are they "to reliant". While I feel they were to reliant in the past couple years, this year it seems they are less reliant. I define that as their ability to win games if the three ball isn't falling well. They've shown the ability to win this year in a game where their 3's aren't going in.
The thing that concerns me is that once the playoffs begin, can the Spurs conjure up offense when the opposition shuts down Parker's lane penetrations and those 3-balls aren't falling?
A three is a perfectly acceptable shot. People shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it's a high-percentage shot. You can push the percentage up by getting good shots, which means good ball movement, and hitting guys in rhythm while they're parked in the spots that they shoot best from. Guys like Gary Neal can hit them off the dribble on a high screen. You also do it later in the shot clock after working to get a good shot inside.
The best three pointers are a result of breaking the defense down with penetration or drawing a double team, when you're punishing the defense for a mistake. In most other cases, your shots are garbage shots, and a midrange to long two is almost always a better garbage shot simply due to nearly everyone's ability to hit them at a high rate. Previous Spurs teams ran plays specifically to get three pointers, which is a mistake because you're trying to do it without a dominant paint presence and without effectively going into the paint. It's doubtful that would ever work in the NBA.
Relying on threes would be taking them just because there's not a defender in the immediate area. We've seen them do it before.
I get tired of that argument. MJ won 6 championships by hitting "long" 2's. His last shot in '98 was a long 2. We can agree getting something at the rim is the best shot. But 3's are not clear cut better shots especially because of how they compromise your defense with long rebounds. If that's what's open you have to take it. Players can hit uncontested long 2's at 80%+ clip. Think about free throws (they're long 2's and they're unguarded).Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHandJam
Nah the Spurs don't. The chart looks bottom heavy because the three pointer wasn't a big tool for the NBA until the 90's. Even when it was brought in back in the 80's, the players who were leading the league were hitting like one three a game. Now the league leader is typically hitting around 3 a game.
We have a lot of 3pt weapons, so it's en efficient shot for us. I think the term "how much of their offense is from three" is deceptive, and instead it should be, "how many of their offensive possessions are taken from three". Otherwise, the wording of the chart there actually penalizes teams (in terms of "relying on the three too much") for being good at threes even if they take an average amount of them.
Amount of threes is fine as long as they're hitting them at a similar rate. No point in shooting long 2's when your guys can hit the three.
To answer your question "Hell Yes" but if it gets you wins then you can't complain. Only thing I hate is come playoff time they guard for that and then we loose.
If you go strictly by 3 point shots, yes the Spurs rely on it too much. But if you factor in other variables, you will find that we are 4th in the league in points scored in the paint. Does that mean we rely too much on penetration to the basket? No. What it means is we are diverse in scoring method. When one is working so is the other. When Green hits that early 3 like he has in the last coupleof games, the defense has to respect it. Then the lane is wide open for TP to drive the basket and score or dish to Timmy.
What? No. No. Not even close. Comparing a set free throw that's wide open with 10 seconds to line up the shot to (usually) a jumper from even farther away is just ridiculous. NO one in the NBA hits "long 2s" at an 80% clip in-game. The NBA average for free throws is well under 80%, and that's by far the highest percentage shot you'll see outside of the paint.Quote:
Originally Posted by therealtruth
This is so absurd that it borders on lunacy. Michael Jordan was dominant because of his ability to get to the rim (and the line) under any circumstance. Range was a weakness of Jordan's for most of his career. It simply didn't matter because the man found his way to the hoop time after time, and occasionally would drill an outside shot to keep the defense honest.Quote:
MJ won 6 championships by hitting "long" 2's.
This. The best scorers in the league are great at drawing fouls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
One of Parker's weaknesses as a main option (and as a guy who actually likes him, I can talk) is that as a slashing guard he doesn't draw fouls as well as say Manu. His lack of size/length means that it's hard for him to sell contact unless he exaggerates. That's probably why PG led teams don't get to the big dance that often, unless said PG happens to be big or elite at foul-drawing (or both, like LeBron).
They didn't ring. That lack of the long ball allowed Miami to absolutely SWARM on defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHandJam
And I get tired of people comparing different eras to the present. Why not just drag out the Cousey/Russell Celtics and show that they won 11 titles with ZERO percent of their offense coming from threes? MJ won his last title fifteen years ago next summer. Walk it offQuote:
Originally Posted by therealtruth
Not all threes are equal. The corner three, which the Spurs work VERY hard to get, is one of THE single best shots in b-ball, and does NOT lead to long runout rebounds. A three also punishes you for cheating into the lane with the extra point. If you think that isn't meaningful, Matt Bonner would score the same amount on making 40/100 threes as some hulking behemoth dunking big would on making 60/100 in the lane, and he doesn't clog the lane, but in fact spaces it..
Compare the % from regular season 3s to playoff 3s. That is the important stat. You will see a big drop off in % from regular season to playoffs.
Defenses don't allow as many easy looks from the 3 and %s fall in the playoffs. If a team can't get points other ways(shooting effectively from long 2s or being able to get interior points) they are in trouble.
Last year, regular season .393Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
Last year, playoffs .416
Any more dumb theories, rasscal?
:lol at therealbads and rascal. Too eager to spew their agenda-driven takes to bother to check the facts first.
I couldn't imagine a more factually incorrect post than this one. A prime example for basketball bads. Well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by therealtruth
What % did the Spurs shoot against the Thunder last year playoffs? Can't find the stats. The Spurs had 8 easy games last year in the playoffs in their first two series, then they were tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
And what % did the Spurs shoot against Memphis the year before?
:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by rascal
this sums up my thoughts pretty well ...Quote:
Originally Posted by DPG21920
So what are the numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
Typical rascal.Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
Can't be bothered with the facts.
Your internet is working just fine. Look them up yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
It took a long time to find them but they shot .409 from 3 against the Thunder playoffs last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
That is a good % and proves I was wrong.
Props.Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
The Spurs lost because they don't have a real superstar anymore that can offset any defensive scheme. OKC have Durant. They also hit an ungodly amount of midrange/ long 2s at an amazing %.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by rascal
Wrong. Jordan wasn't a dominant three point shooter at any time in his career, but he hit midrange jumpers all day long. His turnaround 18 footer was money. What he didn't do is make the mistake of thinking he couldn't spread the floor from less than 24 feet from the rim. He could get defenders to react to his jumper, which opened up the paint for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
You could argue that the whole NBA relies too much on threes in the modern game. Nonetheless it's there, and it has come to be an essential part of the game. The Spurs are simply the best at taking advantage of it. We still have the best post-up player in the game today (dare I say all time?).
That wasn't the foundation for his offense. It never was. He used it when teams sagged off him so far that he got open looks. Jordan was always about penetration and drawing fouls first. And he never shot mid-range jumpers at an 80% clip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Sorry, but that wasn't what you said. You said range was the weakness of his game, which is, to use your words, "so absurd that it borders on luncacy" ;). The foundation for Jordan's offense was smart decision making, and whatever got him the best shot, but let's not act like he wasn't one of the best midrange shooters that ever laced up shoes. His 20 foot turnaround is probably the most deadly shot by any player of all time, and he seemingly never missed a shot around the area between the bulls. His midrange game was so good that you had to defend it vigorously, sometimes with several people, which opened up lanes for him. He didn't just drive to the rim on every possession. If you took away any two facets of Jordan's game, he'd likely have been a hall of famer on what was left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
I don't know exactly where the 80% figure came from, but I'm sure Jordan could hit a higher percentage from that range without defenders on him, as can many pros, which I think is where that part of the discussion comes in. Only a few guys can hit threes at a strong clip, but a far greater number can hit an equal percentage from three to five feet closer. When your scrubs can make a shot from 20 feet away, you can't dare them to take it all day long. If your goal is truly to spread the floor to allow your other players room to work, that's sufficient.
Perhaps I should have phrased it a bit better. That doesn't mean it was horrible. He was a slightly below average 3 point shooter, that's the main point I was attempting to get across. Just in comparison to the rest of his game, his range was a weakness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Completely agree. But he was one of the best players of all-time at getting to the rim, and one of the best players of all-time at defense. It's not like he had "holes" in his game, just some areas that weren't in the GOAT discussion. My main contention was that not even Jordan could hit 80% of his mid-range in game, although he had games where he obviously did do that. I still say that Jordan's primary method of winning titles was his ability to penetrate and shatter defenses, which completely counter to what most championship teams did in that day. He didn't win 6 titles by being an outside shooter.Quote:
If you took away any two facets of Jordan's game, he'd likely have been a hall of famer on what was left.
I remember hearing that 80% figure from Kenny Smith on Inside the NBA. Barkley found it hard to believe but Reggie Miller also agreed. We're talking about open uncontested looks. Also to Obstructed_View's point Jordan's decision making was superb and he actually made a consciuous effort to not rely on 3's because he felt it would be too easy and take pressure of the defense. (You can look up the video on Youtube). He said this after that Portland game with the double shrug after he hit six first-half threes. If he really wanted I'm sure he could probably have been a very good 3pt shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
The first team to really shoot threes the way current NBA teams do was the Rockets team that won two titles. Jordan had been in the league for almost ten years and out for one and a half by that time. Considering the time he played, Jordan was a great three point shooter. It simply wasn't part of offenses back then, when you had a half dozen or so guys in the entire league that were considered three point specialists. Now there are at least two or three on every team.
I don't think the Spurs rely on the 3 ball too much. The norm for teams nowadays is between 18-25 3 point attempts anyway. It's not like they're the Knicks attempting almost 40 threes in a game sometimes...:lol