Do SPURS rely on threes too much?

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.

That is a good % and proves I was wrong.

---

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

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.

---

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.

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?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

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.

---

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 Cry Havoc

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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:

---

If you took away any two facets of Jordan's game, he'd likely have been a hall of famer on what was left.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

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.

---

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.

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