nightmares of DirkbakaTell that to last year's Thunder squad in the playoffs.
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).Tell that to last year's Thunder squad in the playoffs.
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 " 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.
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 cir stance. 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.MJ won 6 championships by hitting "long" 2's.
This. The best scorers in the league are great at drawing fouls.
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.Tell that to last year's Thunder squad in the playoffs.
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 les with ZERO percent of their offense coming from threes? MJ won his last le fifteen years ago next summer. Walk it off
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..
Last edited by exstatic; 12-27-2012 at 09:59 AM.
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 .393
Last year, playoffs .416
Any more dumb theories, rasscal?
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.
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.
And what % did the Spurs shoot against Memphis the year before?
this sums up my thoughts pretty well ...
So what are the numbers?
Typical rascal.
Can't be bothered with the facts.
Your internet is working just fine. Look them up yourself.
I can't use google
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.
Props.
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 %.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
