Do we live on 3pt?

[Obstructed_View]

The Spurs do live a lot out on the 3pt line though. They average 25.2% of the shots from the arc, whereas their opponents average 18.6% of their shots from 3-point land versus the Spurs. The Spurs take 5 more 3s per game than their opponents.

They also are right at the top of the league in limiting opponents' three attempts, so that might not be the best use of those s s.

[Mel_13]

I must have ed up when I was researching. Whoops.

The increased pace has been overstated, but is in no way overstated by me, because I didn't use it to reference ppg. They've worked much harder this year to get turnovers and run off them, as well as running off missed baskets. Easy baskets are better than grind it out baskets.

The opponent's turnovers also slowed down considerably since the early part of the season. They were among the league leaders in turnovers forced % early in the season. They're tied for 19th now and much closer to the bottom 5 than to the top 5.

Clearly, they've looked for early scoring opportunities more frequently this season than in many years. I don't have stats (don't know where to look), but my calibrated eye says that they've continued to run off missed baskets as much as early in the season. They definitely continue to look for easy baskets. The stats I can find say that they're not forcing turnovers at nearly the same rate as early in the season (they're also committing fewer).

[Mel_13]

They also are right at the top of the league in limiting opponents' three attempts, so that might not be the best use of those s s.

Yep. That's how it's possible that they are 11th in FG % allowed and 23rd in 3pt % allowed, yet 9th in effective FG % allowed.

[underdawg]

Spurs 3pt % is up this year, but so is the 3 pt% of their opponents

While the rebounding for the Spurs about the same as last year (just a hair down,) but their opponents' rebounding is up - not sure how that's related to 3's, but interesting with Blair's emergence and Dice playing better.

[Obstructed_View]

I just found an interesting stat. In 2004 the Spurs were second in the NBA in opponent three point attempts with 951 (11.6 per game). Last year the Spurs were first in the same category with 1200 (14.6 per game). I'm not a good enough stat researcher, but I'm guessing that everyone's living on the three relative to ten years ago because the shooters are so much better.

[Solid D]

Orlando really lives by the three. Over 32% of their FG attempts are 3s. The statistics presented here by Mel and others have pretty well convinced me that the Spurs don't "live by the 3" as much as it seems.

I will say, though, that against the Grizzlies Sunday night, it was the five 3-pointers (4 by Bonner and 1 by Jefferson) and a foot on the line 2 by Manu that brought the Spurs back from down 7... to up by 1. Then after they went back down by 4, Manu nailed a huge 3 to bring them back to 74-73 and make it close the rest of the game.

[024]

they need to move the 3pt line back.

[MannyIsGod]

Damn some nice stats review in this thread.

[Obstructed_View]

they need to move the 3pt line back.

I'd be interested in seeing them play a preseason with no three point line. I've had a theory that the three point line is fool's gold and that scoring would actually go up without it.

[TD 21]

People just won't stop looking for major deficiencies or downfalls with this team. When the Suns or Magic were burying teams from deep, it was recognized as a weapon. When the Spurs do it, it's "they live and die by the three", even though there's statistical evidence to the contrary. They were actually more reliant on it in their championship seasons, because of the inability of anyone outside of the big three to create and the lack of a transition game.

The reality is, this is a complete, explosive and lethal offensive team. They've got slashers, post play, shooters galore, a transition game, they're one of the best passing teams in the league and they execute their stuff better than anyone.

It's past time that people just accept that this is the most complete team in the league. Since the debacles in Boston and New York, their defensive field goal (they're now top 10 and ahead of the supposed defensive juggernaut Mavs) and three-point percentage have dropped considerably. Make any excuse you want about the compe ion in that time, we're talking well over a month now. At the moment, no one can call those two areas major problems. The latest talk is about the supposed lack of rebounding, but they're 11th in differential and 8th in total rebounds. I agree that they should be a better rebounding team than they are, because the have the capacity to be top five, like they were last season, but it's not like they're the Celtics, either. Also, you got to realize, they're not going to be excellent in every major category simultaneously.

[Solid D]

People just won't stop looking for major deficiencies or downfalls with this team. When the Suns or Magic were burying teams from deep, it was recognized as a weapon. When the Spurs do it, it's "they live and die by the three", even though there's statistical evidence to the contrary. They were actually more reliant on it in their championship seasons, because of the inability of anyone outside of the big three to create and the lack of a transition game.

The reality is, this is a complete, explosive and lethal offensive team. They've got slashers, post play, shooters galore, a transition game, they're one of the best passing teams in the league and they execute their stuff better than anyone.

It's past time that people just accept that this is the most complete team in the league. Since the debacles in Boston and New York, their defensive field goal (they're now top 10 and ahead of the supposed defensive juggernaut Mavs) and three-point percentage have dropped considerably. Make any excuse you want about the compe ion in that time, we're talking well over a month now. At the moment, no one can call those two areas major problems. The latest talk is about the supposed lack of rebounding, but they're 11th in differential and 8th in total rebounds. I agree that they should be a better rebounding team than they are, because the have the capacity to be top five, like they were last season, but it's not like they're the Celtics, either. Also, you got to realize, they're not going to be excellent in every major category simultaneously.

I'm not sure I see how you get "major deficiencies" from this thread. I see some excellent reasoning-through a question, based on statistical analysis, about what merely seems to be a tendency.

[TD 21]

I'm not sure I see how you get "major deficiencies" from this thread. I see some excellent reasoning-through a question, based on statistical analysis, about what merely seems to be a tendency.

You would. I see the typical "I found the reason the Spurs aren't legit contenders, time to hit the panic button" thread.

You know what "seems to be a tendency"? The Spurs winning at an 83% clip. Only they could do that and supposedly have 37 problems.

[Obstructed_View]

I think you're overthinking it. A team winning at an 83% clip needs to bust their ass to Peak After March.

[DesignatedT]

People just won't stop looking for major deficiencies or downfalls with this team. When the Suns or Magic were burying teams from deep, it was recognized as a weapon. When the Spurs do it, it's "they live and die by the three", even though there's statistical evidence to the contrary. They were actually more reliant on it in their championship seasons, because of the inability of anyone outside of the big three to create and the lack of a transition game.

The reality is, this is a complete, explosive and lethal offensive team. They've got slashers, post play, shooters galore, a transition game, they're one of the best passing teams in the league and they execute their stuff better than anyone.

It's past time that people just accept that this is the most complete team in the league. Since the debacles in Boston and New York, their defensive field goal (they're now top 10 and ahead of the supposed defensive juggernaut Mavs) and three-point percentage have dropped considerably. Make any excuse you want about the compe ion in that time, we're talking well over a month now. At the moment, no one can call those two areas major problems. The latest talk is about the supposed lack of rebounding, but they're 11th in differential and 8th in total rebounds. I agree that they should be a better rebounding team than they are, because the have the capacity to be top five, like they were last season, but it's not like they're the Celtics, either. Also, you got to realize, they're not going to be excellent in every major category simultaneously.

[spursbird]

I see the typical "I found the reason the Spurs aren't legit contenders, time to hit the panic button" thread.

And I think you misunderstand my point. Read the thread once more. I'm not hit the panic button. I imply from the stats that we don't rely on 3pt, and our wins come from more of the FTA. But our 3G% is really high so that I just want to make a discussion about it.

[spursbird]

I'd be interested in seeing them play a preseason with no three point line. I've had a theory that the three point line is fool's gold and that scoring would actually go up without it.

In that situation the Heat would go 72-10. And there will be much more slashers than shooters.

[Obstructed_View]

In that situation the Heat would go 72-10. And there will be much more slashers than shooters.

How exactly does the three point line contribute to defense?

[spursbird]

How exactly does the three point line contribute to defense?

What do you mean?

[Solid D]

And I think you misunderstand my point. Read the thread once more. I'm not hit the panic button. I imply from the stats that we don't rely on 3pt, and our wins come from more of the FTA. But our 3G% is really high so that I just want to make a discussion about it.

Exactly. Thanks for clarifying it for him and others that 1)did not see your intent or 2)tried to read too much into it.

[Obstructed_View]

What do you mean?

If an undersized heat team that's full of three point shooters suddenly gets better without a three point line, it must be because teams suddenly can't play defense against them. I'm interested how you think that's so.

In my estimation, the only change without a three point line is you have fewer guys shooting threes that shouldn't, and you have guys shooting outside shots based on the position of the defenders, which will actually spread the floor and increase the percentage of shots taken. In short, scoring would go up, which the NBA has been trying to make happen for a long time.

[Em-City]

i think that on offense, we depend waaaay more on @TP9network's penetration

Ok, let's see how things change now

[Solid D]

BUMP

Seeing how this series has gone so far with Memphis, being down 2 games to 1...if the Spurs don't live on 3-point shots, they certainly could use them about now.

The Spurs have several problem areas right now, but hitting their 3 point shots certainly would help to make up for some of the difficiencies.

Conversely, it has been the 3-point shot in the last minute of games 1 and 3 that secured the 2 victories for the Grizzlies.

Not having a 3 point shot to rely on has been somewhat discombobulating.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Especially when you factor in that a lot of the 3's the Spurs have been getting are wide open. Neal and Jefferson are the worst at wide open 3 balls.

[Solid D]

Even Parker has been regularly missing open corner 3s, after hitting them at a high percentage earlier this season.