Reply With Quote
Look at the roster. As Dex said, you work with what you’ve got. I’m sure if the Spurs can trade Cunningham and Poindexter for Klay Thompson you’ll see those three point percentages shoot right on up.
The apologists are predictably quick with their "our 3 highest usage players are all midrange specialists; what did you expect?" responses, but the question is, why haven't they evolved with the majority of the league? And why have we not heard of the Spurs even attempting to nudge them into doing so?
It's gotten so bad that Aldridge now has the yips from 3. The rare times he actually spaces to it, he's inexplicably passing up clean looks to step into long 2's.
Meanwhile, DeRozan's attempts are way down from last season. In his case, some of it could be due to him not being a pull up threat. His generally come on spot ups, but without another healthy perimeter playmaker to create those, he's not getting as many.
Last edited by TD 21; 11-05-2018 at 06:33 PM.
Look at the roster. As Dex said, you work with what you’ve got. I’m sure if the Spurs can trade Cunningham and Poindexter for Klay Thompson you’ll see those three point percentages shoot right on up.
We both see eye to eye on this area. This whole "Spurs zig when the rest of the league zags" is silly when it puts the Spurs at a compe ive disadvantage. I noticed the Aldridge pump fake on an wide open 3 and then taking two steps in and taking a 20 footer routine during the @ LA game and he's done it at least a couple of times since then. It's useful having a 5 that can shoot the way he does but it is a bit weird and annoying that his game didn't evolve out to the 3pt line like Bosh and Ibaka did.
The Spurs "big 3" are only taking 4.5 3pt per game and the SL is only taking 11The Spurs are taking fewer 3's per game than last seasons rocker throwing squad, it's clear that shooting more 3's isn't a priority. Shooting a higher percentage is fine but if the 21 teams are taking 30 3's per game (there is) then taking only 23 is just silly.
http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/t...GoalsAttempted
21 teams are taking at least 30 3pt per game,
9 teams are taking at least 10 3's more per game than the Spurs 23.8 per game.
-Going 0-27 may be one of the oddest playoff flukes in NBA history, it doesn't cancel out or disprove what Houston did last season to post a record of 77-23 over the regular and post season.
- Spurs are taking fewer 3's than last season and only + 3%, that is not good.
-Spurs taking 13% more FTs but that's not nearly enough to make up for the explosion in 3pt attempts and makes
-There are other ways to score but it's a compe ive disadvantage to be shooting significantly fewer 3's than most teams, while taking the most number of shots from mid range -a shot considered to be undesirable because of it's relatively low shooting percentages.
We have two really good midrange shooters. That's just how it is. We need to figure out a way to get Bertans more involved. That's my real gripe so far. He NEEDS to be a threat and taking and making shots.
And Houston wasn't a fluke at all. They had plenty of games where they sucked on 3s. They won bc they actually played defense and they won in the playoffs bc of Chris Paul and his midrange. Once Houston lost him they went back to predictable basketball and got destroyed.
-Houston lead the league with 42 3pt attempts per game last season, hitting 15 3's a game. I think its safe to say that it was a big part of their success. Harden and Paul helped create those 3's, getting up that many 3's a game isn't easy and require play making, aggressive shooting, and also a commitment/green light from the coaching staff in order to do so. Their defense was certainly a part of it but bombing teams on offense was bigger part of the equation.
-The thing is that the Spurs have 4 high volume 3pt shooters in the rotation (Forbes, Mills, Beli, Bertans) the main issue is that the Spurs 3 best players only take a combined 4.5 3's a game, add in Cunningham- who's 3/4 and that number only jumps to 6 3's a game.
-Aldridge and DeRozen are both excellent mid range shooters but that shot is inherently bad shot. Shooting 43% on shots around 18 feet out is a high percentage (especially on the volume that they take) but taking two steps back adds another point while taking two steps in would result in a closer, and in theory, a higher percentage shot.
-Bertans starting in place of Cunningham, would definitely help the Spurs get more 3's up but Cunningham's team defense is something that is definitely needed.
Out PGs are hurt. You want to shoot 3s? You need somebody to get to the rim and kick the ball out. 3 point attempts should go up once White is back
Thats actually why I think the midrange game can still be effective. Even if small ball rules supreme, teams are still packing the paint. And when they do, it’s nice to have a team that’s actually competent with the in between game. And as far as the 3 goes, without stat checking, aren’t they connecting pretty well when they do shoot them?
5th in percentage, but 29th in attempts.
Stats are only useful if you know what to make of them. We are 6-3 with a few of our core guys out. I'd take that record.
If we are shooting a good percentage midrange then why not stick to what we are good at. Would you rather us be shooting 20% from 3 point range but taking 40 a game?
Come on now, this is just a math question. What is the correlation between ORtg and 3PAr (% of shots taken that are threes)? Bkref has the answers, after a little bit of work. In parentheses I put the Spurs' ORtg and 3PAr ranks for that season.
2018-2019 (so far): -0.1691 (ORtg: 9, 3PAr: 30)
2017-2018: 0.2517 (ORtg: 17, 3PAr: 27)
2016-2017: 0.3300 (ORtg: 9, 3PAr: 24)
2015-2016: 0.2678 (ORtg: 4, 3PAr: 25)
2014-2015: 0.4287 (ORtg: 7, 3PAr: 15)
2013-2014: 0.4841 (ORtg: 7, 3PAr: 16)
2012-2013: 0.5982 (ORtg: 7, 3PAr: 9)
2011-2012: 0.3525 (ORtg: 1, 3PAr: 7)
2010-2011: 0.4668 (ORtg: 2, 3PAr: 6)
2009-2010: 0.3497 (ORtg: 9, 3PAr: 9)
Notice a trend over the last 6 years? Cause I do. The correlation is getting weaker, which means that shooting threes is becoming ever less important to having a good offense. , even though it's a small sample size, the correlation is ing negative this year. More threes equals worse offense right now.
If the Spurs' midrange-heavy offense is offensive (!) to your idea of the way things should be, too bad. The numbers don't lie. A correlation of 0.3 or so is pretty weak, and that has been the case since the rise of the Rockets and their insane 3PAr.
I haven't seen any proof that if the Spurs shot more threes then their ORtg would improve. That would probably require a game-by-game analysis, adjusting for how well the opponents defend the three. I'd say the burden of proof is on the prosecution there. Even then, looking at the Spurs' ranks shows that Pop can craft a great offense without a lot of threes. That 2015-2016 team won 67 games with the #4 offense but a bottom-6 3PAr.
This year's Spurs team has problems, but I don't think the lack of three-point attempts is one of them.
Last edited by Seventyniner; 11-06-2018 at 11:39 AM.
I agree, the problem is the lack of talent in general
That 67 win team is the most overrated Spurs team in history. The league was much weaker back then. That team also got their teeth knocked out by the Thunder.
There's a reason the long 2 is the least efficient shot in the game and why teams are more than happy to give it up. Almost all of the previous Spurs championships were excellent from downtown. 3 point shooting matters more than ever. It's frightening to build a team where your top 2 players suck from downtown. In this day and age you live and die by the 3. Being obsessed with midrange chucking and getting very little in regards to points in the paint is going to be a disastrous recipe come playoff time.
Ok, that’s about what I would have guessed. Actually, better. If they’re hitting at that clip, they could take more but they seem to take good threes, not just jacking them up there. If shooting more means making more, obviously we all want that. But if it means taking threes just because, no thanks. There’s already 22-23 mediocre teams trying that. What has always set the Spurs apart in terms of success is that they didn’t follow trends....unless they knew they could pull them off. It’s not like we have a Steph Curry or Reggie Miller that just isn’t letting them fly, we don’t really have a 3 point specialty guy save for Brynnie or Belly.
We are attempting fewer 3's but in the top five of makes. Yes DD and LMA are not 3 pt specialist, but we've seen several tight games won by DD's clutch play and LMA doing many things at an elite level. This team also has an array of shooters in Forbes, Bertans, Mills, Beli, and even Cunningham (5 3's against NOP).
Well said. It's a simple math equation. Going against it means being a low variance team. When you're already at a talent disadvantage against elite teams, you can't afford to compound it with something that is in your control.We both see eye to eye on this area. This whole "Spurs zig when the rest of the league zags" is silly when it puts the Spurs at a compe ive disadvantage. I noticed the Aldridge pump fake on an wide open 3 and then taking two steps in and taking a 20 footer routine during the @ LA game and he's done it at least a couple of times since then. It's useful having a 5 that can shoot the way he does but it is a bit weird and annoying that his game didn't evolve out to the 3pt line like Bosh and Ibaka did.
The Spurs "big 3" are only taking 4.5 3pt per game and the SL is only taking 11
Mills, Belinelli, Bertans and Forbes, aren't the answer because none are good enough to play significant minutes against elite teams. It has to come from the best players. It's a combination of poor roster construction, archaic coaching and stubborn players.
At this point, they shouldn't be concerned with appeasing anyone. They needed Aldridge when they had a superstar, aspirations of championship contention and no other means to get him another star sidekick. Now, what's the downside if he wants out again? Besides, let's be honest: he wants to be here for family purposes and there's probably not another team that would be willing to turn it's offense over to a 33 year old, post up/mid range big.
Thanks for the numbers!
For the 3pt obsessed posters:
It's all about balance. Not enough threes is as bad as too many threes. Is there a magic number? No. It depends on every team style of play: their players, pace, number of long distance shooters, post players, quality and quan y of passers, athleticism, the structure of their playing units, etc. The 3pt attempts stat is irrelevant on its own. You can't base any analysis in such a simple stat. Put it against the 3pt% or any other shooting stat, distribution stats, efficiency stats or any other and we can start a discussion.
The lack of points in the paint could be much more representative, there are simple or advanced stats telling much more of what happens on the court (although the array of available numeric analysis provides complex information and a good understanding of the game is still needed in order to draw valid conclusions).
IMO there are no big issues in our offense so far. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious how fragile is our defense. Given the lack of defensive players in the roster, the team has to execute very well in order to present a decent defense. Otherwise, any team can score at its will, exploiting this Spurs team biggest weakness.
Spurs need to concentrate, communicate, put their asses down and move their feet if they want to have the chance of winning games. The number of 3pt attempts has nothing to do with that.
o? Knock, knock. Anybody home?
We don't have a point guard.
Never mind. As you were. For a moment there I forgot it was Spurstalk.
There was a good thread on Reddit recently, which really should have stayed longer. The league now all plays very similarly. Back in the early 2000s, how the Spurs played compared to the Lakers compared to the Suns compared to Mavs compared to the Kings were just different. It was a battle of who could play their style the most. It was fascinating to see how the Spurs could slow down the Suns, or how to handle Dirks midrange game. Even the east was fun with how the 76ers were just a bunch of defenders with AI as their sole offense. Or how Kidd would run and gun. Compared to Pistons which was just slow down D-troit Basketball.
Now it's just about finding the most talent, hence why teams like the Rockets have gone all in. It's about going with the most allstars you can get. Run up the floor, shoot 3's and switch of defense. Team with the most talent wins. The results are just boring. There isn't a chess match anymore. It's not even about matchups.
word
It's kind of sad as Durant made (so far) three nba seasons completely useless, and Silver is finishing the job.
What does it matter if those 3's those teams are shooting more if they are not making them... SPURS may shoot less but they make a higher % than most of those teams above them... Look at those teams above them, do all of them have a better record than the SPURS currently, I havent seen the standings but i am willing to bet SPURS have a better record than most of them... So there is that!!
Spurs controling tempo, no turnovers, running the offense they want, taking their shots. Forbes overachieving (I don't like him at all but can't deny it) and DeRozan is the playmaker.
We don't have a point guard but so far it hasn't been a problem. The defense has been THE problem until now.
Diaw is playing again?The beautiful game
Love it
No argument there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
