Reply With Quote
Yes. Recipe for playoff failure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 happened between '93-'94 (0.09) to the following year (14.9)?
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%.
No, if that's one of your team's weapons you use it.
They made 249 3pts in '93-'94 and 434 in '94-'95
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 in
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
