Reply With Quote
Most all time?
out of 85 total shots, and still won by double digits.
Most all time?
Disgusting. That's not basketball.
What a got ass strategy. No wonder they're losers.
They set that record in December of last year with 61.
I watched the game. Several 3's were contested in the best way possible and they still hit them.
Eric Gordon has got to have the best gig in the nba
So basically just another day at the office for the Rockets.
What do you mean still won? The more threes you shoot the better your offense is ran generally. Its superior as a whole and the way every team that has the shooting talent should play.
The NBA is producing more shooters and less monkey ballers tbh
white people have hope
they always have hope ...but whites need the 3 0 version of Thunder Dan Majerle ...the ability to shoot 3 and defend athletic players otherwise your just JJ Red or Korver .. hayward had the best chance to be that of current players but ankle exploded...
Current all-white team, off the top of my head (might be forgetting someone):
Dragic, JJ Red , Hayward, Love, M.Gasol
Teodosic, Bogdanovic, Korver, Saric, Jokic
45 wins, imho.
Four letter said the five times the Rockets attempted 55 or more three pointers, they won each game. It is an analytical strategy, a statistical odds approach. And yes, it has changed the game. It has all but wiped out the midrange game across the board. Attack the rim for high percentage two pointers or shoot threes to get more bang for your buck as opposed to long two point jumpers. It also has changed the value of big men. That's why there are fewer and fewer traditional low post, back to the basket bigs. And even guys like Boogie and Blake shoot three pointers, face up and drive off the dribble. It's a different game. Whether it's disgusting or not, that's a subjective opinion. But it's here to stay and it's what the game is now.
And it's a bit surprising to see Spurs fans be so critical of it, when the Spurs have been one of the teams in the forefront of using strategy and approach based on analytics. It's why Pop forever championed the corner three point shot, as it's the best, closest, and highest percentage three pointer. Analytics was a big reason why Pop made the decision to change the focus of his offense from Duncan to Parker even when Duncan was still in his prime. Analytic information was even the major reason Pop started resting his star players in random games throughout the regular season. Morey isn't alone in making major strategic changes in how to play the game based on analytics. More and more teams will look like the Rockets.
A lot of those corner threes were generated from collapses off Duncan post-ups and/or Manu/Tony penetration, and even at the height of the Spurs' powers, they only took about 14-17 per game. Now you got players quickly chucking off the dribble or off picks. Open 3s aren't really "produced" any more, since every perimeter player and even bigs can now drill contested 3s like going out to lunch.
Yes, and that's bad. Just my subjective opinion, obviously. If people enjoy fast paced chuckfests centered on a design flaw, more power to them.
Majerle wasn't really able to defend athletic player, Jordan ate him alive.
Heck he couldn't even defend tosb Ricky Pierce.
That's great. But it doesn't matter how the Spurs got their three point shots, then or now. The point was that the Spurs used analytics in their strategy and approach, the value of the corner three point shot being an example of it. The three point shot across the board has evolved into an even greater valued part of basketball now. Teams view the extra point as worth the risk of taking more attempts and missing more of them. Even the Spurs have jumped on that analytics wagon with respect to the three pointer, even if they aren't one of the teams taking the most.
I'll take the Spurs championship teams to show the progression of the three point shot in its use and strategic importance. I'll include last season to show the most recent full season version of the team. Three point attempts per game by the Spurs:
1999: 10.4
2003: 15.5
2005: 17
2007: 19
2014: 21.4
2017: 23.5
The three point shot may very well be the most important part the game in "today's NBA." It's just the way it is. And heck, when you do it well and can maximize and exploit that one extra point advantage, you're not always just a run and chuck team like the Rockets. The Warriors are proving that even if you chuck 30 three point shots a game, you can be a championship caliber team.
So say what you want to say, feel how you want to feel. Just like in baseball with increased strikeouts as a result of more HR swings, the analytics of basketball has evolved the game into exploiting the three point shot. And you don't have to like it. You don't have to think it's the basketball you want to watch. But it just is what basketball is now.
The Rockets get shut down in the playoffs time and again when well coached defenses get wise to their strategy. The reason the Warriors win is because they have two MVP players that can hit contested 3s at a high clip.
What really sucks is that other teams see what the Warriors do and try to emulate it instead of playing the brand of basketball best suited for their talent/roster.
Last edited by unleashbaynes; 10-31-2017 at 06:25 PM.
I'm just responding to your belief that Spurs fans should automatically like this style of basketball because analytics informed them once-upon-a-time leading to increased 3 point attempts. Not all 3 point attempts are created equal from a tactical perspective. There's a big difference (tactically and even aesthetically) to generating 3s from the collapses a post-player or penetrator creates to this:
And when teams aren't on from 3, missing 35 out of 50 threes or something like, the NBA starts to more resemble rec league basketball than anything else.
The way that the Law of Large Numbers works, taking more threes actually reduces overall variance. And since threes have a higher eFG% for most players and teams, shooting a ton of threes is a great strategy unless you have a severe shortage of shooting on the perimeter. Even hitting 34% of threes is good enough for a green light; non-bigs rarely shoot 50% overall.
Agreed. It may be the meta of today's NBA but it's bad for the sport overall.
I didn't say or suggest Spurs fans should automatically like this style of basketball. In fact, I specifically stated you can feel about it any way you want. I merely pointed out that it's how basketball has evolved because of analytics and that's the way it is and the way it's going to be going forward. My point about the Spurs was to say that much of their success and longevity of success has also been a product of analytical strategy. And the game today is also been a result of analytical strategy. So why criticize an evolutionary result comparable to why your team has had so much success.
There may be a difference between getting open threes from kickouts from the post and chucking 30 footers like Curry, but so what? Again I question a Spurs fan criticism of aesthetics of basketball when before the years of the "beautiful game," Spurs fans would get defensive about criticism of how ugly the Spurs defensive driven game looked like and reply with "as long as it wins" type responses. Who cares if Steph Curry frequently pulls up from 40 feet if he's hitting a high percentage of those shots? I remember a couple seasons ago, they tracked Curry's three point attempts from something like 30 feet and further and it was no small sample and he was shooting like 70% from those distances. Aesthetically do you care that he's making 70% of what you consider bad basketball shots and would rather take 35% from kickout threes from the post because it looks like better basketball to you? If you do... uhhh okay.
Rockets shot like 38% from three in that game where they took 57 threes. They're shooting under 31% for the season so it actually made sense that they kept shooting the threes. Statistically, it does make more sense to shoot more and more threes when you're shooting at a clip of around 35% or higher. If the team is shooting around 45% with two pointers, it behooves them to shoot more threes. Over the course of the game, you score more points shooting more threes if that's the case. Now if you're a bad long range shooting team, of course you should limit your attempts. But the Rockets have several guys that are high rate three point shooters. And in reality, a lot of their attempts do come from drive and kicks by Harden, which is a similar principle as low post kickout three pointers. And as much as you may find it aesthetically unpleasant, walk up threes are actually good shots for guys who are good shooters. Generally, the defense is backpdalling, and a shooter like Curry will get a pretty open look at the basket especially if he's a few steps further out with the defender not that close. Same reason why three point attempts have very good value in transition and off scrambles from offensive rebounds. Statistically, you get good open looks in those situations, basketball gods forbid you don't find it aesthetically pleasing to your basketball palette.
The game's changed. If you really don't like it, may I suggest stop watching? I don't like what you guys argue about with "poverty ball" at all. I find the sport boring as too. No problem. I just don't watch it at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
