The Beloved Three-pointer

+6
NYCelt
bobheckler
Outside
swish
dboss
Sam
10 posters

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sam Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:56 pm

It seems that, every season, I get irritated at the role of three-pointers in the game.  It's especially annoying this year because it appears Brad is trying to cultivate somewhat of a three-pointer mentality on a team that is taking 23 threes a game while shooting only 33% from behind the arc compared with opponents, who (against the Celtics) are shooting 39% beyond the arc but who take only 21 threes a game.

The following chart shows how two of the five most frequent three-point flyers on the team shoot well under 30% from three point land; and two others don't even shoot 35%.  Among the Celtics' top five bombers, only Marcus Thornton justifies the number of threes he shoots by the number he makes.

It could be argued that, because both Sully (vastly improved) and Kelly shoot threes in the upper 30s, percentagewise, they should take more threes.  I bet Brad would be one who makes this argument.  I happen to disagree, especially when I look at their two-point shooting percentages (.487 and .534 respectively).  I feel that a big should be an accomplished operative in the lane (offensively); and, if he can't be that, he should be regarded as potentially expendable.  (And that doesn't include my very animated opinions about defense.)

There's also a matter of when, in the game, threes are taken.  I don't have the splits, but I'd bet the three-point shooting percentages fall during crunch time, when the rim "gets smaller."  When your team desperately needs some kind of basket to keep pace or gain ground in the clutch, the shooting percentages tell me that a two-pointer is more likely than a three-pointer to furnish needed points.  There are obvious exceptions when game strategy indicates the need for a three-point attempt.  I could even include the availability of a wide open three for a decent three-point shooter.  But I'm convinced that, in general, going to the hoop accounts for more points per possession from the two-pointer than shooting three-pointers does.  (And, by the way, going to the hoop has the added benefit of attracting fouls that aren't even included in the shooting stats shown below.

#=Rank on the Celtics in terms of number of threes attempted per 36 minutes
3PA=Number of threes attempted per 36 minutes
3p%=Percentage of made threes
2P%=Percentage of made twos

#3PA 3P% 2P%

1 8.1 .270 .450 08.10 09.00 - 0.90 Smart
2 6.1 .423 .449 12.69 08.98 +3.71 Thornton
3 5.3 .318 .521 09.54 10.42 - 0.88 Green
4 5.0 .337 .500 10.11 10.00 +0.11 Bradley
5 4.4 .200 .412 06.00 08.24 - 2.24 Pressey

6 4.3 .361 .487 10.83 09.74 +1.09 Sully
7 3.5 .392 .534 11.76 10.68 +1.08 Kelly

Comments?

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by dboss Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:12 pm

Sam

Taking 3 point shots requires no offensive discipline. It is an easy shot to get off and an easy shot to miss.

I hate seeing 3 point shots early in the shot clock. When to take them is really the issue at hand. Players run behind the line before they consider other options. The Celtics are at their best when they are playing fast break basketball and when they run a concise half court offense characterized by constant motion, solid screens and timely passes. I do not like to see our best rebounder taking 3 point shots because it hurts us on the glass.

dboss
dboss
dboss

Posts : 18634
Join date : 2009-11-01

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sam Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:59 pm

dboss,

You know you're preaching to the choir.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by swish Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:11 pm

Looking at it from a purely points scored statistical view point the 3 pointer is a winner.
Based on the numbers for 2013-14.
The league average per team was as follows.
2 point attempts-- 61.5
2 point made--- 30.0
shooting %--- 48.8
times--- 2 points per made shot = 97.6 points per 100 shots

3 point attempts--- 21.5
3 point made--- 7.7
shooting %--- 35.8
times---3 points per shot = 107 points per 100 shots

swish

swish

Posts : 3147
Join date : 2009-10-16
Age : 91

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sam Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:34 pm

Swish, you're right.  The factor of points per shot is always important.  we've gone through all that before.  

My original table included stats on number of points produced by 10 3-pointers versus 10 2-pointers by each of the seven players I mentioned.  It really added nothing to the conclusions that were produced by the shooting percentages.

Those with higher 3-point shooting percentages (mainly Thornton, Sully and Kelly) had higher point productivity with 10 3-pointers than with 10 2-pointers.

I recall that Bradley produces one-tenth of a point more with 10 3-pointers than with 10 2-pointers.

The other three (Green, Pressey, Smart) produce more points with 10 2-pointers than with 10 3-pointers.

I deleted that information from the table because it added complexity without adding anything except redundancy with the shooting percentage data.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Outside Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:35 pm

My take on it is that Stevens believes in an offense with significant emphasis on the three-point shot, and that's the offense he's going to use. If these guys can't shoot the three effectively, then as far as Stevens is concerned, they need to get players who can, but he's going to run his offense his way, including the three-point shot, regardless of how well they shoot it.

They are 11th in the league in the number of attempts at 22.9 per game, so it's not like they take a wildly outrageous number of threes. It's noteworthy that the Spurs are 12th at 22.6 per game.

They are only 21st in three-point percentage at 33.1%, and they are eighth in two-point percentage at 50.1%. There are different ways to figure out what that means. One is that they need to stop shooting so many threes and shoot twos since they are far better at twos. Another is that the three-point shooting helps space the floor and improve their two-point shooting. Something to consider is that 33% on threes equates to 50% on twos, so they are essentially shooting the same on twos and threes because the point production is the same.

They shoot essentially the same number of threes as the Spurs. They need to get to the point where they make them as efficiently as the Spurs, who at 37.6% are fifth in the league. The offense, and the number of threes they take, isn't the problem.
Outside
Outside

Posts : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-05

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by bobheckler Sun Dec 14, 2014 9:41 pm

Not particularly MY beloved 3 ptr.

Good points by all so far. Hard for me to jump in with any weight due to my current situation but I'll be following this thread closely.

Thanks to all.


bob



.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61051
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sam Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:28 am

The statistical fact that a three point basket counts for three points and a two point basket counts for two points, and thus shooting 33% on threes theoretically yields the same number of points as shooting 50% on twos is only a tiny part of the real impact of three-pointers on games. Following are my top 10 reasons why three-point shot attempts are inherently less effective than two-point shots:

• The 50% vs. 33% "equality theory" is actually a crock because two-point shot attempts are far more likely than three-point attempts to draw fouls. "And-one" free throws are not credited to two-point shots despite the fact that it's two-point shots that created them.

• Moreover, many two-point misses eventuate in two foul shots that are not credited to two-point attempts (in fact, no shot attempt is even recorded) but were created by two-point attempts.

• Statistically, by the 50%/33% theory, a given three point shot is 17% percentage points more likely than a given two-point shot to leave a rebound that will be captured more often than not by the opponent.

• Most typically, two-point shooting raises a team's overall shooting percentage more than three-point shooting does. The higher a team's shooting percentage, the more it forces the opponent to keep taking the ball out of the basket, thus potentially impacting the opponent's pace and rhythm.

• Missed three-pointers are more likely than missed two-pointers to leave long rebounds that can lead to opponents' fast breaks.

• Theoretically, three-pointers are often credited with spreading the offense, but the offense can be spread irrespective of three-pointers. Offensive players just need to be positioned farther apart. The important thing about spacing is not how it's achieved but what it can accomplish, especially when combined with ball and player movement and good passing.

• Three-point attempts (and even some made three-pointers) can gum up a team's rhythm and momentum, which thrive on interaction of team members.

• The number of three-pointers taken and made throughout a game does not reveal the relative effectiveness of three-pointers at various points in the game. Down the stretch, each possession usually assumes great importance; and the lower shooting percentages associated with threes tend to result in more "empty possessions" than the percentages associated with twos.

• Moreover (although I can't find splits that would prove the following), I believe that splits by quarter would confirm that the basket "shrinks" during the pressure and tension of crunch time; and the amount of "shrinkage" tends to increase with the distance of a shot from the basket.

• A team that emphasizes three-pointers in its offensive strategy tends to start offensive possessions farther from the basket. This makes it easier for opponents to push the offense out and to prevent the offense from making clean entry passes.

Naturally, I'm rooting for the Celtics to make every shot they take, whether it's for three or two points. I just wish they'd be more judicious in using the three-ball.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Outside Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:39 am

Outside wrote:My take on it is that Stevens believes in an offense with significant emphasis on the three-point shot, and that's the offense he's going to use. If these guys can't shoot the three effectively, then as far as Stevens is concerned, they need to get players who can, but he's going to run his offense his way, including the three-point shot, regardless of how well they shoot it.
Sam,

I wish I hadn't mentioned the 50%/33% thing, because that seems to be what you focused on, when the main point I really wanted to make was the above. What do you think of that idea?

If Stevens believes shooting threes at the rate they are shooting them is an integral part of what the offense will do in a contending version of the team down the road, it makes sense to have them run that offense, even if this year's team does a mediocre job of shooting the three. Rather than tailor the offense to this year's team, install the offense you want to run to instill the concepts in those who will be here down the road and identify which players fit it and which don't.
Outside
Outside

Posts : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-05

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by bobheckler Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:38 am

If the 3 ptr produces the superior eFG and it is no more complicated than that, then why were the game scores pre-three ball higher than they are today with the bigger, faster, stronger athletes who are getting more rest between games, flying charter flights and not allowed as much contact defensively?



bob


.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61051
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by swish Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:43 am

bobheckler wrote:If the 3 ptr produces the superior eFG and it is no more complicated than that,  then why were the game scores pre-three ball higher than they are today with the bigger, faster, stronger athletes who are getting more rest between games, flying charter flights and not allowed as much contact defensively?



bob


.

bob

It's all about field goal attempts.
                            PER TEAM AVERAGE PER GAME
1960-61--  fga 109.4, points 118.1
1970-71--  fga 98.0,   points 112.4
1980-81-- fga  88.4,   points 108.1
1990-91-- fga  87.2,   points  106.3
2000-01-- fga  80.6,  points  94.8
2010-11-- fga  81.2,  points  99.6
2013-14-- fga  83.0,  points  101.0

swish


Last edited by swish on Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : ADDITION)

swish

Posts : 3147
Join date : 2009-10-16
Age : 91

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by NYCelt Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:33 am

There is some Celtics precedent from not too far back that sets the stage for a strong 3-point shooting plan.

In the '01 - '02 season Jim O'Brien got the C's back to the playoffs after they had missed out for 6 straight years.  He utilized two main elements; he let them gun away from beyond the arc, and, along with his defensive wiz assistant, the late Dick Harter, got them to play a team defense like the team hadn't played in years.

Funny, too, that O'Brien did it with his calm, even coaching style, a quality of Brad Stevens that has been questioned by one of our favorite media fools in another thread.

So now we just need the defense.
NYCelt
NYCelt

Posts : 10602
Join date : 2009-10-12

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sloopjohnb Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:51 am

When I watch films from the 60's it is striking how quickly teams shot. Even in half court sets players often took the first shot that showed.

Turnovers were also more acceptable. The Celtics of the early to mid 70's often had 20 TO's in a game but that was considered an acceptable price to pay in order to maintain a breakneck speed.

Many teams then tried to wear out the opponent with relentless offensive pressure. Now it is the opposite.

I don't like the emphasis on three pointers any more than most on this board do. But the three is here to stay. It's kind of like the DH in baseball. Purists hate it but casual fans love it.

It gives them an easily recognized highlight to lock on to. And the powers-that-be want to attract as large a fan base as possible (they know that old three point hating geezers will continue to watch even as we whine about how the three is ruining the game).

The only way that threes will become a less prominent aspect of the game is if a team wins a title with minimal reliance on it.

Sloopjohnb

Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-12-29

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sloopjohnb Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:55 am

"In the '01 - '02 season Jim O'Brien got the C's back to the playoffs after they had missed out for 6 straight years. He utilized two main elements; he let them gun away from beyond the arc, and, along with his defensive wiz assistant, the late Dick Harter, got them to play a team defense like the team hadn't played in years."

It was striking how O'Brien got the team back into the playoffs with the same personnel that Pitino had failed so miserably with.

O'Brien did it by mostly junking the gimmick college defenses Pitino had used.

Sloopjohnb

Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-12-29

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sam Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:56 pm

Outside,

I think you hit the nail on the head with the idea that Brad's quite determined to feature the three in his offense. I'm disappointed that he would choose to do so when his team is far from the best three-point shooting team in the league. There's a saying that I just made up: "If you ain't got the horses, don't trot out the wagon."

It also makes sense that, if Brad's determined, we could see the roster undergo a major overhaul. The problem is that it arguably needs an overhaul to acquire an adequate defensive core. I'm not bullish on the idea of being able to gather a nucleus of players who are defensively strong and are also strong from beyond the arc.

I have a history of being a staunch supporter of virtually every Celtics coach. I was delighted when Brad came aboard. But I must admit that his apparent focus on threes is not something I share. It's not just that I find the shot boring and antithetical to the beauty of basketball as I grew to love it. It's more that I find an emphasis on the shot antithetical to the type of attack aggression that I feel wins championships. Since it is here to stay, I favor employing it as an opportunistic complement to a motion offense. I believe that's how the Spurs employ it.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by NYCelt Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:24 pm

Sam,

I believe you're quite correct, at least in my opinion; the 3 is best used as a complement to a motion offense. Since outside shooting is the best way to break a zone defense, it's also a good tool there. Of course, we're talking college ball on that zone part, since it's really not used in the NBA...Ahhh...HaHaHaHa...(sorry, that last one about the NBA always gets me).

Regards
NYCelt
NYCelt

Posts : 10602
Join date : 2009-10-12

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Outside Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:36 pm

sam wrote:It also makes sense that, if Brad's determined, we could see the roster undergo a major overhaul.  The problem is that it arguably needs an overhaul to acquire an adequate defensive core.  I'm not bullish on the idea of being able to gather a nucleus of players who are defensively strong and are also strong from beyond the arc.
Consider the most recent champions and the leading team this season -- the 2013-14 Spurs (third-best defense, 16th in three-point attempts, first in three-point percentage), the 2012-13 Heat (ninth-best defense, 6th in three-point attempts, 2nd in three-point percentage), and the Warriors this year (first in defense, seventh in three-point attempts, fifth in three-point percentage). Like winning a championship, being strong defensively and efficient on threes is not easy, but it's doable.

sam wrote:I have a history of being a staunch supporter of virtually every Celtics coach.  I was delighted when Brad came aboard.  But I must admit that his apparent focus on threes is not something I share.  It's not just that I find the shot boring and antithetical to the beauty of basketball as I grew to love it.  It's more that I find an emphasis on the shot antithetical to the type of attack aggression that I feel wins championships.  Since it is here to stay, I favor employing it as an opportunistic complement to a motion offense.  I believe that's how the Spurs employ it.
I think your distaste for the three colors your opinions on the subject somewhat. You refer to Stevens' "focus" on threes, but Boston at 22.9 is in the middle of the pack when it comes to the number of threes attempted (and basically the same as the champion Spurs). Phoenix and Dallas attempt 27.3 threes per game, and Houston attempts 34.4, so 22.9 isn't such a ridiculous number.

The game has changed. The 1985-86 Celtics were fourth in three-point attempts and first in three-point percentage (as well as first in defense), but they only attempted 4.8 threes per game. The three is a much bigger part of the game now, it can benefit almost any offense, and it in particular can benefit a motion offense by improving spacing and opening passing and driving lanes. I'd say Stevens is being smart in his use of the three.

You did a nice job of explaining why 50% on twos and 33% on threes aren't really equal, but the flip side is that when you can shoot the three more efficiently, it complements the rest of the offense nicely. If they can get to 37% on threes, which would put them in the top seven this season, then the good effects of the three outweigh the bad. Jumping four percent isn't huge, but it's significant in the results.
Outside
Outside

Posts : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-05

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by NYCelt Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:39 pm

Sloopjohnb wrote:It was striking how O'Brien got the team back into the playoffs with the same personnel that Pitino had failed so miserably with.


Sloop,

Although I think Pitino is among the top 20 or so greatest coaches the game of basketball has ever known, I have to agree with your statement there.

I always thought Obie was underrated and underappreciated too.  He and Harter found a way to utilize what they had with that '01 - '02 club, even though it was far from loaded with top talent. They saw the three could really add some scoring punch, and they had players who could at least do an adequate job of taking the shot. At the same time they got that group to buy into a defensive mentality. Great coaching job.

Regards
NYCelt
NYCelt

Posts : 10602
Join date : 2009-10-12

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sam Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:02 pm

Sloop, you're talking about volume basketball. It worked particularly well with strong rebounding teams. Three of the advantages of taking the first open shot of a possession were that (1) they often caught opponents before they were defensively set; (2) if the initial shot missed, there was an opportunity for a putback; (3) there was an opportunity to try one or other two options in the same possession, without running out of time, if the first play didn't work but they retained possession of the ball.

One of the remarkable things about those Celtics racehorse teams of the 50s and 60s was the infrequency of turnovers. They didn't keep official turnover stats in those days, but I can guarantee that the combination of (1) true floor generals (mainly Cousy and K.C. Jones), (2) other very good passers on the team, and (3) years and years of playing together enabled them to perform at a high rate of speed with amazing ball control. Cousy had some flash in his game, but he never let it affect his efficiency in passing the ball.

It's not surprising that the 70s Celtics had a lot of turnovers. They lacked the true floor general and, with a few exceptions such as Cowens, Havlicek and White, the experience of playing many years together And yet Tommy had them coming as close as possible to imitating the fast break of the 50s and 60s.

Incidentally, there's something strange about the turnover stat. They began reporting TEAM turnovers in 1974-75, but they didn't begin to report individual player turnovers until 1977-78. Of all the stats being reported nowadays that weren't reported until the mid-70s, the one I most wish they had reported since the beginning of the NBA is turnovers. I'd like to be able to back up with actual figures the ball control I know from observation to have existed on the Russell Celtics teams.

Nowadays, I think teams are quicker to get back defensively than was true in the earlier days of the league. There is more breaking up of fast breaks now than in the past, where defenses couldn't disrupt what they couldn't catch. And one of the main reasons is that, with the three-point shot available, there are usually two or three offensive players hanging around the arc; so they have a head start in getting back to defend in transition. Years ago, even the guards played closer to the lane than would ever be true now; so they didn't get similar head starts downcourt when switching to defense. And there are many more deflections today than in the past—quite likely a function of longer arms and greater agility nowadays.

Sam
Sam
Sam
Admin

Posts : 22663
Join date : 2009-10-10

https://samcelt.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Shamrock1000 Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:58 pm

Personally, I don't like the 3-point shot for aesthetic reasons. It gets boring watching teams throw the ball around the perimeter until someone takes an open three. I like to see an occasional athletic drive, or a clever precise pass to a smart cutter. However, given the rate at which players make 3's these days, coaches pretty much have to play this type of game or else they will lose over the long run. Wish it weren't the case, but that's what the numbers say....

BUT, what if they moved the line back such that even good 3-point shooters would struggle to hit them??? This has been done in the past and sure enough the number of 3's drops. Grantland recently brought this  up, and those of you who are interested can read more here:

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/is-it-time-to-move-the-nba-3-point-line-back/

Shamrock1000

Posts : 2702
Join date : 2013-08-19

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by bobheckler Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:00 pm

swish wrote:
bobheckler wrote:If the 3 ptr produces the superior eFG and it is no more complicated than that,  then why were the game scores pre-three ball higher than they are today with the bigger, faster, stronger athletes who are getting more rest between games, flying charter flights and not allowed as much contact defensively?



bob


.

bob

It's all about field goal attempts.
                            PER TEAM AVERAGE PER GAME
1960-61--  fga 109.4, points 118.1
1970-71--  fga 98.0,   points 112.4
1980-81-- fga  88.4,   points 108.1
1990-91-- fga  87.2,   points  106.3
2000-01-- fga  80.6,  points  94.8
2010-11-- fga  81.2,  points  99.6
2013-14-- fga  83.0,  points  101.0

swish


Swish,

And I'll bet a much higher percentage of those fgas were taken at or near the rim rather from distance.  In other words, a fga from 2 1/2 feet is better than one from 25 feet.  They ran to the front of the rim.  Nowadays they run to the corner or trot up and pull up at 23' for a 3pter, a much more passive approach that doesn't attack the defense.  That is because the NBA has chosen to reward players for playing away from the basket.  When you are rewarded for running 94' to the rim, the first team to get there wins the possession.  When you are rewarded for running 72' and waiting to see if the ball is kicked back your way, that's what you do.  That takes time off the clock and reduces total number of possessions.  If fgas are down it is because the 3 point shot favors a style of play that is slower and more deliberate,  which reduces the final score.



bob



.
bobheckler
bobheckler

Posts : 61051
Join date : 2009-10-28

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by k_j_88 Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:34 pm

There is no logical reason for anyone to shoot that far away from the basket. The 3-point line is merely a catalyst that enables laziness. As Sam has already mentioned, a missed 3 point shot doesn't just mean a miss for you, it can also mean easy points for the other team in transition. It has a negative impact every time you give the other team what amounts to free points while you're not getting any.


KJ
k_j_88
k_j_88

Posts : 4747
Join date : 2013-01-06
Age : 35

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by swish Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:37 pm

bob

No 3 point fga's in 70-71 and attempts dropped from 109.4 to 98.0. Only 2 3 point attempts per team per game in 80-81 and attempts dropped to 88.4

swish

swish

Posts : 3147
Join date : 2009-10-16
Age : 91

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sloopjohnb Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:09 pm

"Nowadays, I think teams are quicker to get back defensively than was true in the earlier days of the league..."

Absolutely. Doc's Celtics often did not seriously try for offensive rebounds preferring instead to sprint back and present a well organized defense. I remember the Knicks of the early 70's would do this since they knew that they couldn't contend with the younger legs of the Celtics on the offensive boards.

Doc often used a small ball lineup in crunch time with Posey, Pierce, Garnett, Eddie House and Ray Allen, five excellent perimeter shooters. So if they ran their sets correctly offensive rebounds were somewhat moot since they hit a high percentage of their shots and they maintained excellent court balance to protect against opponents' fastbreaks.

This small ball lineup reminded me of the early 70's Knicks who likewise put five smart guys on the court who were excellent perimeter threats.

Sloopjohnb

Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-12-29

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sloopjohnb Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:16 pm

"There is no logical reason for anyone to shoot that far away from the basket. "

I think there is in as much as long range shooting has improved dramatically due to the three pointer.  It used to be that a guy hitting about 30% of his threes would be considered an excellent three point shooter  Now there are three point shooters who hit in the mid to high 40's.

I agree that many teams rely excessively on the three but beyond FG % the three can be exactly the right shot at the right moment. Back in the dark ages of the three, Larry Bird used it to cut out an opponent's heart and hand it to him on a gold platter. In 1981's final's game six he drained one right in front of the Houston bench to put end any hope of a successful rally. I'm sure it's on youtube some where and you can see the Houston bench guys just deflate after that shot. The entire Houston team knew it was over.

Bird did the same thing in 1986's finals game six again against the Rockets.

In the hands of a player who knows how to use it judiciously, the three is a really effective--and entertaining--weapon.



Last edited by Sloopjohnb on Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

Sloopjohnb

Posts : 638
Join date : 2013-12-29

Back to top Go down

The Beloved Three-pointer Empty Re: The Beloved Three-pointer

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum