Celtics Long Ball Sluggers

First, I need to say (in case somebody doesn't know it) that I detest the effect of three point shooting on the rhythm and pace of the game of basketball. But Brad's running the team, and he seems to love the three-ball, so it behooves us (or at least me) to look for the silver lining.

Take a look at the three point shooting percentages among the Celtics leaders in this category:

.571 James Young
.432 Evan Turner
.423 Marcus Thornton
.358 Kelly Olynyk
.337 Jared Sullinger
.333 Marcus Smart
.325 Avery Bradley
.311 Jeff Green
.212 Phil Pressey
.211 Jae Crowder
.200 Jameer Nelson

Some real surprises to me:

• I knew Young was shooting well, but not THAT well.

• Last time I looked, Thornton was leading the team. He hasn't regressed, but he's been passed by a real surprise—Evan Turner.

• I've been closing my eyes when Smart shoots threes; but, if I'd kept them open, maybe I wouldn't be surprised that he's hitting 1 in 3.

• I believe Sully was in the low 20s earlier in the season; so maybe his hand was an early problem. I bet his recent percentage is near 40.

• Avery and Jeff have slid well below what I would have guessed, which supports my theory that they've suffered most from the loss of Rondo's ability to present them with clear shots.

Kelly's figure is about where I would have expected. And it's no surprise that Pressey, Crowder and Nelson are firing squad material when they launch from behind the arc.

So what does it all mean? Maybe nothing more than affirmation that Young, Turner and Thornton should be taking the majority of their threes. Maybe that the team is going in a direction that's not best suited for either Avery's or Jeff's game. Maybe that Smart is working hard on his shot and, to date, looks to me more like a shooting guard than a floor general. Maybe that Brad's got something in allowing Sully and Kelly to bomb away.

Opinions?

Sam

I detest the 3-ball except when one goes in:

The Celtics are 26th in 3 point fg% @ 32.4%

They are 13th in 3 point fgas @ 22.8/game.

They are 14th in overall fg% @ 45.7%.

For a little perspective:

#1 3pt  fg% = Washington @39%
#30 3pt fg% = Philly @ 29.7%.

#1 3pt fgas  = Houston @ 33.7/go (Wiz are 28th, so the team with the best fg% takes some of the fewest.  ???)

#30 3pt fgas = Minnesota @ 14.5

If you look at this chart, sort it by 3pt fgas,  you see a lot of teams with winning records at the top half of the fgas list.

http://stats.nba.com/league/team/#!/?sort=FG3A&dir=1

I don't like the 3-ball much more than Sam (I don't think anybody can like it less than Sam) but if winning teams are taking a lot of 3s in this league now, then maybe Brad's onto something.


bob



.

some perspective may be needed on those stats, IMO.

here is the TOTAL 3ptMade/3pt attempts:

Young- 4/7
Turner- 16/37
Thornton- 22/52
Kelly- 29/81
Sullinger- 35/104
Smart- 21/63
Bradley- 39/120
Green- 47/151
Pressey- 7/33
Bass- 0/6
Zeller- 0/0
Wallace- 0/1

those are the players that have been here all year, so far.

the following playersI will list their TOTAL numbers this year (and 3 pt %):

Crowder- 17/57- 29.8%
Nelson- 43/128- 33.6%
Wright- 0/0

now I would argue that less than half of an NBA season is too small a sample, so here is the career 3pt shooting % for non- rookies on the roster right now:


Nelson- 37.2
Thornton- 36.3
Bradley- 35.6
Green- 34.1
Turner- 33.5
Crowder- 32.5
Wallace- 31.2

All of the above players have 400 or more 3pt attempts in their careers

Kelly-35.4 (195 att.)
Sullinger-29.0 (317 att.)
Pressey - 25.2 (139 att.)
Bass - 7.4 (27 att.)
Wright- 0.0 (8 att. )
Zeller- 0.0 (5 att.)

Of course Wallace and perhaps Nelson are not the 3 pt shooters they once were and Sully has obviously improved his 3 pt shot each year to date.

But over all I feel this shows which veteran players are likely to be solid 3 pt shots moving forward.

so Nelson, Crowder, Bradley and Green are all BELOW their career average now. But are likely to improve their shooting % moving forward.

Turner and Thornton are likely to shoot WORST as they get more attempts.

Young will end up with a lower % than his current one because of many more attempts as rarely does a player with a regular 3 pt shot hit the 50% mark for the year.

The three point shot is not new, but earning three points for a long jump/set shot is fairly new to the second half of the NBA's history.

There certainly were guys who took long (from three point distance) jumpers from the beginning of the NBA in the late 40s. These longer shots by most shooters were more frowned upon because the percentages were not as good, but mostly because shots taken closer to the rim were of equal scoring value. So, coaches emphasized most guys getting closer to the rim where their chances of scoring were increased as well as was their opportunity to draw fouls.

Since the long jump shot became worth three points (not sure of the year) it has been easier to practice the three point shot than driving to the rim for millions of players at all levels. As a result fewer players have the skill to handle the ball and get it to the rim. This is now called "creating your own shot" and most teams have only a couple of guys who can do it. In fact, this is a skill that clearly differentiates the guys who can do it from the guys who cannot, and it also makes them desirable and very well paid.

The three point shot has made NBA players out of guys who perhaps would not have been all-around skilled enough to have made the league in the past. Yes, the average NBA guys may have more natural ability, but may not have the general all-around ball handling skills.

With all that, the three point shot is here to stay. Like it or not and for whatever reasons it will stay in the NBA if only because it has done its job of unclogging the lane which has made the league less of a 'thug-in-an-alley' type of league which has made the league much more popular.

It is now the coach's responsibility to get the most out of the three. One step, in my opinion, is deciding which players you do NOT want to shoot the three. The value of the three is understood, but the percentages of makes needs to be better than what some of the Celtics are shooting.

There also needs to be some common sense exhibited by the players on any given night. By this I mean that if you are one of the guys on a team that is not a high 30% shooter of the three that you stop taking them after you miss the first few in a game. There should never be games when the final stats that look like: 7 attempts and only one make. If you don't start a game doing well most guys need to make a strategic change in the shots they attempt.

Ray Allen and Larry Bird were was the only Celtics players that I can remember who should keep shooting the three even after a bad start to a game. They had the statistical history to allow this to happen. Right now I only see Turner (and maybe Young in time) having that privilege on this year's team.

I also hate what the three has done to the game, but with the rules and 3 pt percentages being what they are, any team would be foolish not to make it a big part of their game. The only way things will change is if they move the line back far enough such that the percentages favor the two.

The list is interesting, especially the bit about Jeff and Avery. Obviously there is no way Young can keep up those insane numbers, but the kid sure can shoot.

I don't hate the three. It opens up the floor, which is a good thing. Teams that want to live by it too much can die by it. There's a happy medium to be found.

I think Stevens would like to follow the Spurs model where almost everyone shoots it. (Last season, everyone in the rotation except Duncan and Splitter shot at least one three per 36 minutes.) The theoretical ideal isn't to only allow the best three-point shooters to shoot the three, it's to have five interchangeable players who can fill any spot on the floor.

There is advantage to making every defender have to cover all the way out to the three-point line -- most post defenders aren't comfortable out there, and making the defense move is the most basic way to force the defense to make mistakes, either allowing open shots or creating passing and driving lanes. It's predicated on ball movement and player movement, and extending that movement to the three-point line maximizes the advantages it presents.

So a point to consider is that it's not just about percentages and who is making how many threes. Of course it's best to make a higher percentage of those shots, but it's important to consider the other benefits of the three in breaking down the defense and enhancing opportunities for two-point shots.

I think both Clyde and Outside have a good handle on the three and it's place in the game.  I couldn't put it any better. Although, sure, I'll ramble on a little.

I think this is the truest statement that can be made...

wide clyde wrote:
...the three point shot is here to stay.  Like it or not and for whatever reasons it will stay in the NBA if only because it has done its job of unclogging the lane which has made the league less of a 'thug-in-an-alley' type of league which has made the league much more popular.

Several different changes have made the NBA a more popular and globally watched league since the 80's; the three is undoubtedly among them.  The three has made the style of play different than what some of us grew up with, so there remain many of us who compare the game before and after.  No different than the DH in baseball, there are plusses and minuses.

The whole point, the reason we watch any game, is to be entertained by the competition.  The three has added several elements to that competition, perhaps the biggest of which is the ability of a team to shoot it's way back into a game quickly.  That alone adds a higher level of anticipation and excitement to the game.  It takes a lot bigger lead to get the fans heading for their cars and the channels to change.  Go back over the years and look at two changes.  It's a more watchable and popular game thanks to the shot clock and the three.  The game would be a shell of what it is now without them.

All interesting perspectives. One point that I believe is pretty much overlooked when discussing the three versus the two is the number of two-point attempts that aren't even counted as attempts because they wind up with foul calls. This is why the average two point attempt still yields more points than the average three point attempt. Moreover, two pointers are more in line with aggressive play than with passive play. And how many times on the Game-on Thread do we find ourselves beside ourselves because the Celtics are chucking up too many threes and also beside ourselves because the other team is being awarded more free throws (sometime MANY more free throws). It all has to do with aggressiveness and going to the hoop versus passivity and taking the easier three.

I don't mean to imply that any of the foregoing points has less validity because of the "aggressiveness" factor. And, for once in my life, I am not bashing threes in this thread but, rather trying to get better perspective on why Brad is so in love with that shot on a team that doesn't have a lot of really reliable three point shooters. And the various comments have provided that perspective.

Sam

sam wrote:All interesting perspectives.  One point that I believe is pretty much overlooked when discussing the three versus the two is the number of two-point attempts that aren't even counted as attempts because they wind up with foul calls.  This is why the average two point attempt still yields more points than the average three point attempt.  Moreover, two pointers are more in line with aggressive play than with passive play.  And how many times on the Game-on Thread do we find ourselves beside ourselves because the Celtics are chucking up too many threes and also beside ourselves because the other team is being awarded more free throws (sometime MANY more free throws).  It all has to do with aggressiveness and going to the hoop versus passivity and taking the easier three.

I don't mean to imply that any of the foregoing points has less validity because of the "aggressiveness" factor.  And, for once in my life, I am not bashing threes in this thread but, rather trying to get better perspective on why Brad is so in love with that shot on a team that doesn't have a lot of really reliable three point shooters.  And the various comments have provided that perspective.

Sam

In addition to the actual points on the board, being aggressive going to the hoop and drawing fouls on the other team puts them in foul trouble, potentially getting their best players off the floor. When is the last time you've seen a game where multiple players on either team were in serious foul trouble, making it change the composition of the game? Pierce was great at this in his younger days... I think there were a few years where he led the league in foul shots attempted. I was just thinking watching a game the other day that this doesn't really happen anymore.

-V

Sam and Baron,

Good point about the three point shot not drawing many fouls.

Aggressive drives to the hoop also help energize your defense.

I do not mind Stevens liking the three point shot as he does not really have many hoop attacking players for some reason, and i don't mind it either.   My concern is much more with which players are taking the three pointers.  Guys with minimal history of success should either stop on their own on a cold night or the coaches can easily limit them by sitting down players who continue to chuck them up.