The Three Strikes....and They're Out or The Lingering Specter of Rajon Rondo

I was going to post this on the Kings Post-game Thread, but I believe that game has received all the attention it deserves.

KJ made a comment about the fact that excessive three-point shooting leads to offensive laziness.  And I couldn't agree more, as I have now been stating for years.

However, because I have to think two or three times about everything I say because I'm a moderator, I've tried to become more objective about the three-point shot.  For instance, I've been assuming that I'm just overlooking the benefits of the long distance scatter gun.  Brad and a preponderance of the league don't love it for no reason.  I understand the stats that rationalize (there's my bias striking again) how a lower percentage on threes than on twos can still produce the same number of points as twos (although I don't believe those stats recognize the much greater proportion of free throws that are drawn by twos than by threes).  I've even experienced excitement (along with self-disgust) when the occasional three works in the Celtics' favor.  I really have tried.  Really!

Perhaps I'd feel differently if the Celtics were a great three-point-shooting team.  But they're not.  At 32.6%, they rank 24th in shooting percentage on treys.  And even that Celtics stat is inflated by the performance of the now-departed Marcus Thornton, whose three-point percentage (41.9%) actually exceeded his two-point percentage (41.4% by a hair).

Perhaps, if Isaiah Thomas (who shoots 39.1% from the arc) steals some of the three-pointers attempted by Turner (30.3%) and Crowder (30.5%), to say nothing of the seldom-used Pressey (28.9%), my opinion of the trey as a Celtics' weapon will improve from sheer hatred to intense dislike.  After all, 41% of Isaiah's shot attempts this season have been threes.  And I would certainly like to see Turner and Crowder focus more frequently on taking the ball into the lane and shooting mid-range jumpers, since their respective two-point shooting percentages are 44.3% and 50.9%.

But I'm hoping Isaiah isn't here primarily to shoot threes for the same reason that I wish Turner and Crowder would lay off shooting threes so often.  THE CELTICS QUITE OBVIOUSLY NEED TO TAKE THE BALL INTO THE LANE MORE OFTEN AS THEIR FIRST OFFENSIVE OPTION.  THEY NEED MORE OF AN ATTACK MENTALITY ON OFFENSE.  They rank only 28th in number of free throws attempted per game, ahead of only New York and Orlando, both of whom are rumored (by me) to be applying for transfer to the Developmental League.

Here's a stat that floored me.  Avery Bradley actually shoots 42.1% on his drives into the lane.  I think he's one of the worst ballhandlers on the team, and I also have observed consistently that he has difficulty finishing in the lane against defensive resistance.  But he shoots seven percentage points better from within the lane than from three-point land (35.0%).  BobH mentioned last night that, if Avery's a one-trick pony, the trick's a pretty good one.  I don't believe something that streaky is a valid trick.  It's more of a tri...

KJ, your comment on the offensive laziness caused by a three-point mentality is right on target.  I've been using that term for months, if not years.  When we mention offensive laziness, I imagine most of us are disparaging the players, and that criticism is richly deserved when they suddenly morph (unsuccessfully) into long-range howitzers when the going gets tough—only to start catching up again when Brad expends precious timeouts exhorting them to become more offensively aggressive.

But I don't believe Brad should escape responsibility for offensive laziness.  After all, he has proclaimed to the world how much he favors a three-point-heavy offense despite the fact that he doesn't have a good three-point-shooting team.  And he has openly given his bigs the green light on threes to the extent that even Bass tries it occasionally.  Has Brad failed to realize that big men are closer in height to the basket than little men and it might be smart to capitalize on that fact by focusing his tall guys more consistently on shooting more often from 2-10 feet rather than from 22+ feet?

Moreover, if BobH is reading this (and I imagine he's ravenously consuming every mention of the Celtics since his three-month exile to the provinces), I believe Crowder's becoming a victim of what I call "Chris Johnson Disease" as he's so often relegated to hanging around outside the arc on Celtics possessions.  For the record, 59.1% of Johnson's shots as a Celtic were threes.  Crowder's not nearly at that level (33%), but he attempts more threes than the average Celtic (27%), and what kind of contribution are you likely to favor when you're stuck so often outside the arc and no plays are being called for you?  We're all hoping (assuming?) that James Young will grow into the kind of player whose versatility will make him worthy of rotation status.  Well, how is he going to become versatile offensively if 61% of his shot attempts continue to be threes?

Now that I find myself in mini-rantville, the fact is that the Celtics' half-court offense often consists of at least four, and sometimes all five, of the players hanging outside the arc playing catch with one another.  (I don't want to accuse them of anything salacious, but I'm sometimes afraid they'll all go blind from their playful escapades.)  Finally a Celtic breaks for the basket while the defense ho hums a little move right or left to break up the play.  Could it possibly be that the Celtics offense is still Rondo-centric but without the behind-the-back French pastry fake?

I realize that Brad has been the victim of continual discontinuity, and he deserves to be cut a lot of slack right through the end of the season.  So maybe what I'm really doing is firing a shot across his bow.  But, if I had the aim of the Celtics on long shots, I'm terribly afraid I might hit the projection room of his ship and wipe him out.  Perhaps he has some statistic that absolutely compels his emphasis on threes—something so exciting it might be called an electric metric.

Go Celtics!  Into the lane, that is.

Sam

sam,

You're on target on a lot of this, including about me ravenously devouring all things Celtics.  In fact, I'm reading this fairly early in the morning despite being up until 3:30 this morning playing poker.  So I reserve the right to edit this later so that it makes more sense.  Or any sense.

I'm not a big fan of the 3-ball either, so I'm probably not the best person to play the foil on your post, but what I am definitely NOT a big fan of is having players who aren't good 3pt shooters taking 3s.  In fact, I'm not a big fan of forcing players to do something they don't have an obvious talent for (e.g. asking Phil Pressey to become a high-volume rebounding guard).

Running a weave has been a longtime, effective offensive half court set.  Running a weave 3-4' further from the basket, putting it outside the 3 pt line, is not such a big deal to me but just like with the closer weave you need to do it with players that have the skills to make it effective.  If it is a mid-range weave you need good mid-range shooters.  If it is a weave at the 3pt line you need good 3pt shooters.  Weaves also create pick-and-roll opportunities.  The good thing about a 3pt weave is it opens up the floor for the roller.  The bad thing about it is that the roller has further to go to make his shot off the pass closer than a mid-range floater.

Bradley doesn't finish well at the rim unless it is on a back door pass.  I'll bet if you deducted the layups Bradley scores when he does his baseline back door move from his numbers he'll look a lot less effective than he already does.

Isaiah Thomas vs Rajon Rondo?  We know Rondo's a great passer, ESPECIALLY in the half court, but a fluky shooter.  How many times have we seen defenders play off him, go under picks and otherwise give him the shot rather than getting up on him?  I prefer pass-first point guards but a pass-first point guard that cannot shoot loses much of his effectiveness because his targets aren't open as much.  Thomas might, in a fashion not to my personal tastes, improve things because he is reputed to be a good shooter (and sometimes reputation, deserved or not, is all you need to produce effectiveness).  He is 36.5% from 3 career but is 39% this year.  That's pretty good.  The recently departed Thornton is shooting 42% this year but is also just a 36.5% career 3-shooter.  Thornton also takes more 3s than Thomas, both this year and career.  My point here is that we are swapping out a higher volume, but slightly higher effective, 3pt shooter for another good 3pt shooter who can also play point.  Bradley vs Thomas, as shooters?  That will be an interesting thing to watch.

This commentary about Thomas vs Bradley is not a distraction from Bradley.  He doesn't finish well in the paint but many guards don't.  Kobe Bryant, generally considered to be a pretty good shooter, is a career 48% 2pt shooter.  Better than 46% but not so much so considering the difference in their reputations as shooters.  Consider that Bradley is shooting 47.5% from 2points this year, it is quite close (I used the Kobe career number because his last year or two's numbers are far below his average and I didn't feel it would be representative of his capabilities).  With the departure of Thornton, Bradley is the best outside shooter on the team (especially off of picks).  We need to shoot from the outside if our bigs are to have any chance inside.  Therefore, why not have a player who is not a good finisher in the paint but one of the best shooters left on the team take more outside shots and fewer in the paint?

Where my dislike of the 3pt shot really bubbles to the surface is not when guards take 3s, they are expected to play further from the basket, it's when bigs like Sully and Kelly take them.  If that's the way it is going to go then the wings must be very active with their motion and slashes.  Dragging the opposing bigs out has value ONLY if you take advantage of their absence in the paint.

I hope Crowder isn't becoming a victim of "Chris Johnson Disease" (although, to his credit, CJ was mixing it up inside a lot more before his departure).  An energy player like Crowder has to be kinetic to be effective and standing in the corner is not kinetic.  I've only seen my first Jae Crowder game, so I'm hoping you are wrong, I just am not in a position to doubt it.

Brad appears to be the penultimate "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade" type of guy.  I think the reason why players are responding to him is because he is trying to use them as they are best able to perform, allowing them to be in their comfort zone, and as best as he can given the cement mixer revolutions of Meyer, Key and Kaffir limes Danny has given him (and taken away from him) over the past year-and-a-half.  Let's see what happens when (hopefully NOT if) Danny gives him a couple of big bigs with at least one intimidator.  Unfortunately, while Danny has at least as good a drafting track record as other GMs (i.e. he is not perfect), he does appear to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to centers.

Talk about a mini-rant.


bob
P.S. Jet lag notwithstanding, I made money last night.


.

There is always the benefit of drawing more fouls on opponents when a team drives to the hoop much more often which is almost always overlooked.

Getting starters in foul trouble can definitely change how the end of a game is played, can dictate different rotations the other team likes to use, and leads to more free throw attempts.

Driving to the hoop also sets the tone for an aggressive offense that keeps the defense back on its heels.

I do not totally dislike the three point shot, but if you are not doing it well, you need to do it less. Coaches can decide how many three point shots that are taken and can also decide which players are to take them.

This concept on the failing to limit who is shooting three pointers is probably my biggest concern with Stevens offensive strategy. Let the good three point shooters shot them and then make the other guys shoot them more in practice until they can shoot them better in the games. If a guy is 1 for 6 on threes at the end of a game I believe that he has shot far too many threes. As and example, the guy who is 1 for 2 gets to shoot again while the guy who falls to 1 for 4 should not.

The random three point shots by guys shooting less than 25% early in the shot clock really agitates me.

Bob,

I'm not equating what the Celtics do with the weave.  In a weave, the players move and pass, move and pass, with the objective being to get the defense moving so as to open up lanes to the hoop.  In the Celtics halfcourt offense, at least of late, the players stand and pass, stand and pass, stand and reverse, stand and pass until one of them appears to decide it's time to try something and makes dash for the hoop—all too often with poor results.  That's definitely not a weave, nor is it (in the wildest stretch of the imagination) a motion offense.

I wasn't trying to equate Rondo with Thomas.  I was equating the offense as run by Rondo earlier this season with the offense run by the Celtics later in the season.

As for Bradley, what does it matter if he's the Celtics' best outside shooter if that's all he can do successfully?  Rondo was the Celtics' best passer, but it could be argued that his other talents fell short being dependably good.  If a player has one talent, defenders play him for that talent and fall off him otherwise.  As long as Avery can spring free and shoot quickly (which he has been doing), that's a good thing. But, when the chips are down late in the game, that's when the defense tightens and one-trick ponies often wind up sucking oats.  Occasionally, things may break the right way and they'll be temporary heroes.  But, in the long run, not so much.

Sam

There has been a much greater emphasis on Bradley this year as he has emerged as one of the Celtics players that it looks like Ainge is going to build around.   Some people like what they are seeing, and some people are questioning his skills.

I am sure that he has received much more written attention this season by both writers and fans alike than he has ever gotten in his previous years in Boston when his attention was primarily gotten because of his injuries, then his defense and then his ability to cut to the hoop via the back door.

Now his positive attention stems from his shooting ability (that has improved quite a bit) and negativism seems to come from his defense not being as strong as it was, him not being tall enough to defend certain other players and his less than stellar ball handling.

If all this new attention shows me one thing is that this guy needs to take notice of his "one trick pony" success and get back to work on many other parts of his game.  He can't get taller, but he is only 24 so he is still a pretty young player so to go from the 'pony' references to a 'dog' reference, he is not too old of a dog to learn some new tricks.

Busting the ball to the hoop is an absolute must for this guy during next season.

Clyde,

And busting the ball to the hoop should be a learnable skill.  I don't believe it's just inability to finish.  When he gets into the lane, I often feel he's indecisive and makes his shot selection too late for it to be effective.

Sam

Sam,

I agree that driving to the hoop is a learnable and part of it is being decisive. I think that most of the guys who make the NBA have enough talent to drive to the hoop, but it also seems that not as many players are driving to the hoop.

This skill should be right near the top of Stevens's list for this summer for many of his players. It looked like last night that Thomas could be the lead instructor.

What's too often overlooked about missed three point shots is that they lead to fast break opportunities for the opponents, especially if the team shooting threes is weak when it comes to offensive rebounding. Are the Celts presently weak on offensive rebounding? Without Sully - Yes. Should we give opponents a head start to our basket? No. Is it wise to draw fouls, putting the other team's players in danger of ejection? Yes. Is it wise to take high percentage free throws when your 3 point % is low? Yes.

What's so hard about this math? Really?

Sam,

I believe that on this particular, Brad's accountability ought to be front and center. It's his team, and it's his philosophy. In my opinion, 32.6% from 3 is a rather abysmal percentage. If Brad and his brain trust are analytics guys, then why is this not being analyzed?

The Celtics ought to center their offense around being in attack mode with occasional threes when the momentum is flowing. If there's been multiple missed 3's in a row, perhaps that's a sign the team should return to attacking on offensive until those shots will fall again.


KJ

If this team were well on their way to being an established entity, where you knew who your best 3 was, who you best 4 was, had a 5 who had a decent post up game....then I might buy into the prevailing wisdom in this thread.

But without a true push the ball PG, without any sense of a post up game (which helps spread the floor) and without a strong rebounder with good outlet skills (particularly with Sully done), I think transition 3s are and will remain a big part of the Celtics game plan.

Suggesting that Brad is ignoring the shooting percentage also supposes that he has another option.  As if he has a team of strong drivers with enough cache in the NBA to actually get the calls when they are fouled, and a bench full of big men who are adept at hitting the offensive glass.  He has none of the above, so he is going with what he has.  

The current offensive play calling is in no way indicative of the long term offensive play calling, any more than the opening day roster is indicative of what this team will look like when they are back in contention in a few years.

If we are still having this conversation in 3 years, YES - mark me as on board with I dont like the 3 point parade.  But for now, I think Coach is playing the cards he has.

Mrkleen,

I think there's a lot to what you say.  BUT, when Sully was hale and hearty and available to do his thing down low, he was still being given the green light to unload threes at will.  I think there's more to the the barrage of threes than sheer necessity.

Sam

I am not sure who on this team can drive to the basket consistently. AB can at times, Thomas looks like he also can in spots. But who else?

Necessity is the mother of invention.

MrKleen,

With all due respect, has the three-point shooting afforded Boston the desired results? I believe the answer is "no."

At the end of the day, it's up to Ainge to build the kind of team necessary for his coach to win. And it's up to Brad to get the most of of his roster at all times. This team has a lot of youth, they should be running most teams off the court, not jacking 30 three-point attempts per game. That is not a winning strategy.

You say that the short-term play calling we're seeing now is not indicative of the long-term focus? Well, if that's the case, then what the hell is Brad actually doing? Shouldn't he be setting in place the proper system going forward now? What is the true purpose/value in using some "throwaway" method? That doesn't do anything to help this team establish a winning culture.


KJ

KJ

Could not disagree with you more.

Being 21 and 33, an exciting young team that plays hard and is a couple of games out of the playoffs isnt the desired result? This current team is far exceeding the expectations of most people I know, sorry you are not one of them.

Having a young team has nothing to do with it. If you dont have players who are adept at driving and running (at least at this point in their young careers) then it makes no difference if they are young or old. Marcus Smart is not a good driver, in fact he isnt much of an up tempo guy - neither is James Young, Zeller, KO, and the list goes on.

You want the coach to set in place a proper system for players who are not here on the roster right now? Are you kidding? You play with what you have now, building comradare, fight, spirit and as your roster changes - your tactics change.

This isnt the showtime Lakers, who drafted players to fit a successful, proven formula - this is a hodge podge of guys who may or not be here in a few months.

Whether you like the style or not, the Celtics are Brad Stevens ARE establishing a winning culture. A winning culture is not defined by wins, particularly when you are playing with more talented teams nearly every night. It is defined by playing hard, hustling, diving for loose balls, and having your teammates back....all things this team does almost every night.

I think in you are being blinded by your desire to see the team run your preferred offense - as you are clearly not watching the same team I am.

Same thought as in another thread. Same answer too.

When Sully was available to do what he does best—operate down low, thereby being an offensive rebounding force and helping to space the floor, he was given the green light to shot a lot of threes. That would seem to be a dilution of one pretty reliable asset in order to try to force-fit another that's not nearly as reliable.

And, as for driving to the hoop, then was then and now is now. And, right now, I'm under the impression that Isaiah Thomas can do it a LOT. So can Crowder. And I'm hoping that—perhaps by osmosis or a loosening up of opponents' defenses by Thomas and possibly Crowder, slashing will become a greater part of the Celtics offense and will offer alternatives to so much emphasis on the three.

Blind Sam

3 Point Shooting is part of Sullys game.

He left OSU as 6th on the all time in OSU 3 point field goal attempts list with around 2.5 per game.  In his last 2 NBA seasons he is averaging 3 attempts per game.  Nothing out of the ordinary for him.

With a 3P% under 30%, I agree it is a less reliable asset.  But it is not something that Brad Stevens is telling him to do, it is part of his offensive game and has been since he was a teenager.

In the pros, it's the coach who determines what roles players will fill.  Just because Sully shot (but didn't necessarily make) a lot of threes in college doesn't mean it's a facet of his game that should be emphasized in the pros—especially given his mediocre success with them.  Brad was quoted by numerous media as giving his bigs the green light to shoot threes.

I'm sure Brad has had his reasons, and perhaps they were initially a function of the Celtics' limited inside game. But why weaken their closest approximation of an inside game in the process? And things are a little different now because there's more slashing potential on the team than earlier in the season. It will be interesting to see Brad's ongoing approach to the offense as newcomers are further integrated.

Sam

A coach looking at the breadth of talents that a player like Jared Sullinger has and finds him to be one of the 5 best players on the team. Part of his game is shooting from the outside. As a player, he feels that it frees up his drives and post play and it is something that he has been doing since he was a teenager. He is a good rebounder, a pretty good low post player, a good passer and sometimes (3 times a game to be exact), he drifts outside and the arc and takes a 3 pointer.

Maybe as he matures and the Celtics add a legit big man who can play alongside Sully - he will see he can accomplish more by staying down low more often. I dont know. But Jared Sullinger taking three 3 point shots a game is the least of Brad Stevens and the Celtics problems.

My problem with Sullenger taking any threes when his success rate is so low is that it does not really 'space the floor' because he is not capable of driving to the lane when taking his man out away from the basket. If I was coaching against him, I would really contemplate not even going out to cover this guy when he heads out to the three point line until he makes two in a row in the game.

Also, with Sullenger out at the three point line his offensive rebounding prowess is much more limited.

With that said, I do not mind Stevens supporting Sullenger's outside shooting THIS YEAR. But, as this team gets better and better more definition of Sellenger's offensive role will be needed. Three years of stats seem to show that placing him closer to the hoop really seems like the best way for this guy to be a much more effective performer.

gyso wrote:Has anyone seen where Rondo was benched last night for arguing with Rick Carlisle?  Now he has been benched twice.  Once more makes three strikes . . .

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/rajon-rondo-benched-after-shouting-match-with-mavs-coach-rick-carlisle-072026341.html

I did see that. There's a different video in this article, including postgame comments from Carlisle:

[url=espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/12378645/rajon-rondo-coach-rick-carlisle-shouting-match-dallas-mavericks-win]espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/12378645/rajon-rondo-coach-rick-carlisle-shouting-match-dallas-mavericks-win[/url]

We'll see where it goes from here, but it appears Carlisle has no tolerance for Rondo ad-libbing after Carlisle has called for something specific.

It's one thing to keep opponents guessing.  It's another thing to weaken your offensive contributions to do so.  Sully can represent a dual threat without having to trudge all the way to the three point line to do it.  He has a pretty good mid-range jumper, which doesn't take him so far from the offensive board, where he can be a beast.

I'm sure Sully did many things while he was younger.  Some are useful to the current iteration of the Celtics.  Others?  Not so much.  I'm not really blaming Sully for straying so far in order to hoist threes.  I believe he's been given the impression that doing so is helpful to the Celtics.

Once in a while, Sully does hit a key three, or even two in succession; and, in his and Brad's mind, those infrequent occurrences probably strengthen the case for Sully's pursuit of the three point game.  But I don't see his overall three point accuracy improving.  And, before his injury, he was arguably the only low threat on the team, which was an invaluable asset as we're seeing now that he's out.

If Brad had counseled him that he should focus on where he was most useful—down low—rather than also trying to be a perimeter player, I bet that's what Sully would have done, despite what he had fun doing as a kid.  Players do many things in their younger days that aren't automatically valuable as pros—especially if they do them in a flawed manner.

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:KJ

Could not disagree with you more.

Being 21 and 33, an exciting young team that plays hard and is a couple of games out of the playoffs isnt the desired result?  This current team is far exceeding the expectations of most people I know, sorry you are not one of them.

Having a young team has nothing to do with it.  If you dont have players who are adept at driving and running (at least at this point in their young careers) then it makes no difference if they are young or old.  Marcus Smart is not a good driver, in fact he isnt much of an up tempo guy - neither is James Young, Zeller, KO, and the list goes on.  

You want the coach to set in place a proper system for players who are not here on the roster right now?  Are you kidding?  You play with what you have now, building comradare, fight, spirit and as your roster changes - your tactics change.

This isnt the showtime Lakers, who drafted players to fit a successful, proven formula - this is a hodge podge of guys who may or not be here in a few months.

Whether you like the style or not, the Celtics are Brad Stevens ARE establishing a winning culture.  A winning culture is not defined by wins, particularly when you are playing with more talented teams nearly every night.  It is defined by playing hard, hustling, diving for loose balls, and having your teammates back....all things this team does almost every night.

I think in you are being blinded by your desire to see the team run your preferred offense - as you are clearly not watching the same team I am.

Perhaps we are watching different things.

21-33 is exceeding expectations? How so? If anything, the team is right around where I was expecting: somewhere better than last year but not much better. There's been too many moving parts for any cohesiveness to establish. As BobH and many others have stated, the rebuild is still quite fluid. I'm sure over the next two years the roster will have been revamped from what it is currently.

Three-point shooting, in my opinion, is pure laziness when done in excess, as this year's team has done. There is no way around that. Please explain to me how advantageous it is for a poor 3-point shooting team such as this one to take as many threes as it does. When you miss threes it gives the other team a much easier opportunity to score in transition. Exactly what positive benefit does this have on a young team's growth? If anything, it's a cultivation of bad habits: launching ill-advised threes and camping out beyond the arc.



KJ

Yes.  Exceeding expectations.

If you told ANY Celtics fan in October that after trading the leading scorer, the starting PG and leading assist man, being without KO and Sully for significant periods of time, with a rookie starting at PG - a couple of journeymen and other mismatch selection of players  - that on February 25 you would have 22 wins (3 wins away from exceeding last seasons total) and just 1 game out of the 8th playoff spot, they would have told you, that you were crazy.

ESPN claimed the Celtics would win 25 games


CBS Sports said - 25 / 21 / 25 respectively  


Las Vegas Odds Makers had them at 26.5


So yes, by most objective measures - they are exceeding expectations.

As for the 3 point shot and your opinion of it, that is purely objective.  The NBA as a whole is going to far exceed its record for total 3 point field goals attempted and made in a season, so if you dont like the 3 point shot - it isnt just Brad Stevens that must be irking you - it is the entire NBA.  Is every team in the NBA lazy?  

The Denver Nuggets shoot the same amount of 3 point FGs as the Celtics and actually make less - would you consider them a "lazy team"?
The Oklahoma Thunder, who are a young and athletic up and down team - guess how many 3PT they attempt every night?  1 less than the Celtics and at a lower FG%. Surely no one in the NBA describes the Thunder as "Lazy"

When you have a roster with a legit center, when your PG understands how good he can be taking the ball to the hoop, when you have defined roles for each player on your roster - maybe you ratchet down the number of 3 pointers attempted a bit.  But since none of those things are in place now, I say Brad is doing a great job playing the hand he was dealt.

Going to have to agree to disagree here.

Sorry but for starters, I refuse to base my expectations on those of so-called "experts."

As for the rest of what the 31 NBA teams are doing with respect to 3-point shooting, that's not of much concern to me. And by the way, the Denver Nuggets are 20-37. So what's your point?

I have other reservations about Brad's coaching which extends beyond 3-point shooting, but that's a different matter altogether.


KJ