Shooting Three's

[azirish]

One of the big issues for the coming season is that in replacing Jones with Hill, the Suns will not have the same three point shooting they had last year.

Bell
205 of 496
41.3%

Barbosa
190 of 438
43.4%

Nash
156 of 343
45.5%

Jones
90 of 238
37.8%

Marion
80 of 252
31.7%

Rose
21 of 47
44.7%

Diaw
15 of 45
33.3%

Jumaine
10 of 32
31.3%

Pike
7 of 18
38.9%

Burke
6 of 22
27.3%

Banks
5 of 29
17.2%

Stoudemire
0 of 3
0.0%

Thomas
0 of 1
0.0%

Marks
0 of 1
0.0%

Total
785 of 1965
39.9%

Jones was responsible for only 11% of all the made three pointers of the team and about 1.2 made threes per game on 3.1 attempts per game. It seems reasonable to assume the other shooters could pick up the slack as long as the team keeps running.

Clearly the lineup with Marion and Diaw at forward was not well suited to shooting threes, yet they ran that lineup much of the season. Sliding Bell to SF was something of a stop gap, but it did spread the floor when needed.

However, most of the time the Suns played with just two three point shooters on the floor and still had just under 2000 attempts. They took only 61 fewer than they did when JJ and Q were fireing them up in 2004-05.

 

[Covert Rain]

They don't need it either. If the Suns replace that 3 point shooting with shots in the paint or higher percentage mid range then they will be better not worse. This really is a non-issue.

 

[azirish]

They don't need it either. If the Suns replace that 3 point shooting with shots in the paint or higher percentage mid range then they will be better not worse. This really is a non-issue.

In theory, 33% for three is worth 50% for two; but there is little doubt that guys hitting under 36% tend to disrupt the offense even though over the course of the season it SHOULD work out. In any case, guys like Marion who has not shot three's well in a long time just simply shouldn't or should limit them to corner shots where he does better.

My feeling is that three point shooting should be focused on guys who hit over 39% on a consistent basis. Somebody like Hill who can drive and kick contributes by hitting the three point shooters.

 

[fordronken]

But the offense needs shooters on the floor, whether or not they end up taking them. That's the issue.

 

[playstation]

In theory, 33% for three is worth 50% for two; but there is little doubt that guys hitting under 36% tend to disrupt the offense even though over the course of the season it SHOULD work out.

in addition, 3's create longer rebounds that in turn create more fast breaks for the other team.

steve kerr is better off on the court than running this team

 

[azirish]

But the offense needs shooters on the floor, whether or not they end up taking them. That's the issue.

If I'm given a choice of defending against a guy who hits 37.8% of his three pointers but averages only 6.4 ppg and just 36.8% overall versus somebody who shoots almost no three point shots (12 for the entire season) but averages 14.4 ppg and 51.8% and get to the line a lot; I'd rather face the three point shooter.

Take as an example Rip Hamilton. He's not a very good three point shooter at 34.1% (44 of 129) but he averages 19.8 ppg from the field on 46.8% shooting. His game is built around the mid range shot and he's a big part of the Piston's success. The Pistons had the 6th best point differential in the NBA.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

In theory, 33% for three is worth 50% for two; but there is little doubt that guys hitting under 36% tend to disrupt the offense even though over the course of the season it SHOULD work out. In any case, guys like Marion who has not shot three's well in a long time just simply shouldn't or should limit them to corner shots where he does better.

My feeling is that three point shooting should be focused on guys who hit over 39% on a consistent basis. Somebody like Hill who can drive and kick contributes by hitting the three point shooters.

Bell and Barbosa increase their three points attempts by a wide margin each year, I am sure they would be more than happy to handle some of that 11%.

 

[azirish]

Bell and Barbosa increase their three points attempts by a wide margin each year, I am sure they would be more than happy to handle some of that 11%.

I would expect Nash to shoot more threes if Hill does a lot of drive and kick.

 

[Stargazer]

The key on offense is not twos or threes per se, but rather that you be able to "take what the defense gives you," either on an individual or team basis. Kobe is devastating because he can shoot the three if you give him room or blow past you if you play him close. Duncan is devastating because he can score in the post if you play him straight up and quickly find the open man if you double him. Nash is sort of a combination of all three -- he can hit the three, drive to the hole, and find the open man -- which makes him especially dangerous.

From that perspective, Hill is a clear improvement over Jones. Jones only real threat on offense was hitting a three, and so could be shut down by simply defending him close on the perimeter. In fact, he was such a non-factor that the defense could afford to "cheat" on him by leaving him to help on someone else, usually Steve. I suspect that a large chunk of Jones' scoring came from exactly that situation -- i.e., being left open as a relative non-threat. When he was on, he could make teams pay for it. But when he was off, he couldn't, and that made it harder for the entire offense.

Hill (I hope) won't be so one-dimensional. Even if he can't hit the three, he can still force his defender between guarding against a pull-up two, guarding against a drive to the hold, and guarding against a pass to another player. That should mean that the defense can't cheat on him as much, which all by itself should help the rest of the team.

Put it this way -- if you are an opposing coach, who would you be more likely to put a better defender on, Jones or Hill? I think (hope) the answer is Hill, and that should mean that a worse defender is assigned to somebody else on the floor.

Whether that advantage manifests itself as more threes or more twos depends on what the defense tries to take away, but it ultimately doesn't matter.

 

[azirish]

The key on offense is not twos or threes per se, but rather that you be able to "take what the defense gives you," either on an individual or team basis. Kobe is devastating because he can shoot the three if you give him room or blow past you if you play him close. Duncan is devastating because he can score in the post if you play him straight up and quickly find the open man if you double him. Nash is sort of a combination of all three -- he can hit the three, drive to the hole, and find the open man -- which makes him especially dangerous.

From that perspective, Hill is a clear improvement over Jones. Jones only real threat on offense was hitting a three, and so could be shut down by simply defending him close on the perimeter. In fact, he was such a non-factor that the defense could afford to "cheat" on him by leaving him to help on someone else, usually Steve. I suspect that a large chunk of Jones' scoring came from exactly that situation -- i.e., being left open as a relative non-threat. When he was on, he could make teams pay for it. But when he was off, he couldn't, and that made it harder for the entire offense.

Hill (I hope) won't be so one-dimensional. Even if he can't hit the three, he can still force his defender between guarding against a pull-up two, guarding against a drive to the hold, and guarding against a pass to another player. That should mean that the defense can't cheat on him as much, which all by itself should help the rest of the team.

Put it this way -- if you are an opposing coach, who would you be more likely to put a better defender on, Jones or Hill? I think (hope) the answer is Hill, and that should mean that a worse defender is assigned to somebody else on the floor.

Whether that advantage manifests itself as more threes or more twos depends on what the defense tries to take away, but it ultimately doesn't matter.

Welcome aboard.

I agree completely.

 

[Errntknght]

Nice opening post, Stargazer!

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

Great ideas so far.

I'm hoping Hill's driving to the basket produces enough And 1s and fouls to make the 3 point concern a non-issue.

And im sure bell and barbosa wont mind jacking up a couple more through the season

 

[Errntknght]

Frankly, I much in favor of the team shooting fewer threes - a style of play that is built around lots of three point shooting has not worked against the Spurs, and thats plenty of reason to cut back on them. I'm fine with Barbosa shooting them because defenders have to play up on him to prevent threes which enables him to drive more effectively. I'm okay with Nash shooting them, too, as he picks his spots judiciously. I wouldn't mind if Marion cut them out of his game entirely... oh, I phrased that too nicely. Raja, I'm on the fence with... on one hand its the best part of his game but he doesn't set up much for himself the way Leandro does. I guess the best thing would be if he'd cut a good deal more - especially more back cuts on the baseline.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

theoretically i agree with all of you . . . however we're not dealing in theory, we're dealing with the reality of dantoni's offense. his offense is predicated on having shooters all over the place, thereby spreading the floor providing spacing for nash to penetrate and create or for amare to dominate the lane. now i am NOT advocating wanting jr over hill, but hill does change that dynamic as he won't space the floor quite the same way. that would be fine if dantoni had shown any inclination towards flexibility with his offense, but it's obvious that he hasn't, so how does he cope with the new element? let's hope he recognizes it (really, how can he not?) and acts like a real head coach.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

Frankly, I much in favor of the team shooting fewer threes - a style of play that is built around lots of three point shooting has not worked against the Spurs, and thats plenty of reason to cut back on them. I'm fine with Barbosa shooting them because defenders have to play up on him to prevent threes which enables him to drive more effectively. I'm okay with Nash shooting them, too, as he picks his spots judiciously. I wouldn't mind if Marion cut them out of his game entirely... oh, I phrased that too nicely. Raja, I'm on the fence with... on one hand its the best part of his game but he doesn't set up much for himself the way Leandro does. I guess the best thing would be if he'd cut a good deal more - especially more back cuts on the baseline.

Ive been thinking the same thing. Raja definitely needs to add a solid arsenal of slashing and driving to the rim this season. He is tough enough and floppish enough to get plenty of fouls called. Even if he cant finish I think it would add another threat to his game.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Ive been thinking the same thing. Raja definitely needs to add a solid arsenal of slashing and driving to the rim this season. He is tough enough and floppish enough to get plenty of fouls called. Even if he cant finish I think it would add another threat to his game.

unfortunately he has ZERO lift and gets his shot packed regularly.

 

[azirish]

unfortunately he has ZERO lift and gets his shot packed regularly.

I think it is more about body control. Nash is not exactly a great leeper either. But with Bell, it is just not something he's done much of.

IMHO, Raja's biggest value against the Spurs is his ability to shoot quickly coming off screens.