Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

Our 3 pt shooting might improve if the quality of the 3s taken improve. Less pull ups for Chandler/Gallo more wide open ones on inside out possessions?

martin wrote:

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:was talking to Fists of Oakley and he made the same point.

Our 3 pt shooting might improve if the quality of the 3s taken improve. Less pull ups for Chandler/Gallo more wide open ones on inside out possessions?

right. quality and timeliness. Knowing when and when not to shoot them, that's more the problem that the Knicks have.

Not just that, but also movement from the players who are NOT shooting so they can be better positioned for long rebounds on the inevitable misses. David did this wonderfully, but our current roster seems to prefer standing around adjusting their packages when another guy is taking a 3pt shot.

Less pocket pool, more motion on offense will yield more second chance shots. And a missed three that IS rebounded does not automatically require a follow-up 3pt shot. If a player gets the rebound and a new shot clock, he doesn't need to jack up another three right away.

Once our guys use their brains a bit more when they have the rock, we should do much better in the scoring department. Turnovers (either from missed shots, bad passes, bad handles or clumsiness) are just killing us.

The spread floor is what makes the offense work at a high efficiency because you're supposed to be running PnR, Give and Go and back cuts etc. The 3 is always there, but it's supposed to come as a result of good passing. We only get that some of the time, when it should be most of the time. The PG's are the main culprits.

martin wrote:

Moonangie wrote:Not just that, but also movement from the players who are NOT shooting so they can be better positioned for long rebounds on the inevitable misses. David did this wonderfully, but our current roster seems to prefer standing around adjusting their packages when another guy is taking a 3pt shot.

I will agree with you but also add: a lot of time when Amare and Felton run the PnR, and Amare finally gets the ball with no movement towards the basket, he puts his head down and goes at rim. Lots of TOs and iso shots that dont amount to much and the stats and FG% prove that out

Hard to blame him for not trusting his shooters. Hopefully, that will change sometime soon, because he is like a bull in a china shop and his turnovers are outrageous.

nixluva wrote:The 3 is always there, but it's supposed to come as a result of good passing. We only get that some of the time, when it should be most of the time. The PG's are the main culprits.

Word. Our PG play has been awful. Felton is supposed to be our play maker and he needs to focus on that insteadof shooting a lot of threes. TD is off his game right now, but he is basically a scoring guard. He needs to drive and kick.

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:been thinking about at the argument that MDA's system NEEDS 3point shooters to be successful and I am trying to figure out which system in the league DOESN'T need a good outside shooting game to win (and 3 pointer in general).

Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

you're arguing semantics here... i don't think anyone ever thought a team doesn't need ANY 3 point shooting to win games, but the ridiculous amount of 3 pt. shooting this team has been doing under MDA is not conducive to winning over the long haul... there needs to be a balance.

It would be conducive to winning if we hit something better than 32% of them. There are quality teams that take a lot of 3s (LA, San Antonio, Phoenix). They just hit them at a better rate.

Check it out:
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/offense-per-game/sort/avgThreePointFieldGoalsAttempted

Good spacing with team mate finding man wide open in the corner - three point shot good

SSOL with undisciplined hoisting without consequence - three point shot bad

s3231 wrote:It's not just the quality of the 3s we're taking because we are also taking a lot of wide open 3s....it's also the fact that we're just missing them completely. Whether you want to attribute that to the team not having good 3 point shooters (which I do believe plays a large part here if you look at the guys we have and their career stats) and/or bad luck (which probably also plays a factor with Gallo) is a whole different argument.

Either way, I don't think anyone can argue with the notion that we are missing a lot of open looks that our opponents are making. Teams like LA, Orlando, etc., also have more capable 3 point shooters than we do. It's almost like we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Having said that when running back on offense there is absolutely no need to hoist threes when the opposing defense isn't even set. And we have been doing that which is beyond bad.

Unless your three point shooting is working teams just pack the paint on defense and we don't have anybody that can create in traffic. So this argument that we take too many three pointers refuses to acknowledge the reality. If we stop taking three pointers we will average around 75-80 points a game with the way our offense is currently playing.

The main problem is we are not hitting the shots even the wide open 3 pointers and we probably lead the league in missed layups. So let's keep blaming that on the coach.

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:been thinking about at the argument that MDA's system NEEDS 3point shooters to be successful and I am trying to figure out which system in the league DOESN'T need a good outside shooting game to win (and 3 pointer in general).

Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

you're arguing semantics here... i don't think anyone ever thought a team doesn't need ANY 3 point shooting to win games, but the ridiculous amount of 3 pt. shooting this team has been doing under MDA is not conducive to winning over the long haul... there needs to be a balance.

Let me not mince words: part of that opening post describes how Spurs, LA Lakers - both Championship teams - and Orlando (recent Finals team) all use the 3point shot heavily, both in terms of volume and 3point %.

You are talking about two hall of fame coaches that have won multiple championships and their teams play good defense. They are well rounded teams and the three is a part of their game created off of mismatches and double teams because they have excellent post play and exploit mismatches. Those three teams are threee of the best coached teams in the league. There is a lot more right about their teams than just making threes.

correct. but you missed the whole point of the thread.

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:been thinking about at the argument that MDA's system NEEDS 3point shooters to be successful and I am trying to figure out which system in the league DOESN'T need a good outside shooting game to win (and 3 pointer in general).

Spurs? Could they live with Tim Duncan and so-so outside shooters? Could they win with that? Cause San Antonio during championship years both shot a lot of 3 point shots AND made a lot of 3 point shots.

Same with the Triangle offense and recent LA Laker championship teams.

Orlando with Howard relies HEAVILY on 3 point shooting to be successful.

None of those systems can win with bad 3point shots (rushed, contested, early in shot clock etc.... those are just bad shots in general).

Someone help me understand this argument. Talk about both volume (# of shots taken per game as a part of pace), 3point%, and which systems "need" these things to be successful, cause I think they all do.

you're arguing semantics here... i don't think anyone ever thought a team doesn't need ANY 3 point shooting to win games, but the ridiculous amount of 3 pt. shooting this team has been doing under MDA is not conducive to winning over the long haul... there needs to be a balance.

Let me not mince words: part of that opening post describes how Spurs, LA Lakers - both Championship teams - and Orlando (recent Finals team) all use the 3point shot heavily, both in terms of volume and 3point %.

You are talking about two hall of fame coaches that have won multiple championships and their teams play good defense. They are well rounded teams and the three is a part of their game created off of mismatches and double teams because they have excellent post play and exploit mismatches. Those three teams are threee of the best coached teams in the league. There is a lot more right about their teams than just making threes.

correct. but you missed the whole point of the thread.

You know what you missed? That all three teams you mention have reliable big men who can post up. They receive the ball, in the post, and then kick it out when the double team.

The three pointer is not the first option for those teams...in MDA system, it seems to be the ONLY option.