Posted by nixluva:

You hit from 3 and it weakens a defense. There's just no way that a defender can effectively stay with a PG who hits 3's and also help out on D inside. This is why even tho Curry is a fat slob, if he's in there and we have guys like Gallo and Harrington out there with let's say Almond, you have a serious advantage, cuz no one can stop Curry inside one on one and if they help guys like Gallo and Almond are snipers from long range. The only thing that messes it up is Curry not being able to pass back out. This is why a Nash type player is needed. That kind of PG holds on to the ball and doesn't just dump it inside cuz he knows that a C like Curry isn't where you start your offense. He's more of where you might finish it after drawing defenders out to the perimeter. That only happens if your PG is a real threat to hit the 3.

I dunno what you mean here....sounds like you talking bout Tim Hardaway not Nash. Timmy was looking to pull up a three every single time he had the defense on their heals. Nash type point guard? Nash didn't run a dump it down inside offense he ran the pick and roll all day and freelanced. Thats why he had the ball in his hands all the time. Being able to hit the three kept defenses on him which allowed him to be able to effectively make plays on the move. Still the 3 isn't what made his game so good...its his handle and court vision as well.

Point guard has the job of running an offense....if the coach wants to slow it down and dump it off inside to Curry every time down that's what it is....Derek Harper for example didn't play that way in Dallas cuz there wasn't really a post threat unless you count Aguirre, but had to switch up for Riley in NY with Ewing in the middle. In NY Harper had to be ready for Ewing to send the ball back out where they would swing it around till someone got open.

Chris Duhon could hit the 3 pointer but he can't do much else...he can't take his man without a pick. That's why he sucks elephant balls. The pick and roll was effective until guys realized Duhon can't dribble/drive, finish or pass...Defenses started to over play Lee knowing Duhon had no plan b outside of the telegraphed bounce pass...thats why Duhon used to jack up 3's so deep. He made a good amount though but as far as the offense and his duties as a playmaker he actually hurt the team.

Anyway, bottom line hitting the 3 point shot makes everyones wee wee tingle but a point guard needs to be able to create with the dribble, pass, and his court vision.

Rondo and Derrick Rose neither shoot the three very well...but they both are probably the best in the league at getting in the lane and finding plays for their teamates all over the court....plus they are big time threats to score if the defense clamps down on everyone else....

Donnie Walsh right now has Sessions and Tinsley on the radar as far as the media goes....Felton is still unsigned as well. None of these guys can hit the three consistantly...but they are very effective in their own ways in making plays off the dribble and their court vision. again to compare it to duhon who can hit the three, but can't create....

Knicks need to catch reck with the creator....

No, our next PG has to be a true PG more than anything. I'm sick of this Knicks prerequisite of a player having the skill to shoot the ball. Jason Kidd can't shoot the rock, but he's a top 10 all time PG. I freaking hate this franchise.

arguably, these are the best pg's in the league ever and their career 3pt %'s:

magic johnson - .303
isaiah thomas - .290
oscar robertson - cant track - pre 79-80
john stockton - .384
bob cousy - cant track - pre 79-80
clyde - cant track - pre 79-80
jason kidd - .342
nate archibald - .224 ('79-'84)
steve nash - .432
marbury - .325


seeing the above, do you think 3's are that important based on the overall success of all these pg's, AND THEIR TEAMS? one thing to note is (as with the nash argument someone made above) pg's tend to develop their 3pt shooting as their career progresses, i'd argue to say none of the cats i outlined above were good 3pt shooters off the bat. it takes time and ALOT of practice to drill that shot consistently....just ask this guy.....his 3pt % is .358

Posted by kam77:

Nash, in fairness, has always been pretty good from 3 in the NBA.

yup - you get that one, he only had one year under 40% - he's the exception though wouldnt you agree?

And for a big man who can shoot a midrange shot, well that just means more. It makes you less guardable, and it means the shotblockers have to come out and guard you, which again, leads to easier layups.

Definitely not overrated.

As for point guards, he needs to do something well in terms of scoring. It's ideal that he can shoot from everywhere and get in the paint, but if he's at least a good 3 point shooter then you at least got a threat on the perimeter.

It's like what Derek Harper said though. Every player on the court needs to be able to put the ball in the hoop.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by kam77:

On paper... a 33.3% 3pt shooter is as good as a 50% FG shooter.

BUT: The FG shooter probably gets to the line more often

AND: The 3pt shooter is not usually going to get their own rebound

IMO more defensive boards happen off of a missed three. and you can trigger a fast break off a long rebound leading to an easy bucket for the other team.

SO... when does a 3pt shooter become worth it? How good do they have to be? 35% 40% 45%? I have heard 40% to be considered "good" 3pt shooting.. but given the negatives outlined above... I'm not so sure 40% is anything more than a wash.

I say all this because people say that a D'antoni PG needs to be a 3pt threat. I disagree. I think its far better to have a pass first PG who looks to involve his team first before looking for himself. A PG who can penetrate into the lane for a floating layup, can blow by his man for a fingeroll, or can drive and kick to open teammates... I think this is the sort of point guard we should be looking at. And if he has any kind of defensive ability, I'll even take that skill over the skill of making 40% of your threes.

Threes are overrated.

Actually I think mid-range jumpers are overrated from a statistical standpoint. You're not gonna be rewarded with a third point if you make it but you're not gonna shoot a high percentage either and you're probably not gonna draw a foul. People talk a lot about the mid range shooting game but you really should be shooting mid range jumpers only if you're very wide open or the shot clock is about to expire.

Well that's definitely not true. A midrange shot is 10-18 feet from the basket, and for most NBA shooters, that is a layup. There aren't a lot of people who play like this anymore, but people who used to rely on the midrange shot were players who could lead their teams deep into the playoffs. For instance, Michael Jordan wasn't all dunks. I would say a good portion of his shots came from midrange. And in this day and age, don't look any further than Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James isn't that far. Heck, the midrange shot IS Dwayne Wades game. All of those guys do get to the line and are superstars, but I'm willing to bet that most of all four of those guys shots came from midrange.

Maybe in your eyes it's overrated, but having a midrange shooter changes everything, and I'm not talking about stats. It keeps the defense on the edge at all times. It spreads the floor even when the shooters aren't in 3 point territory. It opens up layups.

To a good shooter, a midrange shot is everything. It has to be utilized more in the NBA.

Let's add Bernard King to that list.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by Ira:

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by kam77:

On paper... a 33.3% 3pt shooter is as good as a 50% FG shooter.

BUT: The FG shooter probably gets to the line more often

AND: The 3pt shooter is not usually going to get their own rebound

IMO more defensive boards happen off of a missed three. and you can trigger a fast break off a long rebound leading to an easy bucket for the other team.

SO... when does a 3pt shooter become worth it? How good do they have to be? 35% 40% 45%? I have heard 40% to be considered "good" 3pt shooting.. but given the negatives outlined above... I'm not so sure 40% is anything more than a wash.

I say all this because people say that a D'antoni PG needs to be a 3pt threat. I disagree. I think its far better to have a pass first PG who looks to involve his team first before looking for himself. A PG who can penetrate into the lane for a floating layup, can blow by his man for a fingeroll, or can drive and kick to open teammates... I think this is the sort of point guard we should be looking at. And if he has any kind of defensive ability, I'll even take that skill over the skill of making 40% of your threes.

Threes are overrated.

Actually I think mid-range jumpers are overrated from a statistical standpoint. You're not gonna be rewarded with a third point if you make it but you're not gonna shoot a high percentage either and you're probably not gonna draw a foul. People talk a lot about the mid range shooting game but you really should be shooting mid range jumpers only if you're very wide open or the shot clock is about to expire.

Well that's definitely not true. A midrange shot is 10-18 feet from the basket, and for most NBA shooters, that is a layup. There aren't a lot of people who play like this anymore, but people who used to rely on the midrange shot were players who could lead their teams deep into the playoffs. For instance, Michael Jordan wasn't all dunks. I would say a good portion of his shots came from midrange. And in this day and age, don't look any further than Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James isn't that far. Heck, the midrange shot IS Dwayne Wades game. All of those guys do get to the line and are superstars, but I'm willing to bet that most of all four of those guys shots came from midrange.

Maybe in your eyes it's overrated, but having a midrange shooter changes everything, and I'm not talking about stats. It keeps the defense on the edge at all times. It spreads the floor even when the shooters aren't in 3 point territory. It opens up layups.

To a good shooter, a midrange shot is everything. It has to be utilized more in the NBA.

Let's add Bernard King to that list.

Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan wouldn't be stars without their midrange shots, let alone possible hall of fame candidates.

Heck, just look at our recent Knicks to be part of winning teams. Ewing, Oakley, Houston, Sprewell, Kurt Thomas, maybe even Larry Johnson. None of those guys would be the players they became without a midrange shot, and that includes Sprewell. He was known for taking it to the rack, but he was deadliest when his shot was going. Ewing put himself in the hall of fame and made the Knicks a playoff contender for 15 years the instant he showed he can knock it down.

My point is, your best players are threats everywhere and do most of their work in that 10-18 feet from the basket area. It opens everything up.

Add Jerry West to the list and he did have an excellent outside shot.

But you all are right - the first requirement of a PG is to lead the offense; shooting is secondary. But that is what made Nash so great in MDA offense - he excelled at both.

Sessions only took 36 threes last season. I'm not saying he will Kappano with Mike'D, but if a point can drop 40 in a game, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he can make more than .175 of his three pointers if he takes more.

This came out of a Milwaukee website in January:
http://mvn.com/bucksdiary/2009/01/the-economic-case-for-keeping-ramon-sessions.html

Apparently the Bucks are interested in trading promising point guard Ramon Sessions because they are worried about either: a) losing him to restricted free agency and getting nothing in return, or; b.) having to match what an overly inflated offer sheet from some other team to keep him. Neither of these concerns makes much sense.

First, the risk of losing him without receiving anything in return should not trouble the Bucks because they paid nothing to get him... he was a late second round choice. Those are generally treated as low value picks by NBA franchises. Second, the risk of Sessions receiving an overly inflated offer sheet is also low, if you consider what a fair value for Sessions would be.

The going rate teams are willing to pay for a win in the National Basketball Association is currently $1.8 million (total salary paid divided by available wins). But I wouldn't pay the player market rate for every win. It makes economic sense to pay a player market rate for every win he can produce above replacement level ... in other words, every win above the amount of wins you could expect to receive in the same amount of minutes from a bench point guard.

At his current Marginal Win Score per 48 minutes, Ramon Sessions would produce about 8.7 wins were he given the rough equivalent of starting minutes (about 60% of the team's available point guard minutes). By last season's standards, a replacement level point guard (meaning a "scrub") would have been expected to produce about 3.0 wins if they were given fulltime duty.

Therefore, using Ramon Sessions full time at the point would net the Bucks something like 5.7 additional wins above replacement level. A prudent general manager would be willing to pay full market value for those wins (technically, the market value is set for ALL wins, but I wouldn't pay market value for any of the wins below replacement level).

Thus, the Bucks could match an offer sheet for Sessions up to roughly $10.2 million without overpaying for him. And the likelihood of Sessions receiving an offer in that neighborhood is next to zero.

So the risk of holding onto him, if you evaluate the risk carefully, is very minimal. On the other hand, trading a young talent at a valuable position would likely set the Bucks rebuilding efforts back a ways.