HofstraBBall wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:martin wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I don’t think counting the number of threes made (or attempted) is the right move. For every advanced stat, there are 7 others that are kind of ignored.
3 point “new NBA” is just a motion offense that prioritizes 3 * .36 =1.08 over 2 * 45% = 0.9 points per attempt. That math is sound and that logic should be used in determining ideal shot selection. Maximize points per shot.
But league averages aren’t reflected in individual players.
Bridges shoots 37% * 3 =1.11 and 61% * 2 =1.22.
Towns is shooting 44% * 3 =1.32 and 59% * 2 =1.18.
Brunson is shooting 41% * 3 =1.23 and 51% * 2 =1.02.
The Knicks appear to be working on a three level offense.
We can break this down further by sub-zone, but the short answer is a motion offense that puts the team in position to score more points per possession should be a priority.
I’m not sure I 100% understand what you are saying but I think it’s spot on.
From an analytics perspective, you need to shoot a certain % level at a particular distance to give you better points per possession that leads to maximized scoring.
Having a center do it will in turn open up court and make the rim and midrange easier to score, and again maximizing those particular areas on court. And the more rim shots you get, the better cause those tend to be very high % shots for every NBA player. Having a historically dominant center shoot the 3ball at high % is NBA analytics heaven.
Thus KAT and Brunson.
If your team can’t shoot the 3point shot at above a certain level, it ain’t gonna work and that’s ugly basketball. Thats the dummies for shooting version, I think.
Pretty much. With the addition that the coach can use a motion offense to get specific players specific shots that have a higher percentage per shot.
I went a little off topic by pointing out the three level efficiency the Knicks can achieve.
Despite the high efficiency we have, nights like ones against the Wiz puts us in jeopardy of losing a game we should win. But yes , if you have guys that can shoot the three at high clip, then of course it’s a good plan. Keep in mind, our guys are more efficient from mid.
I am talking about the league as a whole. When they first started promoting the three point strategy, they had visions of teams averaging over 140 ppg. Right now, we have over 25 teams averaging over 33 threes per game. Yet only only one team averages over 120 a game.
Bulls put up over 43 and average 117.
Even the Celts, as good as they are are averaging 50 a game and scoring only 119.
Just my opinion, but also less appealing to watch. Regardless of points scored.
I think you are seeing transition on partial math. Cavs habe it right and it shows. They are taking about 55% of their shots from 2 and 45% from three. And converting both at a high rate. If teams are chucking 28 foot 3s without hitting at a high clip, that’s better than chucking 2/ and not hitting them.
My point is not that 3s win. But some bad threes attempts are better than open 2. For instance the 18 foot jumper should just not exist unless there is no time on the clock.
Kenny Atkinson appears to have the Cavs taking shots where the players are most efficient, where each player (not the league average) has each player shooting the odd highest points per attempt.
I think a team needs to continue prioritizing both making their 3s and generating good opportunities. But not at the sake of ignoring the 2. A 33% 3 is not better than a 50% 2.
Totally agree and this speaks to one of my points.
So many teams are forcing players, who were previously efficient and effective from inner areas of the floor, to adapt a three point shot that is not good.
Also important to mention how this mentality has created many players that just don’t have the basketball IQ or patience, like they did, to understand the progression of a simple offensive concept/play. No more pick and rolls that progress to a corner three. Not many drive and kicks. Just lots of step back threes in crowds and one pass possessions for a long three.
Not to agree too much with the OG’s 
but when you look at the 80’s teams, they played D, shot only 4 threes per game and still scored 120. Again, not saying that the three is not a great weapon and fun to watch but, nor that tight shorts, two hand passes and long possessions ending in a sky hook is the way to go, but, to your point, teams need to understand it has to be added within the structure of their roster and potential 2pt efficiency,
Like any strategy that becomes popular. It starts with a winner doing it. Knicks have highly efficient two point shooters. Paired with highly efficient 3pt shooters. My hope, like you said, is that they balance it properly to do something special. Think they can
I'm an old head to the 10th degree, but I have to somewhat disgaree with the bolded. Half court defense is one thing, but transition defense in the 80s was non-existent for the most part. There weren't shooting many 3s, but teams like the Lakers, Celtics, Nuggets, Bucks, etc generated a ton of points on the fastbreak which is all but non-existent in todays game.
1/1/2025 10:21 PM