Josh Smith nicknames himself ‘mid-range shawty’

[AHF]

Comparing Smith and Garnett isn't the same as comparing the notion of shooting because you are basing your argument on those two players - one of the most 5 consistent shooters of long 2's in the NBA (Garnett) and one of the most inconsistent 3pt gunners. I could cherry pick someone like Stephon Curry and make the argument that his 3pt shooting is more consistent than post play from an interior player who is of comparable value to JR Smith. The focus should be on two similarly consistent or inconsistent players with those rates and viewed over the course of a game or season.

There is zero logic behind anything saying that you would rather have someone shooting 40% on long 2s than someone shooting 30% from 3pt range if they can maintain those level of accuracy over the applicable shooting volume. None. Same goes for 35% 3pt and 50% 2pt range, 40% 3pt and 55% 2pt, etc. The only situation where that number changes is where FT rate, rebounding opportunities or rebounding rate change. That is why the discussion of long 2's versus 3's becomes so easy. Neither shot draws many fouls but there are materially more rebounding opportunities from 3pt range and those are converted as a higher rate than long 2's. It is an absolute no brainer to take the higher effective rate on 3pt shots along with more offensive rebounds and substantially similar ft rates over lower effective rate on long 2's where you are talking about that approach over a material volume of shots - like the 80-100 or so shots taken by a team over the course of a game.

That can change for a given possession of course. (Down by 3 with 1 second left? You need the 3. Down by 1 with 18 seconds left? The 2 makes more sense.) But over the course of a game, over the course of a season, the choice is obvious.

This is why coaches have strategically made the decision to shoot more and more threes over the years. If coaches valued 2pt consistency more, they would not have pushed the game away from the 70's/80's style of low 3pt rates to the the high volume 3pt rates we see today. This is why the 2012 NBA champion Heat increased their 3pt attempts as a % of their total FGA from to 19.7% in the regular season to 25.8% in the playoffs. The previous champion Dallas Mavericks increased its 3pt shooting from 27.4% in the regular season to 29.7% in the playoffs. The champion LA Lakers the year before that increased their 3pt shooting from 22.7% in the regular season to 25.6% in the playoffs.

All these teams increased their 3pt shooting at the time of year when they absolutely had to win games precisely because of the higher efg% of these shots compared to the alternative 2pt shots. This isn't a coincidence. It is a strategic decision by their coaches to rely more heavily on 3's to generate more offense.

BTW - What did Doc Rivers do with his team in the playoffs last year? Increased from a 19.4% 3pt rate to a 21.1% 3pt rate in the playoffs.

Edited October 4, 2012 by AHF

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Comparing Smith and Garnett isn't the same as comparing the notion of shooting because you are basing your argument on those two players - one of the most 5 consistent shooters of long 2's in the NBA (Garnett) and one of the most inconsistent 3pt gunners. I could cherry pick someone like Stephon Curry and make the argument that his 3pt shooting is more consistent than post play from an interior player who is of comparable value to JR Smith. The focus should be on two similarly consistent or inconsistent players with those rates and viewed over the course of a game or season.

No. Smith and Garnett are the perfect comparison.

Since the eFG is going to reward Smith .5 FG for every 3 that he makes, it will enable him to post a better eFG% over KG, even if he's actually shooting a much lower FG% from 3, than KG shoots from long 2. The numbers flat out show that a 33% 3 point shooting Smith will shoot a higher eFG from 3 ( 50% eFG ), than KG will shoot it from 2 ( because KG can get no eFG% boost from a 16 - 23 foot jumper. )

So under the logic of eFG, you should give Smith that ball over KG, because he is going to "effectively" score at a higher rate over time. Build the offense around Smith, let him gun away from 3 whenever he wants, and just rebound his misses. His makes are going to count a lot, so just let him gun away.

There is zero logic behind anything saying that you would rather have someone shooting 40% on long 2s than someone shooting 30% from 3pt range if they can maintain those level of accuracy over the applicable shooting volume. None.

But that's the issue AHF. What 30% shooter do you know can consistently shoot around 30% in just about every game he plays? A player like that is going to be erratic as hell ( as I pointed out with JR Smith ). You'll have games in which he's red hot, and games in which he can't buy a basket and will shoot you out of a game. And even if he shoots his average of 30%, he'd have to take 7 threes just to score 6 points ( 2 - 7 FG from three )

That's why we had to get rid of Jamal Crawford. As good as he was at times, his shooting from long range was so erratic, that we simply couldn't count on that dude on a game by game basis.

When you look at stats, everything isn't an absolute. You can immediately tell who you can consistently count on or not, if you look at those FG%.

Same goes for 35% 3pt and 50% 2pt range, 40% 3pt and 55% 2pt, etc. The only situation where that number changes is where FT rate, rebounding opportunities or rebounding rate change. That is why the discussion of long 2's versus 3's becomes so easy. Neither shot draws many fouls but there are materially more rebounding opportunities from 3pt range and those are converted as a higher rate than long 2's. It is an absolute no brainer to take the higher effective rate on 3pt shots along with more offensive rebounds and substantially similar ft rates over lower effective rate on long 2's where you are talking about that approach over a material volume of shots - like the 80-100 or so shots taken by a team over the course of a game.

This style of play is only effective if (1) you have good 3 point shooters on your team . . . and (2) you have a good to great rebounding frontline who can get offensive rebounds. If you don't have either of those 2 elements on your team, you're going to lose games.

It worked for Orlando in 2009 because they had the best rebounding big man in the game who was also a low post threat, and they had decent shooters who could knock down a 3 pointer at a consistent rate. Nelson, Lee and Lewis shot at or over 40% from 3. And their most inconsistent guy ( Turkoglu ) shot a respectable 36% from 3.

A schizophrenic 3 point shooting team can't get away with this . . like the 2012 NY Knicks

Outside of the outstanding shooting of Steve Novak at 47% from 3, the team was stockpiled with a plethora of erratic 3 point shooters. And the two most erratic 3 ball shooters on the team were JR Smith and Carmelo Anthony.

So when those 2 guys who shot above 50% eFG from 3 during the regular season, go 9 - 46 FG during the playoffs, you kind of see why the Knicks got bounced right out of the playoffs. It's the same situation we found ourselves in during the 2011 playoffs with Jamal Crawford. He was red hot in the Orlando series, and ice cold in the Chicago series.

Why?

Because that's what Jamal has always been . . a hot and cold player.

As Charles Barkley always says . . . "if you live by the 3, you're going to DIE by the 3".

That can change for a given possession of course. (Down by 3 with 1 second left? You need the 3. Down by 1 with 18 seconds left? The 2 makes more sense.) But over the course of a game, over the course of a season, the choice is obvious.

Over the course of a game, you may need to make a critical basket to stop a team from going on a run to blow a game open. Teams that can consistently score on a possession, instead of always trying to get the maximum point value out of a possession, will tend to keep a game close. Especially if their 3 point shooters are erratic.

So if a team has just gone on a 6 - 0 riun to go up by 9 points in the 1st quarter, and you need a basket, you better try to take the best possible shot you can, or get to the FT line. But if you can't do either, which option would you rather see happen?

Al Horford take a 18 footer to try to stop the run . . . or Jeff Teague take a 3 pointer to stop the run?

The eFG says that a 34% shooting Jeff Teague from 3, is effectively the "better value of shot". If he makes the shot, the decifit is down to 6.

On the flip side, Al Horford is normally going to make around 45% of his midrange jumpers. If he makes the shot, you cut the lead to 7.

Which shot do you take?

This is why coaches have strategically made the decision to shoot more and more threes over the years. If coaches valued 2pt consistency more, they would not have pushed the game away from the 70's/80's style of low 3pt rates to the the high volume 3pt rates we see today.

And what did we see when they went to that style of thinking? The game slowed down. Shooting became even worse. Points per game were down for a long time.

In the 1984 - 85 season, the Boston Celtics led the league in 3 point shooting at 35.6% The league average from 3 was a horrible 28.2%. Conversely, the LA Lakers led the league in FG% at 54.5% and Denver scored 120 ppg.

League average FG shooting: 49.1% . . . League average eFG shooting: 49.6%

In the 2011 - 12 season, the San Antonio Spurs led the league in 3 point shooting at 39.3% The league average from 3 was 34.9%. The Spurs also led the league in FG% at 47.8% and Denver led the league in scoring at 104.1 ppg.

League average FG shooting: 44.8% . . . League average eFG shooting: 48.7%

No way are offenses better today, than what they used to be. Better post play. Better midrange shooters. And people who had no business taking a lot of 3s, didn't take them. It made the flow of the game much better and much faster than what we see today. Josh Smith would've had his hand chopped off back in 1985, if he took 100+ threes in a season.

This is why the 2012 NBA champion Heat increased their 3pt attempts as a % of their total FGA from to 19.7% in the regular season to 25.8% in the playoffs. The previous champion Dallas Mavericks increased its 3pt shooting from 27.4% in the regular season to 29.7% in the playoffs. The champion LA Lakers the year before that increased their 3pt shooting from 22.7% in the regular season to 25.6% in the playoffs.

So in other words, when you actually MAKE 3 pointers, instead of just indiscrimintely jack them up, it's good to take them.

The Heat increased their attempts because they were actually MAKING their 3 point shots in the playoffs, especially in the Finals. Mike Miller playing throughout the playoffs, as opposed to 1/2 of the season, had something to do with that too. Lebron's 3 point attempts increased dramatically in the playoffs. But it's not like his 25% 3 point shooting ( oops . . 37% eFG 3 point shooting ) didn't do the Heat any good throughout that series ( outside of the one game in which he made back to back 3s in the Celtic series . . I think it was that series ). Miami goes 14 - 26 from 3 in Game 5 of the Finals. By all means bomb away, if you're going to shoot like that.

With Dallas in 2011, even Deshawn Stevenson was making his 3 point shot at a 40% clip. That entire team could shoot. So of course if their percentage increased, it would be a good thing. They can actually make the shot a high rate. The Mavs shot a ridiculous 13 - 19 from 3 in Game 5 of the Finals and followed that up with an 11 - 26 from 3 performance in the series clincher. When you shoot like that, of course they should increase their attempts.

As for that Lakers team, it was Kobe that dramatically increased his 3 point attempts. Why? Because he was MAKING the shot. On the flip side, Ron Artest dramatically increased his 3 point attempts too, but was clanking them big time . . until he made the biggest 3 of his life in the Finals.

The Lakers only broke 90 points in 3 of the 7 games and shot 4 - 20 from three in that final game. Ironically, while Kobe was making his 3 point shot most of the playoffs, he went 0 - 6 from 3 and 2 - 9 on his long midrange jumper.

The nature of playoff basketball is that you see better defense, and the game slows down. And if you have guys who gather a lot of attention ( like a Lebron or Wade ), someone is going to be open. If they happen to be LEGIT 3 point shooters, then they should definitely take the 3.

All these teams increased their 3pt shooting at the time of year when they absolutely had to win games precisely because of the higher efg% of these shots compared to the alternative 2pt shots. This isn't a coincidence. It is a strategic decision by their coaches to rely more heavily on 3's to generate more offense.

It had nothing to do with the eFG of the shot. It had more to do with 3 point shooters being wide open, because so much attention were being paid attention to the superstars. And some of those 3 point shooters did what they were paid to do . . knock the shot down.

BTW - What did Doc Rivers do with his team in the playoffs last year? Increased from a 19.4% 3pt rate to a 21.1% 3pt rate in the playoffs.

Did Boston beat the Hawks with the 3 ball . . or with the midrange jumper?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

JORDAN CRAWFORD ( 2011 - 12 )16 - 23 feet: 42.2% FG3 point range: 28.9% FG . . . ( 43.4% eFG )You're telling me that you'd rather see Jordan jack up more shots from 3, than from long 2, just because his eFG% is better on his 3s?We've seen how he can do. He can be red hot and go 5 - 11 in 2 game stretch . . and then go 2 - 17 in a 4 game stretch from 3. Is that what you guys want on your team? A guy who MIGHT be hot for one game, but will sell you out with bad shot selection in the next 4?The fact that Jordan can shoot 43% from long 2, with him basically creating his own shot, proves that he can be a much more efficient player on a game by game basis, if he simply laid off of the 3 point shot, and took more shots in his range.But go ahead. Let the eFG dictate that Jordan is better off taking a 3, than a shot he can actually make more consistently.

[AHF]

More points > more consistent

Based on a single attempt: 40% 3pt shooting > 55% 2pt shooting > 100% ft shooting

Give me 100 possessions of each and I'll give you roughly:

100 points on fts

110 points on 2's

120 points on 3's

I take 120 points over 110 and over 100.

As an aside, the main two reasons offenses aren't better today than the 1984-85's Celtics championship squads are because (a) defense is much better today and (b) no team gets the kind of talent collected today with 6 additional teams and harder salary constraints watering down the talent pool compared to the Celtic's hay days (the 1984-85 team had 4 HOFers and 4 All-Stars which did not include Kevin McHale).

Bear in mind you missed the most important numbers regarding 3's with those teams as well:

1984-85 Celtics - 309 3pt attempts

2011-12 Spurs - 1405 3pt attempts

So your entire argument comes down to the premise that coaches today are all dumber than their 1980's counterparts and that their teams would be better if they figured out that lower efg% shots that were more consistent lead to more team success than higher efg% shots that are less consistent.

Why do you think Greg Poppovich doesn't embrace your philosophy?

Why didn't Phil Jackson coach his teams like when he played where the emphasis was on the midrange and longer 2's that you are trumpeting in this thread? Phil's last team as a player shot less than 300 3pters. His last team as a coach shot 1487 3pters despite collectively shooting .494 from 2pt range and .352 from 3pt range. Is he just stupid? Why would he have his team shoot nearly 1500 3's when he could get a more consistent/lower efg% shot from 2?

I know why the guys in the mid-80's didn't - the shot was new and they hadn't figured out yet how it really impacted the game and the faster pace and lesser defense made it less necessary to get higher efg% shots.

I know that coaches today make the same type of evaluation that you say is irrational and have historically chosen to shoot more 3's over time and the best teams have been those that have chosen to shoot more in the playoffs.

Why don't these coaches embrace your philosophy and limit or eliminate the higher efg%/lower consistency shots?

Edited October 5, 2012 by AHF

[TheNorthCydeRises]

AHF, I'm curious.

When I asked if you'd rather give the ball to JR Smith for a bunch of long 3s, or Kevin Garnett for a bunch of long 2s . . you didn't answer the question.

When I asked if you'd rather give the ball to Jeff Teague for a 3 to stop a 1st quarter run, instead of letting Al Horford shoot a 20 footer . . . you didn't answer the question.

When I asked if you'd rather see Jordan Crawford, a 29% 3 point shooter, continue to jack up more 3s, than 2s, despite Jordan being able to shoot 42% from long 2 range . . . you didn't answer.

If the eFG is such a solid stat, why not honestly answer those questions?

Here's how scoring 110 points on 2s can be better than scoring 120 points on 3s in 100 possessions. And once again, you have to take everything in context. It's just not as simple as saying we're going to score this many points. It's WHEN you score the points. And you really can't use the hypothetical of "we're going to take 100 long 2s in a game vs 100 threes in a game" and compare it like that. That isn't realistic basketball, because no one will play a game like that.

You'll have to look at the contribution you may get from a game by game basis.

A good long 2 shooter that can consistently score points, may have a 10 game progression like this

16 - 23 feet ( 110 points )

10

10

4

14

12

10

16

8

12

14

110 points

An explosive but erratic 3 point scorer on a team may have a 10 game progression like this.

3 pt range ( 120 points )

18

9

6

24

3

21

9

6

9

18

120 points

The difference between consistent scoring and explosive scoring, is that you can count on the consistent player much more than you can count on the guy who might score you more points overall in bunches. That explosive scorer may take over the game and get you a ton of points at once, then sell you out in the next 3 games. The consistent guy is going to get you a steady stream of points in just about every game, enabling you to count on him.

In essence, it's the difference between JR Smith and Kevin Garnett.

But how about a more familiar name?

Marvin Williams

In 2007 - 08, Marvin was a consistent scorer in the 80 regular season games he played in. He only broke the 30 point mark one time that season ( the Seattle game ). But he only scored less than 10 points 13 times.

What Marvin DID do that season, is get you 10+ points per game in 64 of the 80 games he played in. And he did it by relying on a pretty lethal midrange jumper, and by slashing to the hole and drawing fouls. And he only attempted 10 threes.

So what happens? People start saying that he needs to expand his range out to 3 point land. So Marvin works on doing just that. He comes back in 2008 - 09, and initially shoots lights out from 3 in November ( 47% from 3 ). But he ends up struggling in 4 of the next 5 months from 3, and ends up with a 3 point FG% of just under 36%. But he had accomplished what people wanted him to do. He had expanded his range, while keeping his long 2% high ( 44% ). But the fact that he struggled from 3 after that red hot November, would foreshadow his next 2 seasons.

By the 09 - 10 season, it was clear that he wasn't a good enough 3 point shooter to just sit out there on the perimeter and rely on that shot, like a Kyle Korver or Anthony Morrow. He not only struggled from 3 ( 31% ), he ends up struggling from the area that got him that contract in the first place, the long 2 ( 37% ). Combine that with his FT rate going down ( because he's trying to become a 3 point spot up shooter ), and his value to this team starts to plummet.

The funny thing is, his 30.6 three point % translates into 45.9% on the eFG scale. Had he still been a 45% long 2 shooter, there's no way in hell people would've wanted him to continue to jack up 3s. But with his long 2 percentage dropping to 37%, it made him an even more liability . . . and more expendable.

In 2010 - 11, he gets his midrange jumper back ( 44% ) but is still a below average 3 point shooter ( 33% ). Marvin went from a guy who we could rely on to get to the FT line, make midrange jumpers, and score 10 ppg in 80% of the games he played in . . . to a guy whose scoring would yo-yo erratically, see his FT rate stay well below 2008 levels, and score less than 10 points in 50% of his games.

So by last year, when he finally started to put everything together ( 39% 3 point shooter ) the fans were done with him, and the coach was opting to play even more inconsistent shooters than Marvin, because the organization and fans had lost confidence in him.

I truly think that Marvin's quest to become a 3 point shooter, did more of a disservice to his game, than helped him. It took away from the strength of his game ( mid-range shooting and slashing ), and made him way too passive as a player. It reduced him to a "stand in the corner and wait for JJ or Josh Smith to throw you the ball" type of player.

With him being able to consistently make the 3 point shot last season, we'll see if he can get his touch back from mid-range. We'll see if he can also get some confidence back as a slasher. But as of right now, he's seen as a one-dimensional player on offense, and a decent defender on defense.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Better defenses today? Come on AHF. The players today just can't shoot or take horrific shots. And the majority of post players today are garbage. How hard is it to play defense, when you're letting Josh Smith take wide open jumpers he can't make? He "self-checks" himself by settling for those shots, instead of taking it to the rim.As for how the game used to be played . . .1986 WC FINALS: Game 5 - 4th quarter - Lakers vs Rockets

Edited October 5, 2012 by northcyde

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1988 EC SEMIFINALS - Game 7 - 4th Quarter - Hawks vs Celtics

[TheNorthCydeRises]

As for coaches today being idiots. I'll just put it like this. Any coach that allows Josh Smith to take 250+ three pointers in 2 seasons, instead of forcing that dude to take it inside . . or design an offense in which he can't drift out to the perimter . . is an idiot.Any coach that isn't trying to get Al Horford more touches on the offensive end, when he's one of the best midrange shooters in the game . . is an idiot.An old school coach like Hubie Brown would never allow some of the stuff we've seen out of the Hawks the past 3 - 5 years.

[Guest]

Seeing these stats and the analysis is making my head hurt. It is like Diesel math all over again.

[AHF]

As for coaches today being idiots. I'll just put it like this. Any coach that allows Josh Smith to take 250+ three pointers in 2 seasons, instead of forcing that dude to take it inside . . or design an offense in which he can't drift out to the perimter . . is an idiot. Any coach that isn't trying to get Al Horford more touches on the offensive end, when he's one of the best midrange shooters in the game . . is an idiot. An old school coach like Hubie Brown would never allow some of the stuff we've seen out of the Hawks the past 3 - 5 years.

We must be talking about different people. Last time I checked, Hubie Brown's teams went from shooting 2.4% of total fgs as 3pters in 1983-84, to shooting 20% of total FGA as 3pters in 2003-04. Want to know the relative efg% of the shots on that team? They shot efg% 51% on 3's and 47% efg% on 2pters. Soooo...either Hubie is an idiot and knew what he was doing in 1983-84 but lost his marbles by the 2000's or Hubie learned that a 3 is worth more than a 2 and that the efg% on the 3's justified taking a much higher % of shots from 3pt range even though his team converted only 34% of them compared to 47% of 2pt attempts. So is Hubie Brown a model of how to coach or just another idiot who doesn't understand that a 47% 2pt shot is better than a 34-35% 3pt shot? Seems to me that Hubie did the same thing every other coach has done - recognized that he would score more by increasing the number of 3pt attempts his team took by a factor of 10 over that 20 year period. I agree that Hubie is way too smart to encourage any kind of bad jumper and that he understands that a long 2 is overall the worst shot in the game. I agree with you that he would have shut down all of Josh's bad 2's along with his bad 3's and looked to Horford to stretch the floor among the bigs. But I also strongly think he would understand that if Josh was going to shoot a bad jumper, a 3 is better than a long 2 because it leads to more points and more offensive rebounding.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

1983 - 84 NY Knicks

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1984.html

PPG - 106.9

FG% - 49.5%

eFG% - 49.9% . . . . ( 42.7% from 3 . . . 50% from 2 )

Pace - 99.0

OFF Rtg - 107.0

Hubie has this guy in 1984, a Hall of Famer who isn't in the Hall, because sportswriters are stupid as hell. No way he was going to allow a bunch of inconsistent to bad 3 point shooters to jack up shots, when he had a guy who was guaranteed to make 57% of his shots . . as a SF. This clip also features a Hall of Fame PG lighting it up from midrange.

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLi-9ENtTM

2003 - 04 Memphis Grizzzlies

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2004.html

PPG - 96.7

FG% - 44.5%

eFG% - 47.9% . . . ( 51% from 3 . . . . 47.1% from 2 )

Pace - 91.4

OFF Rtg - 104.8

Unfortunately, when you look at that Memphis Grizzlies team, he had one guy on his team that thought he was better than what he really was. This guy

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfjFjIGi0p4

As the clip shows, he CAN be good at times. Very good. But what was the fatal flaw of Williams?

The 3 point shot.

He's basically a guy that shot 33% ( 50% eFG ) from 3 that year ( and just below that for his career ). The real problem is that literally 1/2 of his shots came from 3. That means that you have a 33% three point shooter literally taking 6 shots per game from 3.

Despite his superior ball handling abilities and his speed with the basketball, he'd settle for some of the worst shots in the world. Sometimes he'd make those shots, enticing him to just jack them up at anytime . . ( which actually used to drive Hubie crazy and eventually drove him to retirement ). But he was such a good passer, Hubie had to live with his antics, even if he didn't like J-Will taking all of those bad shots and all of the flash in his game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/sports/pro-basketball-williams-and-grizzlies-come-of-age-together.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Brown wants him to drive more on offense, ''to get into the paint,'' instead of settling for 3-point shots. His number of free-throw attempts this season was, to Brown, an indication of what some see as a reluctance to risk injury from contact around the basket, although Williams was out nine games with a strained back.

Williams had 98 free-throw attempts in 2,115 minutes this season, compared to 138 free-throw attempts in 1,669 minutes for the backup point guard, Earl Watson. That's 40 fewer attempts for Williams in what amounts to nine games of minutes. ''Earl doesn't have half the talent that Jason does,'' Brown said, ''but Watson plays with all heart all the time. He's a lunch-pail player. I guess that's his way of making up for what he doesn't have. But it's all about effort.''

Brown had also been critical of Williams's accountability -- for being responsible about what he does and when he does it. On March 16, in a home game against Philadelphia, Watson replaced Williams in a close game in the fourth quarter and ''put the clamps'' on Allen Iverson, as Brown recalled. Williams did not return to the game and the Grizzlies won. Williams was noticeably miffed afterward.

The next morning Williams did not show for practice. Brown announced a fine of $5,000, the league maximum for the violation, and said Williams would not start the next game.

*********

Brown had a reputation for precise basketball, which would give little leeway to the likes of Williams.

''I thought I'd be on a tight leash with Hubie,'' Williams said. ''I wasn't looking forward to it.''

But, in most cases, they have meshed. ''When we got into one of our first huddles,'' Williams said, ''Hubie looked at me and said, 'Let those 3's fly.' He wanted me to play my game! He wanted the ball in my hands, though he made it clear that it wasn't just running and gunning. You've got to push the ball up, and try to get open shots for anyone who's open.

''You know, Hubie and I are a lot alike, as strange as that might seem. We both hate to lose, and sometimes we both get impatient when we're not winning.''

***********************

And that was the dilemm with Hubie concerning Jason. Reign him in too tight, and you may lose what made him a good PG. Let him play too lose, and he'll shoot you out of the game. So Brown would let Jasn play his game, until he needed some stability at the point. If Jason couldn't give it to him at that time, he turned to Earl Watson. And Jason wasn't cool with that at all.

The Hubie dilemma eerily sounds like the dilemma Drew has with Josh Smith.

As for the 2004 Grizzlies, that was a squad that didn't have any superstars, just a bunch of good players. The only true shot creators, were Gasol, J-Will and Bonzi Wells. And despite Mike Miller and James Poseu being better 3 point shooters, it was the faciliator ( Jason ) who took the most 3s, often off of a fast break and ill-advised.

Hubie wanted the Griz to take open shots. Not just jack them up.

And as the numbers show, the 1983 - 84 NY Knicks

- shot a better percentage from the field

- shot a better eFG percentage

- scored more points per game

- played at a quicker pace

- and had a better offensive rating

Alll that talk about threes being worth more than two doesn't mean a hill of beans if you can't shoot a high percentage from 3.

The league average eFG% in 1983 - 83 was 49.5% ( which is ironically what that Knick team placed at ).

The league average eFG% in 2003 - 04 was 47.1%

Teams took and MADE better shots at a higher percentage.

Edited October 9, 2012 by northcyde

[TheNorthCydeRises]

EDITS- Jason Williams averaged 5.1 threes in that 2003 - 04 season- the NY Knicks eFG% was 49.9%. . . not 49.5%- James Poseu = James Posey

[IllestPamfilis]

How about "I stay in the paint Shawty"...I like that one a lot better.

Edited October 9, 2012 by IllestPamfilis

[Bruhman91]

[AHF]

I think I get it.1980's team shoots less than 300 3pters2000's team shoots over 1300 3ptersThis isn't a strategic decision by Hubie. This is Jason Williams' 364 3pt attempts making up the 1000 attempt difference. Got it.Or maybe this is purely a personnel decision and the fact that every team in the 80's shot fewer threes is a complete coincidence that as coaches understood the impact of the 3pt shot better they uniformly had their teams shoot greater and greater %s of 3pt attempts.Of course, there is also the logical dissonance of arguing that Hubie would shut down Josh when he couldn't shut down Jason Williams if Williams is the scapegoat for Hubie coaching teams that shot a hugely greater % of attempts as 3's.Defense also has nothing to do with the fact that the 1983-84 season had teams AVERAGING 110 ppg, right? The least productive offense in the entire NBA on a ppg basis in 1983-84 scored 101.5 ppg (the Atlanta Hawks) and the most productive scored 123.7 ppg. In 2003-04? The worst team scored 85.4 ppg but that has nothing to do with pace and defensive focus. If coaches would only run the systems they ran in the 1980's, they would score 113 ppg easily against today's defenses.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

AHF . . I think you had a few factors coming into play back in the 1980s, that led to teams being better offensively back then.

1) There were only 23 teams back then, which had better players playing with each other.

That means that you had a better chance for higher quality starters and most important, good backups playing with each other. I'm not quite sure how many players a team could carry back then. But if that number was 15 players per team, that means you had a 345 player league, instead of a 500 player league.

So let's say that only the top 350 players in the league today would even make a roster back in the 1980s. Top 70 at their position. I'll be generous and say top 25 at their position would be starter quality . . top 50 would be 2nd team bench caliber players . . anything above 50 at their position would be bench warmers.

Here's how our current team would look in a 23 team league

Top 25 at their position based on last year's NBA Efficiency Rankings per position ( refer to hoopsstats.com )

- Smith ( 6 . . at PF )

- Horford ( 12 . . at C )

- Teague ( 20 . . at PG )

- Zaza ( 23 . . at C )

- Williams ( 17 . . . at SG )

26 - 50 at their position

- Harris ( 31 . . at PG )

- Morrow ( 43 . . at SG )

- Korver ( 47 . . at SG )

Above 50

- Ivan Johnson ( 53 . . at PF

- Johan Petro ( 62 . . at C )

- Damion James ( 54 . . at SF )

Guys like Anthony Tolliver, Keith Benson, and Mike Scott probably wouldn't even make the final 15 man roster. A guy like Petro would be in danger of not making it either. Deshawn Stevenson ranked ( 71 at SG ), so he may be in danger of being left off the roster as well, unless teams really valued his defensive prowess, which is a good possibility. I do believe that John Jenkins could be a top 50 SG, so he'd make the team.

But that would leave one or two spots in which the Hawks would have a higher quality player on the team, than they would right now. With the lack of SFs on the team, maybe the Hawks would have a top 25 SF like a Tayshawn Prince ( 20 ) and a top 50 SF like an aging Grant Hill ( 32 )

Each team had higher quality players back then. And they also had something else

2) Players back then were more skilled all around.

That's why I keep posting actual game clips, instead of highlight clips of players. PFs and Cs back then actually had legit post games, instead of trying to go out and shoot from 15 - 23 feet. PGs weren't scared to drive to the basket to get to the FT line, instead of settling for low percenage 3 point shots that they can't consistently make. SFs could actually slash to the hole, or knock down 20 footers with ease.

And you saw very few one dimensional players back then. There weren't any strictly 3 point specialists who could only do that, or lock down defenders who couldn't shoot. Heck, Michael Cooper was both in the same breath, and could run the floor and catch alley-oop dunks ( the Coop-a-loop ).

Seriously . . . imagine Deshawn Stevenson or Kyle Korver being able to play lockdown defense, knock down 3s, AND be a beast in transition. That's what Cooper was. And he was a Defensive POY in 1987 . . coming off the bench . . which is almost unheard of today.

3) They simply played faster

And this doesn't just meant that they simply run and gunned. It meant that they got into their offensive sets a lot faster and were qucker to take open shots that they could make. Some teams played the ISO game, but they normally played it from the post, and not necessarily out on the perimeter. And they definitely didn't play it from 25 feet out, like JJ, Kobe, and Lebron tend to do.

If you play faster, you get more scoring attempts. And if you make a high percentage of your shots, you're going to score more.

4) The lack of a college 3 point line kept the emphasis of NBA scoring inside the line.

I think that was the big thing you saw back then, compared to now. Back then, good shooters were guys who could knock down an 18 - 21 foot jumper off the dribble, or via a catch and shoot. These days, good shooters from 21 feet are encouraged to extend their range out to the 3 point line . . even if they can't consistently make that shot . . because of the reasons you cite. So they'll take less shots that they can make, in order to to make a lower percentage, but higher point value shot.

If a guy is a 40% three point shooter, by all means bomb away. If a guy is a 30% three point shooter, he shoud have a lot more discretion on the frequency he takes that shot.

What that 3 point line did, was make guys too one-dimensional. A Kyle Korver never developed a good post or midrange game, because all he focused on were 22+ foot jumpers. Jeff Teague is actually a throwback type of PG, because he tries to penetrate and get into the lane. But because he isn't a floor leader, and only was a scoring PG in college, he never developed true PG instincts from a playmaking standpoint. And a guy like Jordan Crawford, who has PG like passing and ball handling ability, kills his efficiency because he falls in love with a 3 point shot he can't even make 30% of the time.

[BrazilianHawk]

After all this back and forth, I came to the conclusion that Danny Ferry is a genius indeed. We should obviously startTeagueJenkinsMorrowKorverHorford - for rebounding purposes ONLY.smh

Edited October 10, 2012 by BrazilianHawk

[AHF]

AHF . . I think you had a few factors coming into play back in the 1980s, that led to teams being better offensively back then.

1) There were only 23 teams back then, which had better players playing with each other.

Agreed. If you remember, I raised that point earlier.

2) Players back then were more skilled all around.

I agree the post players were better then and more focused on developing back to the basket skills. It was also easier to succeed at that point because you could hand check perimeter players (more shots for interior guys), you had illegal defenses preventing people from swarming the paint (Hakeem or Dikembe would have loved today's defensive freedom), and offenses were geared towards the big men. Guys like Patrick Ewing would still be successes today but the skill for perimeter players isn't better today. Guys like Garnett, Durant, Lebron, Wade, Kobe, etc. would have been superstars in the 1980's as well.

3) They simply played faster

And this doesn't just meant that they simply run and gunned. It meant that they got into their offensive sets a lot faster and were qucker to take open shots that they could make. Some teams played the ISO game, but they normally played it from the post, and not necessarily out on the perimeter. And they definitely didn't play it from 25 feet out, like JJ, Kobe, and Lebron tend to do.

If you play faster, you get more scoring attempts. And if you make a high percentage of your shots, you're going to score more.

They did run and gun, though. The 80's is really where that phrase came from. Both at the college and pro level, you had teams dedicated to high paced scoring and not just a few of them like the aberrational Suns. That faster pace leads to worse defense and better offense as both teams tend to be out of position defensively -- contrary to the 90's style of control and discipline that Pat Riley and his disciples brought to the NBA along with the slowing of pace. Riley didn't slow things down because Tim Hardaway wasn't skilled - he did it to focus on defense and beat you with defense. A league where everyone scores 102 - 125 points per game isn't one with that focus.

4) The lack of a college 3 point line kept the emphasis of NBA scoring inside the line.

I think that was the big thing you saw back then, compared to now. Back then, good shooters were guys who could knock down an 18 - 21 foot jumper off the dribble, or via a catch and shoot. These days, good shooters from 21 feet are encouraged to extend their range out to the 3 point line . . even if they can't consistently make that shot . . because of the reasons you cite. So they'll take less shots that they can make, in order to to make a lower percentage, but higher point value shot.

The ABA and NBA introduced the 3pt line in the 70's. By the early 80's all of college basketball was using it. You may be thinking of when the NCAA standardized the distance in 86 but it had already been there in college basketball across the board before the 1983-84 season we discussed earlier.

If a guy is a 40% three point shooter, by all means bomb away. If a guy is a 30% three point shooter, he shoud have a lot more discretion on the frequency he takes that shot.

Correct. A 45% efg% is not very good. Likewise, a guy shooting 40-45% from 2pt range should have some serious discretion before taking that shot.

What that 3 point line did, was make guys too one-dimensional. A Kyle Korver never developed a good post or midrange game, because all he focused on were 22+ foot jumpers. Jeff Teague is actually a throwback type of PG, because he tries to penetrate and get into the lane. But because he isn't a floor leader, and only was a scoring PG in college, he never developed true PG instincts from a playmaking standpoint. And a guy like Jordan Crawford, who has PG like passing and ball handling ability, kills his efficiency because he falls in love with a 3 point shot he can't even make 30% of the time.

We live in the golden era of PGs. How many of them are one-dimensional 3pt shooters? While there are always some guys who focus on it (Mark Price, Seth Curry, etc.), the NBA stud PGs today aren't anything like the one dimensional players you are describing...Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, etc.

Also, I'm not sure how much you remember but there have always been guys who specialized in perimeter shooting and non-all-around play. A guy like Kyle Korver was never going to be a beast in the post even if he played in the 80's. Because of the additional value of those shots, however, coaches can better justify an elite perimeter gunner lacking other skills in the 3pt era than they could in the era before 3's.

Now, I am not arguing that all 3's are great but I am d*#&$ sure arguing that 3's are nearly always better than the long 2's you were advocating earlier in this thread.

[thecampster]

Yep...really long summer. We're arguing hypotheticals.

[thecampster]

We live in the golden era of PGs. How many of them are one-dimensional 3pt shooters? While there are always some guys who focus on it (Mark Price, Seth Curry, etc.), the NBA stud PGs today aren't anything like the one dimensional players you are describing...Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Russell Westbrook, etc.

You had me right up until here. 20 years ago, point guards had much more to deal with defensively. Today's pg's are free to run rampant. Flagant 1 and 2, no hands, etc. The hand check rule changed everything. http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-hand-check-rule-in-the-NBA If John Stockton or Isaiah Thomas in their prime could have operated freely without being manhandled and without fear of being clobbered if they drove to the basket, we'd be talking very differently about modern point guards. Doc Rivers or even a prime Mookie operating without the hand check. Today's point guards aren't studs as much as the rules greatly favor them offensively today.