lipoli390 wrote:I agree with CC that KAT and Wiggins weren't bad defensively. And I agree with LST that Rose's overrdribbling is more productive than Teague's. I also agree that he's fun to watch. He's all heart and he's always giving 100% effort. If Teague had started instead of Rose I suspect we would have lost by 10 with no overtime. Also, to be fair, Rose clearly has license to do what he does. Ultimately, he and Teague do what they do because of the system they're playing in.
The bottom line is this. First, the Wolves's offense last night was centered around lots of hotly contested 2-pointers. The Wolves took 15 fewer 3-point shots than Detroit and a smaller percentage of the Wolves 3s were wide open. Second, the Wolves's offense was poorly spaced with players generally packed inside the arc and minimal ball movement while the Detroit offense was beautifully spaced with lots of rapid, crisp ball movement from one side of the court to the other. Of course, the Wolves offense was no different last night from any other game. It's just that the Wolves didn't shoot well enough to overcome the system. If the Wolves had used Detroit's offensive system last night the Wolves would have won in spite of the poor shooting of KAT and Wiggins.
It's a make-or-miss league.
The Pistons don't have some magical offensive formula. They're 29th in assists... while being led by selfish ballhog Reggie Jackson for chrissakes.
What they did have is one player who was hot (Bullock) and a star who went for 18 points in the 4th quarter and hit 5 three pointers as he continues to expand his game... and a secondary star who hit a putback for OT and then a clutch three pointer ------ while the Wolves had a shrinking from the action star who was banking three point attempts.
As for Griffin... he's still ripped for his lack of range. But why? The guy has taken at least 8 three point attempts in 11 of 29 games this season. KAT, known for his "unicorn" range, has taken 8 or more attempts once in 31 games this season.
Q12543 wrote:The other thing is that Detroit's offense generated a lot of corner 3's, which is the shortest distance from beyond the arc. Our offense seems to rely on 3's "above the break", which are all longer 3's. Perhaps we'd be a better 3-point shooting team if we tried to create more corner 3 looks.
I'm so exasperated with the shooting issue....why is it so effing hard for this franchise to defend the 3 and make 3s!?
Well, first of all you won't make threes if you don't take them. Taking 15 fewer threes than Detroit last night was more telling than our 27% shooting from behind the arc. And even our lower percentage isn't a mystery. As you pointed out, we take more difficult threes than most teams. We take more lower percentage threes from further out and fewer uncontested threes. Both result at least in part from the lack of ball movement. The Wolves offense tends to be confined to one side of the court while most other teams swing the ball from one side to the other repeatedly and quickly. So we'll often have a lonely guy standing in one corner or another behind the arc who never touches the ball and never even sees the ball on his side of the court.
Q12543 wrote:The other thing is that Detroit's offense generated a lot of corner 3's, which is the shortest distance from beyond the arc. Our offense seems to rely on 3's "above the break", which are all longer 3's. Perhaps we'd be a better 3-point shooting team if we tried to create more corner 3 looks.
I'm so exasperated with the shooting issue....why is it so effing hard for this franchise to defend the 3 and make 3s!?
Well, first of all you won't make threes if you don't take them. Taking 15 fewer threes than Detroit last night was more telling than our 27% shooting from behind the arc. And even our lower percentage isn't a mystery. As you pointed out, we take more difficult threes than most teams. We take more lower percentage threes from further out and fewer uncontested threes. Both result at least in part from the lack of ball movement. The Wolves offense tends to be confined to one side of the court while most other teams swing the ball from one side to the other repeatedly and quickly. So we'll often have a lonely guy standing in one corner or another behind the arc who never touches the ball and never even sees the ball on his side of the court.
Wolves are 9th in the NBA in 3 point percentage. Detroit even after last nights game is 28th.
lipoli390 wrote:I agree with CC that KAT and Wiggins weren't bad defensively. And I agree with LST that Rose's overrdribbling is more productive than Teague's. I also agree that he's fun to watch. He's all heart and he's always giving 100% effort. If Teague had started instead of Rose I suspect we would have lost by 10 with no overtime. Also, to be fair, Rose clearly has license to do what he does. Ultimately, he and Teague do what they do because of the system they're playing in.
The bottom line is this. First, the Wolves's offense last night was centered around lots of hotly contested 2-pointers. The Wolves took 15 fewer 3-point shots than Detroit and a smaller percentage of the Wolves 3s were wide open. Second, the Wolves's offense was poorly spaced with players generally packed inside the arc and minimal ball movement while the Detroit offense was beautifully spaced with lots of rapid, crisp ball movement from one side of the court to the other. Of course, the Wolves offense was no different last night from any other game. It's just that the Wolves didn't shoot well enough to overcome the system. If the Wolves had used Detroit's offensive system last night the Wolves would have won in spite of the poor shooting of KAT and Wiggins.
It's a make-or-miss league.
The Pistons don't have some magical offensive formula. They're 29th in assists... while being led by selfish ballhog Reggie Jackson for chrissakes.
What they did have is one player who was hot (Bullock) and a star who went for 18 points in the 4th quarter and hit 5 three pointers as he continues to expand his game... and a secondary star who hit a putback for OT and then a clutch three pointer ------ while the Wolves had a shrinking from the action star who was banking three point attempts.
As for Griffin... he's still ripped for his lack of range. But why? The guy has taken at least 8 three point attempts in 11 of 29 games this season. KAT, known for his "unicorn" range, has taken 8 or more attempts once in 31 games this season.
Sorry Abe. Regardless of Detroit's assist ranking, they took 15 more threes than the Wolves last night. Again, 15 more threes. Last night's loss wasn't about missed shots. It was about taking the quality of shots. If you take 15 fewer three-pointers than your opponent you're generally going to lose. If the Wolves had taken only 8 fewer shots than Detroit (rather than 15 fewer), the Wolves would have won the game even shooting only 27% from behind the arc.
Q12543 wrote:The Pistons hit at least three ridiculous shots from beyond the arc. One was early in the game, a Luke Kennard off balance 3 that he pretty much thew at the rim and it went in. Then there was the super long Bullock 3 that was well beyond the arc and I think there was even a bit of a contest. And finally there was the Drummond heave from the corner late. And even on a few conventional catch and shoot 3s, they made them despite a nice close out by our guy.
So while I think Thibs' iso-heavy offense is exasperating, ultimately we were really unlucky with all those freakin' shots going in.
Yes, but the Wolves hit some improbably shots too. That's the nature of the game. Shooting comes and goes. Players sometimes miss easy ones and sometimes make improbably shots. Note also that the Pistons also had a lot of really good, uncontested or minimally contested 3 pointers last night. The really good, well-coached teams win games like the one last night on their home floor. We can't win when the opposing team takes 15 more threes than us. And with our poor spacing, it's amazing that Rose did as well as he did going to the hoop. He and others driving the lane had very little space to work.
I agree that RoCo was taking far too many chances on the defensive end. He was also putting the ball on the floor and driving to the hoop too often as well. He's really terrible at scoring on dribble penetration and should rarely if ever try. Even his 3-point shooting suffers when he takes as few as one or two dribbles. He's purely a catch-and-shoot guy on the offensive end. So he needs to play within himself. I still love him and his shooting heroics last night were a treat.
Im not going to harp too much on roco trying to turn into a dribble penetration guy because it is clearly what thibs wants.
People have complained about our players doing it and often lamented the players for it. But its ckearly by design because we have spot up guys like roco and tolliver doing it every xhance they get.
3 pt shooting, yeah, we just dont do anything to get any looks. We often get 3s from broken plays or bail outs. Just after the trade we were taking alot of 3s at the top, but they were mostly all the trailing type where guys like cov and saric can step into it. Teague and rose are horrible at getting guys a 3 pt shot in rhythm (tyus is actually pretty good at it). Our 3 pt shooters never get consistency because they have no shooting rhythm due to our offense if that makes sense.
Q12543 wrote:The Pistons hit at least three ridiculous shots from beyond the arc. One was early in the game, a Luke Kennard off balance 3 that he pretty much thew at the rim and it went in. Then there was the super long Bullock 3 that was well beyond the arc and I think there was even a bit of a contest. And finally there was the Drummond heave from the corner late. And even on a few conventional catch and shoot 3s, they made them despite a nice close out by our guy.
So while I think Thibs' iso-heavy offense is exasperating, ultimately we were really unlucky with all those freakin' shots going in.
Yes, but the Wolves hit some improbably shots too. That's the nature of the game. Shooting comes and goes. Players sometimes miss easy ones and sometimes make improbably shots. Note also that the Pistons also had a lot of really good, uncontested or minimally contested 3 pointers last night. The really good, well-coached teams win games like the one last night on their home floor. We can't win when the opposing team takes 15 more threes than us. And with our poor spacing, it's amazing that Rose did as well as he did going to the hoop. He and others driving the lane had very little space to work.
I agree that RoCo was taking far too many chances on the defensive end. He was also putting the ball on the floor and driving to the hoop too often as well. He's really terrible at scoring on dribble penetration and should rarely if ever try. Even his 3-point shooting suffers when he takes as few as one or two dribbles. He's purely a catch-and-shoot guy on the offensive end. So he needs to play within himself. I still love him and his shooting heroics last night were a treat.
Im not going to harp too much on roco trying to turn into a dribble penetration guy because it is clearly what thibs wants.
People have complained about our players doing it and often lamented the players for it. But its ckearly by design because we have spot up guys like roco and tolliver doing it every xhance they get.
3 pt shooting, yeah, we just dont do anything to get any looks. We often get 3s from broken plays or bail outs. Just after the trade we were taking alot of 3s at the top, but they were mostly all the trailing type where guys like cov and saric can step into it. Teague and rose are horrible at getting guys a 3 pt shot in rhythm (tyus is actually pretty good at it). Our 3 pt shooters never get consistency because they have no shooting rhythm due to our offense if that makes sense.
Q12543 wrote:The other thing is that Detroit's offense generated a lot of corner 3's, which is the shortest distance from beyond the arc. Our offense seems to rely on 3's "above the break", which are all longer 3's. Perhaps we'd be a better 3-point shooting team if we tried to create more corner 3 looks.
I'm so exasperated with the shooting issue....why is it so effing hard for this franchise to defend the 3 and make 3s!?
Well, first of all you won't make threes if you don't take them. Taking 15 fewer threes than Detroit last night was more telling than our 27% shooting from behind the arc. And even our lower percentage isn't a mystery. As you pointed out, we take more difficult threes than most teams. We take more lower percentage threes from further out and fewer uncontested threes. Both result at least in part from the lack of ball movement. The Wolves offense tends to be confined to one side of the court while most other teams swing the ball from one side to the other repeatedly and quickly. So we'll often have a lonely guy standing in one corner or another behind the arc who never touches the ball and never even sees the ball on his side of the court.
Wolves are 9th in the NBA in 3 point percentage. Detroit even after last nights game is 28th.
I'm the broken record in this thread. It's not our 3-point percentage that killed us last night. It was our lack of 3-point attempts relative to Detroit's. Oh, and our failure to more aggressively guard the three.
lipoli390 wrote:I agree with CC that KAT and Wiggins weren't bad defensively. And I agree with LST that Rose's overrdribbling is more productive than Teague's. I also agree that he's fun to watch. He's all heart and he's always giving 100% effort. If Teague had started instead of Rose I suspect we would have lost by 10 with no overtime. Also, to be fair, Rose clearly has license to do what he does. Ultimately, he and Teague do what they do because of the system they're playing in.
The bottom line is this. First, the Wolves's offense last night was centered around lots of hotly contested 2-pointers. The Wolves took 15 fewer 3-point shots than Detroit and a smaller percentage of the Wolves 3s were wide open. Second, the Wolves's offense was poorly spaced with players generally packed inside the arc and minimal ball movement while the Detroit offense was beautifully spaced with lots of rapid, crisp ball movement from one side of the court to the other. Of course, the Wolves offense was no different last night from any other game. It's just that the Wolves didn't shoot well enough to overcome the system. If the Wolves had used Detroit's offensive system last night the Wolves would have won in spite of the poor shooting of KAT and Wiggins.
It's a make-or-miss league.
The Pistons don't have some magical offensive formula. They're 29th in assists... while being led by selfish ballhog Reggie Jackson for chrissakes.
What they did have is one player who was hot (Bullock) and a star who went for 18 points in the 4th quarter and hit 5 three pointers as he continues to expand his game... and a secondary star who hit a putback for OT and then a clutch three pointer ------ while the Wolves had a shrinking from the action star who was banking three point attempts.
As for Griffin... he's still ripped for his lack of range. But why? The guy has taken at least 8 three point attempts in 11 of 29 games this season. KAT, known for his "unicorn" range, has taken 8 or more attempts once in 31 games this season.
Sorry Abe. Regardless of Detroit's assist ranking, they took 15 more threes than the Wolves last night. Again, 15 more threes. Last night's loss wasn't about missed shots. It was about taking the quality of shots. If you take 15 fewer three-pointers than your opponent you're generally going to lose. If the Wolves had taken only 8 fewer shots than Detroit (rather than 15 fewer), the Wolves would have won the game even shooting only 27% from behind the arc.
The Wolves took 33 three point attempts last night.
The league average for attempts is 31.5.
You don't change how you play ONLY because of the team you're playing. When basketball becomes that much of a gimmick game of math... I'm out.
That being said... I have voiced my frustration with the Wolves about three pointers many times. And I will again... the Pistons were letting KAT shoot three pointers last night. In those instances, he should have 15 attempts, whether he makes them or not.
lipoli390 wrote:I agree with CC that KAT and Wiggins weren't bad defensively. And I agree with LST that Rose's overrdribbling is more productive than Teague's. I also agree that he's fun to watch. He's all heart and he's always giving 100% effort. If Teague had started instead of Rose I suspect we would have lost by 10 with no overtime. Also, to be fair, Rose clearly has license to do what he does. Ultimately, he and Teague do what they do because of the system they're playing in.
The bottom line is this. First, the Wolves's offense last night was centered around lots of hotly contested 2-pointers. The Wolves took 15 fewer 3-point shots than Detroit and a smaller percentage of the Wolves 3s were wide open. Second, the Wolves's offense was poorly spaced with players generally packed inside the arc and minimal ball movement while the Detroit offense was beautifully spaced with lots of rapid, crisp ball movement from one side of the court to the other. Of course, the Wolves offense was no different last night from any other game. It's just that the Wolves didn't shoot well enough to overcome the system. If the Wolves had used Detroit's offensive system last night the Wolves would have won in spite of the poor shooting of KAT and Wiggins.
It's a make-or-miss league.
The Pistons don't have some magical offensive formula. They're 29th in assists... while being led by selfish ballhog Reggie Jackson for chrissakes.
What they did have is one player who was hot (Bullock) and a star who went for 18 points in the 4th quarter and hit 5 three pointers as he continues to expand his game... and a secondary star who hit a putback for OT and then a clutch three pointer ------ while the Wolves had a shrinking from the action star who was banking three point attempts.
As for Griffin... he's still ripped for his lack of range. But why? The guy has taken at least 8 three point attempts in 11 of 29 games this season. KAT, known for his "unicorn" range, has taken 8 or more attempts once in 31 games this season.
Sorry Abe. Regardless of Detroit's assist ranking, they took 15 more threes than the Wolves last night. Again, 15 more threes. Last night's loss wasn't about missed shots. It was about taking the quality of shots. If you take 15 fewer three-pointers than your opponent you're generally going to lose. If the Wolves had taken only 8 fewer shots than Detroit (rather than 15 fewer), the Wolves would have won the game even shooting only 27% from behind the arc.
The Wolves took 33 three point attempts last night.
The league average for attempts is 31.5.
You don't change how you play ONLY because of the team you're playing. When basketball becomes that much of a gimmick game of math... I'm out.
That being said... I have voiced my frustration with the Wolves about three pointers many times. And I will again... the Pistons were letting KAT shoot three pointers last night. In those instances, he should have 15 attempts, whether he makes them or not.
I agree, Abe, that there's no shot-threshold or mathematical formula for winning in the NBA. But a 15-shot disparity in three-point attempts is problematic and last night it cost the Wolves the game. CC makes a good point above about the relatively poor quality of threes produced by our offense generally, last night included. But you are right as well that the Pistons were giving KAT good three-point looks and, as the Wolves best offensive player, he should have been expected to keep taking those shots. There were multiple times, as I pointed out in my initial post, when Rose simply failed to even look at KAT or Saric when they were WIDE open for great 3-point looks.
lipoli390 wrote:I agree with CC that KAT and Wiggins weren't bad defensively. And I agree with LST that Rose's overrdribbling is more productive than Teague's. I also agree that he's fun to watch. He's all heart and he's always giving 100% effort. If Teague had started instead of Rose I suspect we would have lost by 10 with no overtime. Also, to be fair, Rose clearly has license to do what he does. Ultimately, he and Teague do what they do because of the system they're playing in.
The bottom line is this. First, the Wolves's offense last night was centered around lots of hotly contested 2-pointers. The Wolves took 15 fewer 3-point shots than Detroit and a smaller percentage of the Wolves 3s were wide open. Second, the Wolves's offense was poorly spaced with players generally packed inside the arc and minimal ball movement while the Detroit offense was beautifully spaced with lots of rapid, crisp ball movement from one side of the court to the other. Of course, the Wolves offense was no different last night from any other game. It's just that the Wolves didn't shoot well enough to overcome the system. If the Wolves had used Detroit's offensive system last night the Wolves would have won in spite of the poor shooting of KAT and Wiggins.
It's a make-or-miss league.
The Pistons don't have some magical offensive formula. They're 29th in assists... while being led by selfish ballhog Reggie Jackson for chrissakes.
What they did have is one player who was hot (Bullock) and a star who went for 18 points in the 4th quarter and hit 5 three pointers as he continues to expand his game... and a secondary star who hit a putback for OT and then a clutch three pointer ------ while the Wolves had a shrinking from the action star who was banking three point attempts.
As for Griffin... he's still ripped for his lack of range. But why? The guy has taken at least 8 three point attempts in 11 of 29 games this season. KAT, known for his "unicorn" range, has taken 8 or more attempts once in 31 games this season.
Sorry Abe. Regardless of Detroit's assist ranking, they took 15 more threes than the Wolves last night. Again, 15 more threes. Last night's loss wasn't about missed shots. It was about taking the quality of shots. If you take 15 fewer three-pointers than your opponent you're generally going to lose. If the Wolves had taken only 8 fewer shots than Detroit (rather than 15 fewer), the Wolves would have won the game even shooting only 27% from behind the arc.
The Wolves took 33 three point attempts last night.
The league average for attempts is 31.5.
You don't change how you play ONLY because of the team you're playing. When basketball becomes that much of a gimmick game of math... I'm out.
That being said... I have voiced my frustration with the Wolves about three pointers many times. And I will again... the Pistons were letting KAT shoot three pointers last night. In those instances, he should have 15 attempts, whether he makes them or not.
I agree, Abe, that there's no shot-threshold or mathematical formula for winning in the NBA. But a 15-shot disparity in three-point attempts is problematic and last night it cost the Wolves the game. CC makes a good point above about the relatively poor quality of threes produced by our offense generally, last night included. But you are right as well that the Pistons were giving KAT good three-point looks and, as the Wolves best offensive player, he should have been expected to keep taking those shots. There were multiple times, as I pointed out in my initial post, when Rose simply failed to even look at KAT or Saric when they were WIDE open for great 3-point looks.
1. Again, it's a make-or-miss league. Consider if the Pistons shot their usual percentage from the arc (16 out of 48)... or even if Kennard's and Drummond's and Bullock's heaves don't go in... you still think the number of attempts is as big of an issue?
2. As for Rose... yep. He missed guys repeatedly who were open. Even when Covington hit one late from the top... Rose took an extra dribble or two. I'm a quiet game watcher... but I remember saying "pass it" twice in that sequence even before Jim Pete pointed it out. Covington still hit it, but those subtle differences of even a second two... or even split second... is what separates a good PG from a guy playing the role of PG.
When I'm not suffering from Rashad McCants-induced night terrors... I have Troy Hudson missing the roller on the pick-and-roll nightmares. I have a very visceral reaction to PGs who can't really pass.
