They're more banged up than we are! Celtics GDT

[BizarroJerry [enjin:6592520]]

I only caught the box score stats too, we get bombed by 3 pointers again, same story, different game. This time all-stars Jerekbo (sp)? and Olynk beat us. Wait, Tay played 35 minutes the night before and he started? So far the Tay starting has worked out well, but he should have rested last night.

[TAFKASP]

But you're just not going to win when you go 2-13 from 3-point range and let your opponent go 12-25...that's a 30 point defecit we had to make up! You guys will have to tell me what happened, but when I see Olynlk and Jerebko going 6-6 beyond the arc...

If the Wolves are going to make 2 of every 13 three point attempts then they would have to take an additional 52 attempts to match the 12 made three pointers by the Celtics. Then there is the fact that the 10 additional made threes does NOT equal 30 extra points for the Celtics unless the Wolves missed every single matching two point shot. The difference between a made three and made two is exactly 1 point, the Celtics got 10 verifiable extra points by making 10 additional threes, the Wolves got 16 extra points at the charity stripe so let's not overreact to just one aspect of the game.

The Wolves didn't lose the game behind the 3 point line, they lost the game by being outrebounded by 14 in total, and by 6 on the offensive end. Yes the Wolves would be better off making more three point attempts, but in most games they're not losing because they aren't. Win the rebounding and free throw battle and the threes don't matter, lose the rebounding and 3 point battle and the free throws don't matter. The Celtics were simply better in more areas of the game than the Wolves, end of story.

Edit: Lets also not ignore that the Celtics took 22 more shots than the Wolves, and made them, 2 and 3 at higher rates!

[AbeVigodaLive]

To be far, not all three point shots are created equal.

Corner 3 point attempts are nearly 2 feet closer than above the break. The Wolves are still in last place for those types of shots. I saw Prince hit a 21'9" shot yesterday without bothering to see where he was. Move back 3 inches.

Furthermore, Boston had good movement (or the Wolves had terrible defense) which freed up some wide open looks. Those wide open looks add to more makes. A change of .025 percent may not seem like much over the course of one game.

After all, what's the difference between a 33% and 44% shooter other than one more make, right? But it adds up over the long haul. The Wolves simply don't value the three point line as much as virtually every other NBA team. Maybe the Wolves are ahead of the curve? Maybe. Maybe they'll be proven correct down the line.

But right now... the team is 27 - 83 with the current preference of long two pointers over finding ways for the right people to shoot three pointers from the right spots...

[BizarroJerry [enjin:6592520]]

But you're just not going to win when you go 2-13 from 3-point range and let your opponent go 12-25...that's a 30 point defecit we had to make up! You guys will have to tell me what happened, but when I see Olynlk and Jerebko going 6-6 beyond the arc...

If the Wolves are going to make 2 of every 13 three point attempts then they would have to take an additional 52 attempts to match the 12 made three pointers by the Celtics. Then there is the fact that the 10 additional made threes does NOT equal 30 extra points for the Celtics unless the Wolves missed every single matching two point shot. The difference between a made three and made two is exactly 1 point, the Celtics got 10 verifiable extra points by making 10 additional threes, the Wolves got 16 extra points at the charity stripe so let's not overreact to just one aspect of the game.

The Wolves didn't lose the game behind the 3 point line, they lost the game by being outrebounded by 14 in total, and by 6 on the offensive end. Yes the Wolves would be better off making more three point attempts, but in most games they're not losing because they aren't. Win the rebounding and free throw battle and the threes don't matter, lose the rebounding and 3 point battle and the free throws don't matter. The Celtics were simply better in more areas of the game than the Wolves, end of story.

Edit: Lets also not ignore that the Celtics took 22 more shots than the Wolves, and made them, 2 and 3 at higher rates!

Sorry SP, only Abe is allowed to use the edit function! I know what you're saying, but this team needs to improve the 3 point shooting and nobody wins making only 2 of them. It was only one game, then I'd be ok with it, but I don't think we're setting up the offense properly to shoot more 3's.

So if we get a few more rebounds and make a few more FT's, but get outshot by 10 made 3's, we would win??

[TAFKASP]

But right now... the team is 27 - 83 with the current preference of long two pointers over finding ways for the right people to shoot three pointers from the right spots...

Who are these right people? KAT, Martin, and Rudez are the only ones shooting even close to decently. Nobody wants Martin to see play, Rudez offers nothing other than 3 point shooting, and do you really want KAT to become a volume three point shooter?

Not all three point shots are created equal, not every team is made up of equally good 3 point shooters. I've seen plenty of uncontested 3 point misses by this Wolves team, when do we acknowledge that the roster simply isn't made for three point shooting? It's like fielding an undersized roster then complaining about the lack of rebounding. The Wolves have to fix the imbalance in the roster, not in the number of missed attempts.

[AbeVigodaLive]

But you're just not going to win when you go 2-13 from 3-point range and let your opponent go 12-25...that's a 30 point defecit we had to make up! You guys will have to tell me what happened, but when I see Olynlk and Jerebko going 6-6 beyond the arc...

If the Wolves are going to make 2 of every 13 three point attempts then they would have to take an additional 52 attempts to match the 12 made three pointers by the Celtics. Then there is the fact that the 10 additional made threes does NOT equal 30 extra points for the Celtics unless the Wolves missed every single matching two point shot. The difference between a made three and made two is exactly 1 point, the Celtics got 10 verifiable extra points by making 10 additional threes, the Wolves got 16 extra points at the charity stripe so let's not overreact to just one aspect of the game.

The Wolves didn't lose the game behind the 3 point line, they lost the game by being outrebounded by 14 in total, and by 6 on the offensive end. Yes the Wolves would be better off making more three point attempts, but in most games they're not losing because they aren't. Win the rebounding and free throw battle and the threes don't matter, lose the rebounding and 3 point battle and the free throws don't matter. The Celtics were simply better in more areas of the game than the Wolves, end of story.

Edit: Lets also not ignore that the Celtics took 22 more shots than the Wolves, and made them, 2 and 3 at higher rates!

Sorry SP, only Abe is allowed to use the edit function! I know what you're saying, but this team needs to improve the 3 point shooting and nobody wins making only 2 of them. It was only one game, then I'd be ok with it, but I don't think we're setting up the offense properly to shoot more 3's.

So if we get a few more rebounds and make a few more FT's, but get outshot by 10 made 3's, we would win??

Don't know.

But we do know that setting up (or settling for) long two pointers instead of slightly longer three pointers game after game seems to run opposite to what most teams do... including many/most successful teams. And it seems to run counter to what statistical evidence suggests.

Shooting 2 - 13 while your opponent shoots 12 - 25 could be a fluke. Or, it could be seen as two very different approaches to where teams are trying to get shots.

[TAFKASP]

But you're just not going to win when you go 2-13 from 3-point range and let your opponent go 12-25...that's a 30 point defecit we had to make up! You guys will have to tell me what happened, but when I see Olynlk and Jerebko going 6-6 beyond the arc...

If the Wolves are going to make 2 of every 13 three point attempts then they would have to take an additional 52 attempts to match the 12 made three pointers by the Celtics. Then there is the fact that the 10 additional made threes does NOT equal 30 extra points for the Celtics unless the Wolves missed every single matching two point shot. The difference between a made three and made two is exactly 1 point, the Celtics got 10 verifiable extra points by making 10 additional threes, the Wolves got 16 extra points at the charity stripe so let's not overreact to just one aspect of the game.

The Wolves didn't lose the game behind the 3 point line, they lost the game by being outrebounded by 14 in total, and by 6 on the offensive end. Yes the Wolves would be better off making more three point attempts, but in most games they're not losing because they aren't. Win the rebounding and free throw battle and the threes don't matter, lose the rebounding and 3 point battle and the free throws don't matter. The Celtics were simply better in more areas of the game than the Wolves, end of story.

Edit: Lets also not ignore that the Celtics took 22 more shots than the Wolves, and made them, 2 and 3 at higher rates!

Sorry SP, only Abe is allowed to use the edit function! I know what you're saying, but this team needs to improve the 3 point shooting and nobody wins making only 2 of them. It was only one game, then I'd be ok with it, but I don't think we're setting up the offense properly to shoot more 3's.

So if we get a few more rebounds and make a few more FT's, but get outshot by 10 made 3's, we would win??

Reverse your question, if the Wolves matched the Celtics 12 three point shots, do they win? Only if you assume they still make the same number of 2's and free throws. They lost by 13, the Celtics got 10 extra points by making 3's over 2's.

[AbeVigodaLive]

But right now... the team is 27 - 83 with the current preference of long two pointers over finding ways for the right people to shoot three pointers from the right spots...

Who are these right people? KAT, Martin, and Rudez are the only ones shooting even close to decently. Nobody wants Martin to see play, Rudez offers nothing other than 3 point shooting, and do you really want KAT to become a volume three point shooter?

Not all three point shots are created equal, not every team is made up of equally good 3 point shooters. I've seen plenty of uncontested 3 point misses by this Wolves team, when do we acknowledge that the roster simply isn't made for three point shooting? It's like fielding an undersized roster then complaining about the lack of rebounding. The Wolves have to fix the imbalance in the roster, not in the number of missed attempts.

That is somewhat true. I'm not advocating for more attempts for the sake of more attempts.

But the team's indifference to the shorter corner three point line speaks volumes. And the team's place among the leaders for longer two point attempts does as well.

As I wrote... I want the right people taking the shots from the right spots.

[TAFKASP]

But you're just not going to win when you go 2-13 from 3-point range and let your opponent go 12-25...that's a 30 point defecit we had to make up! You guys will have to tell me what happened, but when I see Olynlk and Jerebko going 6-6 beyond the arc...

If the Wolves are going to make 2 of every 13 three point attempts then they would have to take an additional 52 attempts to match the 12 made three pointers by the Celtics. Then there is the fact that the 10 additional made threes does NOT equal 30 extra points for the Celtics unless the Wolves missed every single matching two point shot. The difference between a made three and made two is exactly 1 point, the Celtics got 10 verifiable extra points by making 10 additional threes, the Wolves got 16 extra points at the charity stripe so let's not overreact to just one aspect of the game.

The Wolves didn't lose the game behind the 3 point line, they lost the game by being outrebounded by 14 in total, and by 6 on the offensive end. Yes the Wolves would be better off making more three point attempts, but in most games they're not losing because they aren't. Win the rebounding and free throw battle and the threes don't matter, lose the rebounding and 3 point battle and the free throws don't matter. The Celtics were simply better in more areas of the game than the Wolves, end of story.

Edit: Lets also not ignore that the Celtics took 22 more shots than the Wolves, and made them, 2 and 3 at higher rates!

Sorry SP, only Abe is allowed to use the edit function! I know what you're saying, but this team needs to improve the 3 point shooting and nobody wins making only 2 of them. It was only one game, then I'd be ok with it, but I don't think we're setting up the offense properly to shoot more 3's.

So if we get a few more rebounds and make a few more FT's, but get outshot by 10 made 3's, we would win??

Don't know.

But we do know that setting up (or settling for) long two pointers instead of slightly longer three pointers game after game seems to run opposite to what most teams do... including many/most successful teams. And it seems to run counter to what statistical evidence suggests.

Shooting 2 - 13 while your opponent shoots 12 - 25 could be a fluke. Or, it could be seen as two very different approaches to where teams are trying to get shots.

Hitting 15% vs almost 50%, be it from 3, long 2, in the paint, or from the free throw line runs counter to what many/most successful teams do. I get the idea of trying to set up the offense for open 3's, but when you're missing open long 2's does it help?

The problem is this team doesn't have the players to shoot 3's in volume, and the few players who should be able to, aren't making them.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

No question that 3-point shooting is an issue for this team, in terms of both volume and accuracy. That being said, offensively we have been very consistent lately. We have scored 99 points or more 10 games in a row. We're almost always in that 99-105 point range. That's very solid - certainly enough to win 50% of our games, however......

Defense continues to be our #1 issue. Last night we were going underneath screens too often or getting beat on dribble drive penetration, leading to open looks by the Celtics. What are we going to do when KG and Prince are no longer around? Right now a good portion of what success we've had defensively can be attributed to those two guys - and we're still very below average. The young fellas need to grow up in a hurry.