longstrangetrip wrote: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.
Yes... if you're going to be taking those long twos anyway... why not make them 3 pointers?
But Q is right. Offense isn't the main reason for this team's struggles. Last night is a good example.
I think anybody could look at the boxscore and scream "Wow, Towns, Wiggins and LaVine all had good games." But the game was never even competitive because the defense was so porous. These guys are learning how to be more consistent offensively... and we can judge that easier (and it's more obvious). But they have to learn to be more consistent defensively too and right now the team is struggling more often than not on that end of the court.
Expect more of the same when dealing with 20 year olds.
Q12543 wrote:No question that 3-point shooting is an issue for this team, in terms of both volume and accuracy.
I'll point out that the problem in order is accuracy then volume, without the first the second is meaningless in the big picture.
I hear what you are saying, but it's not that simple. To Abe's point earlier, how much time does the coaching staff spend on designing sets to get guys into their sweet spot? Most players have a certain comfort zone where they tend to hit a higher % of shots. We know K-Mart for example loves the left wing 3. Shabazz seems pretty damn effective at the corner 3. Towns is.....well, he's so damn good he can probably hit them from anywhere, but they continue to limit him to 20-foot 2-pointers.
How often does Wiggins or LaVine get catch and shoot 3's, where they aren't putting the ball on the floor and then pulling up? Those are tough-ass shots for anyone not named Steph Curry.
Why isn't Wiggins used more as a drive and kick guy? Everyone knows we want to get him going downhill toward the rim, so spread people out - especially Towns because he can drag a big out of the paint!
I agree that we don't have the personnel to be an elite 3-point shooting team, but we can certainly get better.
Q12543 wrote:No question that 3-point shooting is an issue for this team, in terms of both volume and accuracy.
I'll point out that the problem in order is accuracy then volume, without the first the second is meaningless in the big picture.
I hear what you are saying, but it's not that simple. To Abe's point earlier, how much time does the coaching staff spend on designing sets to get guys into their sweet spot? Most players have a certain comfort zone where they tend to hit a higher % of shots. We know K-Mart for example loves the left wing 3. Shabazz seems pretty damn effective at the corner 3. Towns is.....well, he's so damn good he can probably hit them from anywhere, but they continue to limit him to 20-foot 2-pointers.
How often does Wiggins or LaVine get catch and shoot 3's, where they aren't putting the ball on the floor and then pulling up? Those are tough-ass shots for anyone not named Steph Curry.
Why isn't Wiggins used more as a drive and kick guy? Everyone knows we want to get him going downhill toward the rim, so spread people out - especially Towns because he can drag a big out of the paint!
I agree that we don't have the personnel to be an elite 3-point shooting team, but we can certainly get better.
Again, I agree with pretty much everything, I just don't believe this roster can be even league average in terms of both volume and percentage. About the only way I think they could would be with a solid plan and playing Martin and Rudez a lot more, which we all know contributes negatively to every other area of the game.
Q12543 wrote:No question that 3-point shooting is an issue for this team, in terms of both volume and accuracy.
I'll point out that the problem in order is accuracy then volume, without the first the second is meaningless in the big picture.
I hear what you are saying, but it's not that simple. To Abe's point earlier, how much time does the coaching staff spend on designing sets to get guys into their sweet spot? Most players have a certain comfort zone where they tend to hit a higher % of shots. We know K-Mart for example loves the left wing 3. Shabazz seems pretty damn effective at the corner 3. Towns is.....well, he's so damn good he can probably hit them from anywhere, but they continue to limit him to 20-foot 2-pointers.
How often does Wiggins or LaVine get catch and shoot 3's, where they aren't putting the ball on the floor and then pulling up? Those are tough-ass shots for anyone not named Steph Curry.
Why isn't Wiggins used more as a drive and kick guy? Everyone knows we want to get him going downhill toward the rim, so spread people out - especially Towns because he can drag a big out of the paint!
I agree that we don't have the personnel to be an elite 3-point shooting team, but we can certainly get better.
Again, I agree with pretty much everything, I just don't believe this roster can be even league average in terms of both volume and percentage. About the only way I think they could would be with a solid plan and playing Martin and Rudez a lot more, which we all know contributes negatively to every other area of the game.
I think we're actually pretty close in our thinking.
I don't think this team has the potential to a high-volume, good-shooting three point team.
But I think they can be better than 29th in attempts and 26th in accuracy... while dropping down a few spots for the amount of long two pointers.
Q12543 wrote:No question that 3-point shooting is an issue for this team, in terms of both volume and accuracy.
I'll point out that the problem in order is accuracy then volume, without the first the second is meaningless in the big picture.
I hear what you are saying, but it's not that simple. To Abe's point earlier, how much time does the coaching staff spend on designing sets to get guys into their sweet spot? Most players have a certain comfort zone where they tend to hit a higher % of shots. We know K-Mart for example loves the left wing 3. Shabazz seems pretty damn effective at the corner 3. Towns is.....well, he's so damn good he can probably hit them from anywhere, but they continue to limit him to 20-foot 2-pointers.
How often does Wiggins or LaVine get catch and shoot 3's, where they aren't putting the ball on the floor and then pulling up? Those are tough-ass shots for anyone not named Steph Curry.
Why isn't Wiggins used more as a drive and kick guy? Everyone knows we want to get him going downhill toward the rim, so spread people out - especially Towns because he can drag a big out of the paint!
I agree that we don't have the personnel to be an elite 3-point shooting team, but we can certainly get better.
Again, I agree with pretty much everything, I just don't believe this roster can be even league average in terms of both volume and percentage. About the only way I think they could would be with a solid plan and playing Martin and Rudez a lot more, which we all know contributes negatively to every other area of the game.
I think we're actually pretty close in our thinking.
I don't think this team has the potential to a high-volume, good-shooting three point team.
But I think they can be better than 29th in attempts and 26th in accuracy... while dropping down a few spots for the amount of long two pointers.
I agree, with one caveat, a slight improvement in defensive consistency will do more for this team's win/loss record than an equally slight improvement in three point volume and accuracy!
I guess I'm just trying to single handedly offset the sheer volume of 3 point shooting complaints we get here. I just don't believe we've lost many games due to e point shooting, for or against. The 3 point complaints have, to my ears, become a snowball rolling downhill, they've taken on a life of their own without regard to the fact that there are bigger problems that should be fixable with the existing roster!
With that I'll claim the last word (until it's no longer the last word!) and punch out!!
Q12543 wrote:No question that 3-point shooting is an issue for this team, in terms of both volume and accuracy.
I'll point out that the problem in order is accuracy then volume, without the first the second is meaningless in the big picture.
I hear what you are saying, but it's not that simple. To Abe's point earlier, how much time does the coaching staff spend on designing sets to get guys into their sweet spot? Most players have a certain comfort zone where they tend to hit a higher % of shots. We know K-Mart for example loves the left wing 3. Shabazz seems pretty damn effective at the corner 3. Towns is.....well, he's so damn good he can probably hit them from anywhere, but they continue to limit him to 20-foot 2-pointers.
How often does Wiggins or LaVine get catch and shoot 3's, where they aren't putting the ball on the floor and then pulling up? Those are tough-ass shots for anyone not named Steph Curry.
Why isn't Wiggins used more as a drive and kick guy? Everyone knows we want to get him going downhill toward the rim, so spread people out - especially Towns because he can drag a big out of the paint!
I agree that we don't have the personnel to be an elite 3-point shooting team, but we can certainly get better.
Again, I agree with pretty much everything, I just don't believe this roster can be even league average in terms of both volume and percentage. About the only way I think they could would be with a solid plan and playing Martin and Rudez a lot more, which we all know contributes negatively to every other area of the game.
I think we're actually pretty close in our thinking.
I don't think this team has the potential to a high-volume, good-shooting three point team.
But I think they can be better than 29th in attempts and 26th in accuracy... while dropping down a few spots for the amount of long two pointers.
I agree, with one caveat, a slight improvement in defensive consistency will do more for this team's win/loss record than an equally slight improvement in three point volume and accuracy!
I guess I'm just trying to single handedly offset the sheer volume of 3 point shooting complaints we get here. I just don't believe we've lost many games due to e point shooting, for or against. The 3 point complaints have, to my ears, become a snowball rolling downhill, they've taken on a life of their own without regard to the fact that there are bigger problems that should be fixable with the existing roster!
With that I'll claim the last word (until it's no longer the last word!) and punch out!!
I certainly agree with SP that defense is our #1 issue, and if that means we sacrifice the coaching staff's focus on 3-pointers, then so be it. We've found a way to be midde-of-the road offensively in spite of our horrific 3-point shooting. That's actually kind of impressive.
However.....if we ever want to be a very good team, it will need to get addressed eventually. It's just so frustrating that 3-point shooting is a perennial problem with this team, year after year. It seems to transcend front office and coaching regimes. We just do a horrible job developing shooters.
