What's new
By:

Jazz's 3-Point Shooting Philosophy.

85% confident Hayward would be a knock down 3 point shooter with the Spurs.
Millsap or Kanter could well be the stretch 4, I'm less confident Jefferson or Favors would be as well, but wouldn't rule it out.
Hell, you'd probably all be jealous of the 3 point shooting of Bell, Carroll, Howard, Miles, Harris, Watson, Tinsley, Burks or Evans too if any of them were on the Spurs.
 
northeast said:
85% confident Hayward would be a knock down 3 point shooter with the Spurs.
Millsap or Kanter could well be the stretch 4, I'm less confident Jefferson or Favors would be as well, but wouldn't rule it out.
Hell, you'd probably all be jealous of the 3 point shooting of Bell, Carroll, Howard, Miles, Harris, Watson, Tinsley, Burks or Evans too if any of them were on the Spurs.
Click to expand...

Bell, Hayward, probably burks and miles. But not Carroll or Howard or Harris or Watson or Tinsley. The Jazz carry far too many guys who just cannot shoot. Carroll might be able to get there, the others have too much history. It is partly a team thing but not completely.
 
You make some decent points, but I still think i am right. I've seen all those guys you listed make 3s, its not like they can't hit them at all... with some positive changes previously mentioned I think they'd improve their percentages and be more consistent, and presto, you've got a team of 3 point specialists!
 
northeast said:
You make some decent points, but I still think i am right. The older guys might have habits that are difficult to break, but I don't think most of them are that far away from being good 3 point shooters, with all the assistance I mentioned earlier, coaching, system, stars getting them open shots. I've seen all those guys you listed make 3s, its not like they can't hit them at all... it's just a matter at making some adjustments that help them improve the percentages.
Click to expand...

If this was true San Antonio could get any player at all. They don't, they have a very specific player they look for and sign. They select guys that fit their system, that isn't every guy in the NBA.
 
no, I think there are a few players on the Jazz that wouldn't hit the 3 for the Spurs...
but I stand by original statement, if they had their pick of the Jazz roster to play with their stars, they'd turn 4 or 5 Jazz players into 3 point shooters that would have Jazz fanz wishing the Jazz had shooters like that.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
If this was true San Antonio could get any player at all. They don't, they have a very specific player they look for and sign. They select guys that fit their system, that isn't every guy in the NBA.
Click to expand...

I agree that not every guy fits their system, but if they were looking for a particular guy with Kawhi Leonard, they were looking for a guy that shot the college three at a 25% clip for his career (37.6% NBA; 53.8% in the Playoffs so far). I think you would agree that it improves the three point percentage of players because it puts them in a position to succeed where they are balanced and know when and where the ball is coming from.
 
I don't have the science, but there's no question in my mind that an offense designed to get 3's is going to shoot a higher percentage than an offense where guys take 3's opportunistically or on desperation shots.

That said, my also unscientific observation is the majority of our 3's came in instances when guys we had literally couldn't pass the shot up. They missed. A lot.

To get wildly unscientific, I don't think increasing 3 point shots by design with guys who can't reliably shoot them is going to work. Still, I'd like to find out scientifically.
 
JJAS said:
I agree that not every guy fits their system, but if they were looking for a particular guy with Kawhi Leonard, they were looking for a guy that shot the college three at a 25% clip for his career (37.6% NBA; 53.8% in the Playoffs so far). I think you would agree that it improves the three point percentage of players because it puts them in a position to succeed where they are balanced and know when and where the ball is coming from.
Click to expand...

I think they went after Leonard because they wanted his defensive and rebounding ability. When you play stretch 4's like Bonner, you need someone who can get in and rebound.

He obviously worked on his shot a lot from the time he ended his college career to now also. Would he be as good shooter elsewhere? No, probably not, he is helped by the floor spacing of the Spurs because of the system, but also because that team is loaded with a heavy amount of pure shooters.
 
billyshelby said:
I don't have the science, but there's no question in my mind that an offense designed to get 3's is going to shoot a higher percentage than an offense where guys take 3's opportunistically or on desperation shots.

That said, my also unscientific observation is the majority of our 3's came in instances when guys we had literally couldn't pass the shot up. They missed. A lot.

To get wildly unscientific, I don't think increasing 3 point shots by design with guys who can't reliably shoot them is going to work. Still, I'd like to find out scientifically.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think having a system that promotes it definitely helps, because players know exactly where they are getting their shot, but it can only help so much. A team still needs players who are natural shooters to make teams respect the threat.

A huge part of having good shooters is just having that mental threat, much like shot blocking, in spreading the floor. That helps the players who aren't as good at shooting get easier open looks, and helps the interior players get space to work.
 
speaking of science and design, I have previously noticed that the Spurs take a lot of 3s from the corner.

another thread looked at the difference in % on corner threes with the shorter distance.
The increase in make percentage was huge!
 
The Heat are 4 for 42 on 3-pointers in the series....now you know why Sloan let the opposition have them, while he told his team to work for layups!
 
billyshelby said:
I don't have the science, but there's no question in my mind that an offense designed to get 3's is going to shoot a higher percentage than an offense where guys take 3's opportunistically or on desperation shots.

That said, my also unscientific observation is the majority of our 3's came in instances when guys we had literally couldn't pass the shot up. They missed. A lot.

To get wildly unscientific, I don't think increasing 3 point shots by design with guys who can't reliably shoot them is going to work. Still, I'd like to find out scientifically.
Click to expand...

The article sheds some light on this with respect to the Jazz. The thread has gone through some tosses and turns.
 
It seems that we've identified at least 6 different reasons why being on the Spurs would help a player's % from 3, and we could probably come up with a few more.
Put all those together , they could easily make the difference between shooting a below average and an above average %, me thinks.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
Agreed. I think having a system that promotes it definitely helps, because players know exactly where they are getting their shot, but it can only help so much. A team still needs players who are natural shooters to make teams respect the threat.

A huge part of having good shooters is just having that mental threat, much like shot blocking, in spreading the floor. That helps the players who aren't as good at shooting get easier open looks, and helps the interior players get space to work.
Click to expand...

And just to use the Spurs example (who I'm watching now), you need 2 things we don't have: 1) a pg who can effectively find the outlet; 2) a team understanding of swinging the ball as the defense frantically rotates.

We could help Devin by planting guys in the corners he would know are there (the biggest, easiest change to make). But where the Spurs kill, and we wouldn't, is on the swings. The ball goes from shooter to shooter. We'd be swinging from Hayward to Devin/Earl/Tinsley. Or from Hayward to Devin/Earl/Tinsley to Carroll/Howard/Burks.

That's a lot of broken links.
 
northeast said:
speaking of science and design, I have previously noticed that the Spurs take a lot of 3s from the corner.

another thread looked at the difference in % on corner threes with the shorter distance.
The increase in make percentage was huge!
Click to expand...

There is ZERO question corner 3's have to find their way into our offense.
 
My hunch is that the Jazz are focused on having guards always get back quickly on transition D, and I think therefore decline to shoot many corner 3s or get much offensive rebounding from 1-2-3 positions.
 
northeast said:
My hunch is that the Jazz are focused on having guards always get back quickly on transition D, and I think therefore decline to shoot many corner 3s or get much offensive rebounding from 1-2-3 positions.
Click to expand...
It also depends on both preference of the shooters and their role in the offense. In screen-roll a Kyle Korver or a Bryon Russell would play on the right wing and if the defense sagged on DWill/Stock, they would drift to the corner for the open 3. On the weakside, Memo and Hornacek would roll up from the deep corner to the left wing for the 3.
I don't know the numbers on Russell, but in both the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons, Korver shot more of his threes from the corner (169) than from the wing/top-of-the-key (155). fwiw he shot 43.8% from the corner compared to 40.6% from out top.
 
I don't care whether the Jazz take a two pointer or a three pointer as long as it's a good shot. More importantly was how bad the spacing and off-ball movement was this year (especially in the playoffs). The problems become worse when the person through which the team runs the offense the majority of the game is a bad passer/playmaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top