What's new

Lindsey Pushing For More Corner 3's

Not factoring in "long rebounds," which was always Sloan's reason for hating the 3, we know that 33% on 3's is equivalent to hitting 50% on 2-pt FG's. Over the same time period, when comparing 2-pt and 3-pt %'s, the Jazz would have - in their WORST seasons - been equal if they had attempted more 3's (i.e at 32% on 3's, but also not at 50% on 2's, so a wash). In most years, the overall percentages suggest had they had attempted more 3's, scoring would have increased. I'd also contend that if the Jazz had been more of a threat from 3-pt range, it would have opened up the inside game even more.

Long rebounds can actually be an argument in favor of shooting more threes. I saw an interactive graphic the other day that showed 2 pointers led to offensive rebounds at about 25% and 3 pointers at about 35%. I'll try to find the link tomorrow in my comp history. This link shows a rate of 40% in set offense: https://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm

Adding together the 3 points plus the 2nd chance would give you a damn good PPP if that's all that went into the game.

Also, corner threes don't tend to go long rebound like the wing and top threes do. The study below shows that convention wisdom is true that missed shots coming down just outside the arc on the opposite side. No doubt Sloan knew this, which is why I referred to SRS & Candrew hit the nail on the head: it's easy for the defense to leak out and rebounders are in good position to make outlet passes.

https://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

Look at the offensive rebound rate from corner 3's: 23-25%. Compare that to 40% overall (considering corner 3's drag the percentage down) and it starts making sense why Sloan didn't shoot as many from there -- it's less efficient and harder to defend against transition.

The argument against the corner 3 has not so much been the long rebound but the transition baskets by the defending team off a shot attempt. If you have a player shooting from the corner he's not in position to defend the next possession - even in the case of a make.

San Antonio does a beautiful job turning a made shot into an easy layup on the other end. I think their philosophy is that if you give up an easy layup then you might as well beat cheeks down the other end of the floor before it's even in the basket. You got burned, now capitalize on it.
 
Going back to Miami, their corner 3's don't have that transition problem. They clear out the left side for LeBron or give him a screen. The rest of the players are spread around the right side arc. LeBron drives and if he dishes to the corner then the other three plus LeBron can get back.

The Jazz can't do that (because fire Ty Corbin he's stopping Burks from becoming LeBron).
 
From the article franklin linked to:

4. In the NBA, 3-point shots are much better options than midrange shots for 2 reasons: 1) The decreased FG% is more than compensated by a higher reward in terms of points per attempt, and 2) not only do made 3-point shots obviously result in more points, missed 3-pointers are more likely to result in offensive rebounds than missed midrange jumpshots. Midrange jumpers kill possessions more and result in points less.


So, in a nutshell, what I've been arguing:

1. Go inside. If no shot,
2. Throw it out for a 3
3. The 18-20 jumper is the WORST option.


Thanks for the link to the graph, frankllin, showing missed corner 3's generally rebound to the low block on the opposite side.
 
San Antonio nearly always sets up a corner three out of the p&r. Again it's a talent issue why the Jazz haven't shot many the past two seasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Vy62arBCM

All that extra movement is nothing more than a complex way to set up the p&r.
 
Going back to Miami, their corner 3's don't have that transition problem. They clear out the left side for LeBron or give him a screen. The rest of the players are spread around the right side arc. LeBron drives and if he dishes to the corner then the other three plus LeBron can get back.

The Jazz can't do that (because fire Ty Corbin he's stopping Burks from becoming LeBron).

Corbin is stopping burks from becoming lebron?..... that is crazy talk.

Corbin is stopping burks from becoming d-wade silly.
Fire^^99
 
Here's another. Notice @ 0:13 how the Spurs have two guys who can easily get back and Duncan on the opposite block for rebounding. All five players converge on Parker and he heads back down court as soon as the shot goes up. Bonner comes in to rebound the long board but stays behind 4 Mavs while two guys have transition covered and Duncan is in the best rebounding location.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=181yYP1w_3s


The Jazz cannot do this with their point guards the last two seasons. The offense looked like crap because they couldn't p&r. I read recently that p&r was only a dismal 10% of their game last season (SLC Dunk fire Ty article IIRC) even though it was their most successful play based on PPP. Pretty easy to buy that given the high volume of Jefferson posts and Millsap plays on the weak side of that.

Ah, here it is: https://www.slcdunk.com/2013/1/31/3...gy-should-the-jazz-run-the-pick-and-roll-more

We haven't given Corbin enough credit in recognizing how easy it is to defend against Mo/Earl/Jamaal running a p&r. You slack off them, cover the shooters, and force them to shoot, which they were all horrid at doing. This is one more reason of one thousand why Corbin ran Alfense so damn much.
 
Here's another. Notice @ 0:13 how the Spurs have two guys who can easily get back and Duncan on the opposite block for rebounding. All five players converge on Parker and he heads back down court as soon as the shot goes up. Bonner comes in to rebound the long board but stays behind 4 Mavs while two guys have transition covered and Duncan is in the best rebounding location.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=181yYP1w_3s


The Jazz cannot do this with their point guards the last two seasons. The offense looked like crap because they couldn't p&r. I read recently that p&r was only a dismal 10% of their game last season (SLC Dunk fire Ty article IIRC) even though it was their most successful play based on PPP. Pretty easy to buy that given the high volume of Jefferson posts and Millsap plays on the weak side of that.

Ah, here it is: https://www.slcdunk.com/2013/1/31/3...gy-should-the-jazz-run-the-pick-and-roll-more

We haven't given Corbin enough credit in recognizing how easy it is to defend against Mo/Earl/Jamaal running a p&r. You slack off them, cover the shooters, and force them to shoot, which they were all horrid at doing. This is one more reason of one thousand why Corbin ran Alfense so damn much.

I like the last paragraph..... pretty good defense of alfense

(Of course I would have had burks playing WAY more minutes and tinsley/watson way less, while using pick n roll with hayward and burks as the ball handlers a lot more)
 
I like the last paragraph..... pretty good defense of alfense

(Of course I would have had burks playing WAY more minutes and tinsley/watson way less, while using pick n roll with hayward and burks as the ball handlers a lot more)

Only as a learning experiment though. PPP, volume, %TO, & %SF (% shooting foul) for each as ball handler in p&r, respectively:

Hayward: 0.69, 155, 19.4%, 5.2%
Burks: 0.77, 113, 14.2%, 6.2%
Mo: 0.7, 172, 22.7%, 0.6%
Earl: 0.58, 31, 22.6%, 6.5%
Jamaal: 0.78, 51, 31.4%, 2.0%

Those numbers are going to lose you a lot of games. They also tell me I was wrong about not playing Burks at the point at least a little more. It's not hard to throw a pass into Al and run lazily to the other side of the floor, or to run simple plays to set up a pick and roll. I was never comfortable with Burks bringing the ball up the court, and his defensive errors were maddening at times, but I think the tradeoffs just might have been worth another 5 or so minutes a game. I think Sloan would have gone that route -- his "unwillingness" to play the rookies is way overblown.



I'd love to get splits on these because something really started to click in Hayward the last few months of the season. Either way, he has a long *** way to go on his p&r due to his inability to hit a midrange, a floater, or attack the defense. I think he'll get there and am really excited to see his progression more than any other player at the moment.
 
Let's see what Ty can do with no pressure on him for wins and losses, with the evaluation largely being on one thing: his ability to install an effective defense. Lindsey is really going about this the right way. Try to accomplish too much and you likely won't accomplish anything. So break it into two phases: concentrate on defense this season, with a very simplified offense. Next year, expand the offense.

Therein lies my entire problem with hiring Ty in the first place: the Jazz were HOPING he could be a good head coach. They had no evidence to base that on. And now they are HOPING he can install an effective defense. Why not hire a guy who has demonstrated that ability?
 
I think all this anti-corbin talk is premature and puts too much fault on ty over the FO. I don't think we have seen how he will run on an offense that isn't Al-centric or a defense that has to try and hide his laziness. Ty kind of had his hands tied. Do you really think Steve Clifford is going to pull off 43w's next year in Charlotte with Al.

@ 20 years old last season Kanter was a good 4-5 years away from the beginning of his prime. Why beat him up before he gets there. John Stockton came off the bench for 3 years. The idea that a player will develop on the court and won't coming off the bench is FALSE. Kanter had the opportunity to watch big Al and see what to do and not to do. The fact that he has improved year over year tells me he is developing.

Lastly,and I've said it before, benching Al and Sap for Favors and Kanter would have destroyed the formers value in FA. If you think it is hard for jazz to get FA talent now imagine how many guys would look forward to coming to Utah if they were worried they might get benched w/o trade so Utah could "develop" their youngsters. Corbin couldn't bench them and the Fo didn't want to bring salary back on a trade.

Let's let Corbin coach an actual team before we throw him out.
 
I think all this anti-corbin talk is premature and puts too much fault on ty over the FO. I don't think we have seen how he will run on an offense that isn't Al-centric or a defense that has to try and hide his laziness. Ty kind of had his hands tied. Do you really think Steve Clifford is going to pull off 43w's next year in Charlotte with Al.

@ 20 years old last season Kanter was a good 4-5 years away from the beginning of his prime. Why beat him up before he gets there. John Stockton came off the bench for 3 years. The idea that a player will develop on the court and won't coming off the bench is FALSE. Kanter had the opportunity to watch big Al and see what to do and not to do. The fact that he has improved year over year tells me he is developing.

Lastly,and I've said it before, benching Al and Sap for Favors and Kanter would have destroyed the formers value in FA. If you think it is hard for jazz to get FA talent now imagine how many guys would look forward to coming to Utah if they were worried they might get benched w/o trade so Utah could "develop" their youngsters. Corbin couldn't bench them and the Fo didn't want to bring salary back on a trade.

Let's let Corbin coach an actual team before we throw him out.

That only works to a point. Yes being mentored, watching and learning is good. But at some point you need to be given adequate time to use what you have learned in real time. Sitting, watching and learning is pointless when you do not get playing time. Kanter should have been averaging 25 mpg last year not 15.
 
That only works to a point. Yes being mentored, watching and learning is good. But at some point you need to be given adequate time to use what you have learned in real time. Sitting, watching and learning is pointless when you do not get playing time. Kanter should have been averaging 25 mpg last year not 15.

The two guys who were really hurt by Corbin, IMO, were Kanter and Burks. Hayward got 31 mins/per and Favors was underutilized a bit, but still averaged 23, getting into foul trouble several times. Kanter and Burks both needed more playing time.
 
I think all this anti-corbin talk is premature and puts too much fault on ty over the FO. I don't think we have seen how he will run on an offense that isn't Al-centric or a defense that has to try and hide his laziness. Ty kind of had his hands tied. Do you really think Steve Clifford is going to pull off 43w's next year in Charlotte with Al.

@ 20 years old last season Kanter was a good 4-5 years away from the beginning of his prime. Why beat him up before he gets there. John Stockton came off the bench for 3 years. The idea that a player will develop on the court and won't coming off the bench is FALSE. Kanter had the opportunity to watch big Al and see what to do and not to do. The fact that he has improved year over year tells me he is developing.

Lastly,and I've said it before, benching Al and Sap for Favors and Kanter would have destroyed the formers value in FA. If you think it is hard for jazz to get FA talent now imagine how many guys would look forward to coming to Utah if they were worried they might get benched w/o trade so Utah could "develop" their youngsters. Corbin couldn't bench them and the Fo didn't want to bring salary back on a trade.

Let's let Corbin coach an actual team before we throw him out.

We have a winner.
 
Long rebounds can actually be an argument in favor of shooting more threes. I saw an interactive graphic the other day that showed 2 pointers led to offensive rebounds at about 25% and 3 pointers at about 35%. I'll try to find the link tomorrow in my comp history. This link shows a rate of 40% in set offense: https://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm

Adding together the 3 points plus the 2nd chance would give you a damn good PPP if that's all that went into the game.

Also, corner threes don't tend to go long rebound like the wing and top threes do. The study below shows that convention wisdom is true that missed shots coming down just outside the arc on the opposite side. No doubt Sloan knew this, which is why I referred to SRS & Candrew hit the nail on the head: it's easy for the defense to leak out and rebounders are in good position to make outlet passes.

https://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

Look at the offensive rebound rate from corner 3's: 23-25%. Compare that to 40% overall (considering corner 3's drag the percentage down) and it starts making sense why Sloan didn't shoot as many from there -- it's less efficient and harder to defend against transition.



San Antonio does a beautiful job turning a made shot into an easy layup on the other end. I think their philosophy is that if you give up an easy layup then you might as well beat cheeks down the other end of the floor before it's even in the basket. You got burned, now capitalize on it.

Wouldn't that be an arguement in favor of pairing Rush and Hayward with Kanter and Favors? Have them shooting long Js and 3s and Favors and Kanter cleaning the glass. If the offensive rebound rate goes up on 3s and you have two people that rebound the hell out of the ball...
 
The two guys who were really hurt by Corbin, IMO, were Kanter and Burks. Hayward got 31 mins/per and Favors was underutilized a bit, but still averaged 23, getting into foul trouble several times. Kanter and Burks both needed more playing time.

Disagree. Favors has been hurt more than Kanter, IMO.

Yes Favors gets more minutes, but the post-up heavy offense also favored Kanter's style. I understand why we did it, because we want to teach them how to play in the post (and lack of good PNR ball-handers).
 
Wouldn't that be an arguement in favor of pairing Rush and Hayward with Kanter and Favors? Have them shooting long Js and 3s and Favors and Kanter cleaning the glass. If the offensive rebound rate goes up on 3s and you have two people that rebound the hell out of the ball...
Yes, I think that's the point. Rush can position himself in the corner for 3's, just like Korver used to do.
 
Yes, I think that's the point. Rush can position himself in the corner for 3's, just like Korver used to do.

Franklin has been more on the Burks starting instead of Rush though. (I lean toward Rush but will throw support behind whatever is best for the team). Just pointing out that his post argues for a Hayward/Rush pairing. Not Hayward/Burks.
 
Franklin has been more on the Burks starting instead of Rush though. (I lean toward Rush but will throw support behind whatever is best for the team). Just pointing out that his post argues for a Hayward/Rush pairing. Not Hayward/Burks.

You read way too much into things. I've been pointing out the relative strengths and weaknesses of each player, and the leaps in logic in using catchphrases like "space the floor" instead of real analysis of offensive mechanics. I haven't given an opinion on who should start. Don't know why you're so strung out making this a Burks vs Rush fight.

Yes, I think that's the point. Rush can position himself in the corner for 3's, just like Korver used to do.

Korver is one of those special catch and shoot off the move guys. He didn't position himself in the corner like Rush would, rather move to spots as he reads and reacts to what the defense gives him. Most guys aren't able to do that and need more time to set their feet. That's why Sloan could run screen plays for Korver that are usually terrible shots for most guys not named Peja, Ray, Reggie, etc.

Here are some good examples. When Korver takes a corner three he has moved there in response to the defense. That's not what we have in mind with Rush camping out/thumb in *** in the corner to magically space the flo'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7YvbG9d7Zk
 
Back
Top