[Game] Suns @ Kings, 11/13/2024, 7pm PST/ 10pm EST
- Thread starter Caccia
- Start date
- Status
I just watched the game, they were truly having fun playing the basketball out there.
The game flew smoothly although sloppy sometimes and most importantly everyone got involved. Perhaps that's why they all at once found their shooting touch.
Huerter A++. The dude torched the PHX inside out throughout the game, like another Deebo out there in the late quarter. The difference is that he is in sync with the offensive flow. Deebo is not a bad playmaker, but his dishes and passes usually get them off guard. It could take some time to gel.
The game flew smoothly although sloppy sometimes and most importantly everyone got involved. Perhaps that's why they all at once found their shooting touch.
Huerter A++. The dude torched the PHX inside out throughout the game, like another Deebo out there in the late quarter. The difference is that he is in sync with the offensive flow. Deebo is not a bad playmaker, but his dishes and passes usually get them off guard. It could take some time to gel.
This game is an argument for "if the 3pt shots go in, we win" -- and not one single person has argued against that. What happens when the 3pt shots don't go in? Just shoot more of them is not the answer, imo. That's how you lose 20 pt leads in the 4th quarter.
My argument isn't that we shouldn't shoot threes or even that we should shoot less of them. I don't care about the number. My argument is that the entire offense shouldn't be built around the idea of "more 3pt shots = win" because that equation is clearly not true. We should aim for balance and make the 3pt attempts we do take the best possible shots -- wide open shots taken by elite shooters. And more importantly we need to commit to denying the other team good shots. All too often we've been the "let them score so we can get the ball back quicker" defense (again, so we get to take more shots) and that just doesn't cut it for a team with playoff aspirations.
My argument isn't that we shouldn't shoot threes or even that we should shoot less of them. I don't care about the number. My argument is that the entire offense shouldn't be built around the idea of "more 3pt shots = win" because that equation is clearly not true. We should aim for balance and make the 3pt attempts we do take the best possible shots -- wide open shots taken by elite shooters. And more importantly we need to commit to denying the other team good shots. All too often we've been the "let them score so we can get the ball back quicker" defense (again, so we get to take more shots) and that just doesn't cut it for a team with playoff aspirations.
Of course it is. But unless someone invents a way to guarantee that 3PA's = 3PM's (or Vivek's experiments with cloning Steph Curry through AI come to fruition) there is no way to go out and get yourself those 5 extra 3PM per game, all you can do is shoot (increase your 3PA) and hope enough of those shots go in to get you there...
Case in point: Currently Phoenix is 8th in 3pt% while we're 29th in 3pt%. Even in that context, if shooting 15 more threes than the other team (like Phoenix did) doesn't guarantee you a win (they lost by 20+, in fact) then this is just statistical noise. It's math nerd stuff, not basketball. Working hard on defense to deny clean shots is controllable. Taking smart shots is controllable. The Kings did both of those things last night and they won easily. Conversely, throwing up junk and expecting the percentages to work in your favor is just bad offense. And even worse, it's a particular type of bad offense which often leads to long rebounds and easy shots for our opponents.
And lastly, even if I concede your point that the end goal of NBA basketball in 2024/2025 is to get your team 5+ more 3PM than the other team, does that change at all if your 3 best players are shooting 58.3% (Fox), 54.4% (DeRozan), and 68.4% (Sabonis) on their 2pt attempts? Or if your other 2 starters are shooting 71.4% (Huerter) and 59.4% (Murray) on their 2pt attempts? We should expect Fox, Murray, and Huerter to raise their 3pt% based on past performance and DeRozan and Sabonis to lower theirs but even from watching the games it should be clear that those long stretches when we score no points are largely made up of 3PA and when these guys do slow things down and just go for 2 or they stop shooting fast break threes and just take the layup they are successful a lot more often.
Case in point: Currently Phoenix is 8th in 3pt% while we're 29th in 3pt%. Even in that context, if shooting 15 more threes than the other team (like Phoenix did) doesn't guarantee you a win (they lost by 20+, in fact) then this is just statistical noise. It's math nerd stuff, not basketball. Working hard on defense to deny clean shots is controllable. Taking smart shots is controllable. The Kings did both of those things last night and they won easily. Conversely, throwing up junk and expecting the percentages to work in your favor is just bad offense. And even worse, it's a particular type of bad offense which often leads to long rebounds and easy shots for our opponents.
And lastly, even if I concede your point that the end goal of NBA basketball in 2024/2025 is to get your team 5+ more 3PM than the other team, does that change at all if your 3 best players are shooting 58.3% (Fox), 54.4% (DeRozan), and 68.4% (Sabonis) on their 2pt attempts? Or if your other 2 starters are shooting 71.4% (Huerter) and 59.4% (Murray) on their 2pt attempts? We should expect Fox, Murray, and Huerter to raise their 3pt% based on past performance and DeRozan and Sabonis to lower theirs but even from watching the games it should be clear that those long stretches when we score no points are largely made up of 3PA and when these guys do slow things down and just go for 2 or they stop shooting fast break threes and just take the layup they are successful a lot more often.
I think Brown did figure it out because the style was totally changed in the first half when DDR was in the game. The faster ball and man moving style continued in the 2nd half when DDR was absent. Now maybe, maybe, maybe one could argue that Brown switched his offensive style because he knew DDR was somewhat incapacitated to start the first half and he thought he needed to go elsewhere for offense, but that seems like a thin reed of an argument at this point.
I think you've got it reversed: Nobody could hit a thing because the iso-ball of Fox and DDR limited ball and man movement, which limited rhythm and put the entire offense into a straight-jacket. If you want to continue with these 100-110 point performances, go back to the slow-down post up crap we've been seeing. If you want 120-140 point outings then this team needs to continue with the style we saw last night.
I don't care about setting arbitrary goals for 3-point shooting. The 3-point shooting will take care of itself as long as there as an emphasis on ball and man movement, making quick decisions, pushing the ball up the floor for fast break opportunities, and not hesitating when a player has an open shot. It's a simple game. Don't make it complicated.
I think you've got it reversed: Nobody could hit a thing because the iso-ball of Fox and DDR limited ball and man movement, which limited rhythm and put the entire offense into a straight-jacket. If you want to continue with these 100-110 point performances, go back to the slow-down post up crap we've been seeing. If you want 120-140 point outings then this team needs to continue with the style we saw last night.
I don't care about setting arbitrary goals for 3-point shooting. The 3-point shooting will take care of itself as long as there as an emphasis on ball and man movement, making quick decisions, pushing the ball up the floor for fast break opportunities, and not hesitating when a player has an open shot. It's a simple game. Don't make it complicated.
The whole shift to 3pt thinking is that if you are able to shoot 40% from 3 you are effectively shooting 60% from inside. Shooting 60% inside is probably a relic of centers like Shaq though, and it's a lot easier to find 3 point shooters than giants who can shove around 5 other lesser giants and don't get called for fouls.
But when you are shooting 30% from 3 that's the equivalent of 45% from 2, and if you have guys like Fox and DDR that are buckets from mid-range and can also drive the rim, you need to utilize both tools to move that 30% to at least 37%+ and get Fox, DDR and Domas at 50+.
Then you can't lose.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
But when you are shooting 30% from 3 that's the equivalent of 45% from 2, and if you have guys like Fox and DDR that are buckets from mid-range and can also drive the rim, you need to utilize both tools to move that 30% to at least 37%+ and get Fox, DDR and Domas at 50+.
Then you can't lose.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
I've never once said the goal for US should be to jack up 3's. Ever. Ive fought back on the idea that:
1. We cannot be giving up 5 3PM every game and expect to remain competitive. Those were the numbers before last night's game. That does NOT mean I'm suggesting to jack up 50 3PA to compensate for that gap. I've been pretty clear on that, don't know why you think differently. But it is absolutely a fact that it's not sustainable for us to be a good team if we're losing by that much on 3PM every night.
2. We should take less 3PA overall as a team or that we ourselves are taking too many 3PA. We're 23rd in 3PA and 29th in 3pt shooting. We're 7th in 2PA, 13th in FTA, 1st in 2pt % and 1st in FT%. That suggests we very much are getting the exact shot distribution we should be getting; take advantage of what Domas/Fox/DDR do best by collapsing the defense at the rim/mid-range and kick out to shooters. You'd have a point if we were 7th in 3PA while only being 29th in 3pt%. That would suggest a massive problem in where our shot selection is coming from.
And we finally got the great shooting game last night, won the 3PM "battle" and beat the living daylights out of them. This offense is only going to work if the guys who are supposed to take the kick-out 3's (Huerter/Keegan/Lyles/Keegan/Monk) are making them at high rate. Of course there's going to be bad 3PA shots every game, just like there's bad other shots every game. It wasn't us jacking up bad shots; it was shots that need to be taken for this offense. I think a good majority of our 3PA this year HAVE been good shots within the flow of the offense. We were just bricking them, prior to last night.
1. We cannot be giving up 5 3PM every game and expect to remain competitive. Those were the numbers before last night's game. That does NOT mean I'm suggesting to jack up 50 3PA to compensate for that gap. I've been pretty clear on that, don't know why you think differently. But it is absolutely a fact that it's not sustainable for us to be a good team if we're losing by that much on 3PM every night.
2. We should take less 3PA overall as a team or that we ourselves are taking too many 3PA. We're 23rd in 3PA and 29th in 3pt shooting. We're 7th in 2PA, 13th in FTA, 1st in 2pt % and 1st in FT%. That suggests we very much are getting the exact shot distribution we should be getting; take advantage of what Domas/Fox/DDR do best by collapsing the defense at the rim/mid-range and kick out to shooters. You'd have a point if we were 7th in 3PA while only being 29th in 3pt%. That would suggest a massive problem in where our shot selection is coming from.
And we finally got the great shooting game last night, won the 3PM "battle" and beat the living daylights out of them. This offense is only going to work if the guys who are supposed to take the kick-out 3's (Huerter/Keegan/Lyles/Keegan/Monk) are making them at high rate. Of course there's going to be bad 3PA shots every game, just like there's bad other shots every game. It wasn't us jacking up bad shots; it was shots that need to be taken for this offense. I think a good majority of our 3PA this year HAVE been good shots within the flow of the offense. We were just bricking them, prior to last night.
It's a chicken or egg argument which is ultimately just going to result in us finding proof to support our own biases. I don't know that there's a foolproof way to make outside shooting more reliable. That's the reality I struggle with.
Forcing doubles with iso play should result in better 3pt shots theoretically but if teams are refusing to double, having DeRozan pop a mid-range in their face is a better shot to me than a contested three. In general though, I agree with what you're saying here. Keep the ball moving and find open shots. If there are no open shots, take it to the basket and force the defense to collapse.
The point of confusion for me is that you sometimes use 3PA and 3PM interchangeably. And also I don't think "make more shots" is an actionable strategy. Obviously nobody is missing them on purpose. So either you're arguing "take more shots" which I think is a dubious plan on nights when we're only making 20% of them or you're arguing "take better shots" in which case we're in agreement and are just arguing over semantics.
I think the shot distribution can and should vary from night to night based on how the defense is playing, how close the score is, and how well guys have been shooting that game. If we're not making threes there needs to be a plan B.
Forcing doubles with iso play should result in better 3pt shots theoretically but if teams are refusing to double, having DeRozan pop a mid-range in their face is a better shot to me than a contested three. In general though, I agree with what you're saying here. Keep the ball moving and find open shots. If there are no open shots, take it to the basket and force the defense to collapse.
The point of confusion for me is that you sometimes use 3PA and 3PM interchangeably. And also I don't think "make more shots" is an actionable strategy. Obviously nobody is missing them on purpose. So either you're arguing "take more shots" which I think is a dubious plan on nights when we're only making 20% of them or you're arguing "take better shots" in which case we're in agreement and are just arguing over semantics.
I think the shot distribution can and should vary from night to night based on how the defense is playing, how close the score is, and how well guys have been shooting that game. If we're not making threes there needs to be a plan B.
Last edited:
Pretty sure this is semantics. Regardless, a fun conversation to dive into.
My main point just boils down to the fact we had to close that 15 PPG 3PM gap that we were surrendering. Whether that's actually defend the 3pt line, make your damn open shots, I don't care. I 100% agree that we shouldn't become Boston because we don't have near the shooters to sustain that volume. But there still has to be SOME volume there; it can't disappear. Also can't allow opposing teams to be 40%+ vs us on a consistent basis.
We were grabbing wins off the back of (probably) unsustainable mid-range/ 2PA/FT shooting and when that faltered just a little bit, we got our teeth kicked in by SAS because they hit 11 more 3PM than we did. Last night to me was the recipe; hit 2 more 3PM than they did, made a brilliant % and then we dominated them in the paint. That's where this offense is going to cook. But the answer just cannot be abandon the 3PA, which some (I dont think you) were suggesting. And my counter to that was we're already one of the lowest 3PA teams in the NBA; can't get much lower.
And "make more shots" is actionable because it's within the flow of the offense and they're almost always good shots. Tizzy pointed out a great stat that prior to last night, we were only hitting 22% of our open 3's. That's absolutely wild and I'd be willing to bet we get quite a few of them with the attention our 3 stars draw near the rim. An open 3 is always the shot you want to be taking; you should not abandon it just because we're in a slump. That's a long-term losing strategy in my book. There's also just relying on the career %'s of what these guys have proven at the NBA level with regards to shooting. The entire team is not going to be 7-8% worse this season; just basically impossible to happen. So keep taking these open 3's and we should eventually start making them (and we did! Last night!).
My main point just boils down to the fact we had to close that 15 PPG 3PM gap that we were surrendering. Whether that's actually defend the 3pt line, make your damn open shots, I don't care. I 100% agree that we shouldn't become Boston because we don't have near the shooters to sustain that volume. But there still has to be SOME volume there; it can't disappear. Also can't allow opposing teams to be 40%+ vs us on a consistent basis.
We were grabbing wins off the back of (probably) unsustainable mid-range/ 2PA/FT shooting and when that faltered just a little bit, we got our teeth kicked in by SAS because they hit 11 more 3PM than we did. Last night to me was the recipe; hit 2 more 3PM than they did, made a brilliant % and then we dominated them in the paint. That's where this offense is going to cook. But the answer just cannot be abandon the 3PA, which some (I dont think you) were suggesting. And my counter to that was we're already one of the lowest 3PA teams in the NBA; can't get much lower.
And "make more shots" is actionable because it's within the flow of the offense and they're almost always good shots. Tizzy pointed out a great stat that prior to last night, we were only hitting 22% of our open 3's. That's absolutely wild and I'd be willing to bet we get quite a few of them with the attention our 3 stars draw near the rim. An open 3 is always the shot you want to be taking; you should not abandon it just because we're in a slump. That's a long-term losing strategy in my book. There's also just relying on the career %'s of what these guys have proven at the NBA level with regards to shooting. The entire team is not going to be 7-8% worse this season; just basically impossible to happen. So keep taking these open 3's and we should eventually start making them (and we did! Last night!).
For what it's worth, I don't even think winning with this level of 3pt volume is sustainable for Boston. I don't think the boom or bust offense is sustainable for anyone. It leads to nights when you win by 30 followed by nights when you lose by 30. But if everyone else is committed to it that sortof forces our hand.
Here's where I'm happy to meet in the middle though: As long as the guys keep playing defense the way they did last night, I'll try not to complain about whatever offensive gameplan they roll out there.
Here's where I'm happy to meet in the middle though: As long as the guys keep playing defense the way they did last night, I'll try not to complain about whatever offensive gameplan they roll out there.
Yeah, there's kinda no way of getting around the fact that you just have to hit your three's in the modern era. You certainly don't need to top the league in attempts if you're built around talents like Fox/Sabonis/DeRozan, but you can't be relinquishing a gap of a dozen or more three-point makes to the opposition every single night. And not a ton has changed, personnel-wise. Losing HB alone doesn't account for what we're seeing, especially since DeRozan is actually hitting his three's at an excellent clip to start the season, though he's obviously not shooting as many as HB did for the Kings.
What it boils down to is Murray, Huerter, Monk (when he returns), Lyles, and Ellis need to be shooting at least league-average percentages. Yet all of them are shooting well below their career averages from three. It would be nice if Fox could bring his 3PMs up, too, but since he's going to be playing through an injury to his shooting hand the whole season, the role guys are going to need to step up and hit a few from outside, particularly their open three's. And the thing is, they probably don't even need to be exceptional in that regard! If the Kings' defensive improvements are real, and with Fox/Sabonis/DeRozan dominating at the rim and from midrange, the team just needs to be average from three, rather than outright awful, and they need to surrender fewer open and wide open three's to opponents.
What it boils down to is Murray, Huerter, Monk (when he returns), Lyles, and Ellis need to be shooting at least league-average percentages. Yet all of them are shooting well below their career averages from three. It would be nice if Fox could bring his 3PMs up, too, but since he's going to be playing through an injury to his shooting hand the whole season, the role guys are going to need to step up and hit a few from outside, particularly their open three's. And the thing is, they probably don't even need to be exceptional in that regard! If the Kings' defensive improvements are real, and with Fox/Sabonis/DeRozan dominating at the rim and from midrange, the team just needs to be average from three, rather than outright awful, and they need to surrender fewer open and wide open three's to opponents.
It worked once. Will it continue to work? I need to see more than 13 games before I hand them a second title. But as you pointed out, they only have to win one 7-game series against a Western Conference opponent to earn that championship. We would need to win three 7-game series against Western Conference teams just to get to the Finals. That's a lot more chances for a couple poor shooting nights against an elite team to end our season.
- Status