PDA

View Full Version : Tbird analysis: What constitutes a "good" 3 point shot?



thunderbird1245
06-02-2007, 10:54 AM
With the hiring of Jim O'Brien, the Pacers have committed their franchise to a coach who is among the biggest fans of the three point shot. In his press conference to announce his hiring, when asked by the media he confirmed this, saying "as long as they are GOOD three point shots". But what does that mean, in the eyes of the Pacers new staff?

With that in mind, I wanted to put out here what I think the criteria will be for the new staff to grade out our players on what makes a "quality" 3 point attempt. Here are the situations where he will emphasize taking the 3:

1. Off of ball reversal after double teams in the post. Coach O"Brian is likely to play 4 perimeter guys around 1 post player,which will help create space to take these type shots. What he will emphasize more than most coaches is to take this 3 attempt, rather than shot faking it and driving it hard to the rim. You can expect the Pacers "4" men, like Shawne Williams, Troy Murphy, and perhaps Lamar Odom to be encouraged to take that shot.

2. Out of transition. You can expect to see the Pacers pull up short on the wings on 3 on 2 and 2 on 1 situations and fire the perimeter 3 pointer. This will annoy us at times, because many of you will be expecting players like Granger to fill the lanes hard for a dunk, drive, or mid range game. Instead, O'Brian will have guys like Granger, Williams, and others stay back behind the line. You can also expect Troy Murphy being used as a trailer, coming down the floor down the middle, to be allowed and encouraged to stop at the top, recieve a pass, and fire it up from there, taking shots some of us won't like.

3. After offensive rebounds. This is the one I expect to see the most complaints about next fall and winter. Coach O'Brien is one of the new age thinkers on this subject, that have done studies and now believe three attempts after offensive rebounds is the single best time to take shots from deep. The defense is at its most disorganized at this point, and some coaches believe and have stats to back it up that this is your highest percentage time to shoot a three. Expect to see plenty of times offensive boards from our bigs near the goal, and see them immediately turn outward to hit spot up shooters, instead of trying to gather themselves and go back up with the ball strong.

4. Threes taken on specially designed inbounds plays.

5. Threes taken after ballscreens...instead of pick and rolls, youll see alot of pick and pop backs, and some set plays designed to "screen the ballscreener" which are effective to get three attempts at times. Youll also see our ballhandlers encouraged to fire threes if the defense goes underneath the ballscreens from the top. Likely, youll see teams guard our current guards this way, so you'll see lots of 3 pointers from the top taken by Tinsley or whomever else is handling the ball.

Now, what he won't teach to be good attempts, I believe, are the following:

1. Threes taken after 1 pass in a half court set, without a ball reversal or penetrating move or pass toward the rim. This is different from a transition 3 which may happen after 1 pass, because they come before the defense is prepared and set.

2. Threes taken off the dribble. These are the ones he allowed Walker to take in Boston, but I suspect he will be a bit more restrictive here.

In total, I suspect the Pacers will shoot around 1600 three point attempts next season playing this style of offense. It remains to be seen how effective it will be, but clearly we need to add 3 point shooters to our roster to play the way Coach O'Brien's preferred style.

Just my opinions, of course.

tbird

Hicks
06-02-2007, 11:03 AM
A lot depends on the improvement of Tinsley, Dunleavy, and Granger at hitting that shot. All three have at at least one time in their careers had a good % from out there; can they regain their form if they've lost it?

LG33
06-02-2007, 11:18 AM
Mike Miller for Lamar Odom!

Bball
06-02-2007, 11:59 AM
I think our perimeter shooting will be helped by an offense created to get those shots in the flow of the offense. Not a last second 'hot patato, I got nothing' pass from JO, or JT dominating the ball rather than initiating the offense and getting the ball (and defense) moving.

I wonder how things would be if we had Peja back? That is assuming his playing career isn't about over and he will be healed...

But in any case, I will argue that our previous OVER-emphassis on JO led to our perimeter game looking worse that it really could be. JO ended up being a net loss to our perimeter game, not opening things up for it.

-Bball

ABADays
06-02-2007, 12:13 PM
While I love the analysis tbird I hate the conclusion. Well, at least whoever is playing underneath should get plenty of face time with everyone out on the perimeter.

ChicagoJ
06-02-2007, 01:16 PM
The only good three point shot is one taken by Reggie Miller, Dell Curry, Chris Jackson (or whatever his new name is), Dan Marjerle, Chuck Person, Dale Ellis or Tim Hardaway.

Everyone else should either attack (draw a foul, get to the line) the basket or step in and shoot the 18'-19' shot.

We don't have the roster to shoot many three's. I trust that Jim O'Brien is smart enough to figure that out. What I don't get is why everybody wants to pigeon-hole coaches on things like this. The coach's job is to study his team and figure out which strategy will work best for his personnel. Not vice versa.

ajbry
06-02-2007, 01:35 PM
I'm a big fan of the transition three. If it's 1-on-3, pull up and take it if you got a decent look. You'll have the necessary momentum to get your shot where you want it and if you miss, you don't have to worry about long rebounds allowing the opposing team to start a fast break of their own, because your guys will be further down the court and able to get into defensive position quickly.

Knucklehead Warrior
06-02-2007, 02:12 PM
We don't have the roster to shoot many three's. I trust that Jim O'Brien is smart enough to figure that out. What I don't get is why everybody wants to pigeon-hole coaches on things like this. The coach's job is to study his team and figure out which strategy will work best for his personnel. Not vice versa.
+1
Yeah, we'll need someone won't we?
Tinman 37%, 23%, 32% = 31% career
Dun 29%, 35%, 28% = 34% career
Danny 32%, 38% = 37% career
Mr. Miller .395 career 10 yrs > .400

thunderbird1245
06-02-2007, 02:53 PM
The only good three point shot is one taken by Reggie Miller, Dell Curry, Chris Jackson (or whatever his new name is), Dan Marjerle, Chuck Person, Dale Ellis or Tim Hardaway.

Everyone else should either attack (draw a foul, get to the line) the basket or step in and shoot the 18'-19' shot.

We don't have the roster to shoot many three's. I trust that Jim O'Brien is smart enough to figure that out. What I don't get is why everybody wants to pigeon-hole coaches on things like this. The coach's job is to study his team and figure out which strategy will work best for his personnel. Not vice versa.


This is a great post Jay, and it's why you are one of my favorite posters to read on here.

Now, the question on whether O'Brien will still emphasize the three point shot as much as he has in the past is still up for debate, we will just to have to wait and see. By experience I usually figure that a coach does have tendencies and beliefs, and generally will try to play close to the same type of game plan, although some coaches are more open to change than others. This is what makes this hire so fascinating on some levels, because we are hiring a coach with a set of established records and beliefs, to go with a roster that doesnt totally fit his philosophy offensively, no matter what good feelings are being expressed now.

To Jay's point that he likes players to attack the rim and get to the line, I wholeheartedly agree. Teams who consistently play good offense shoot and make more foul shots than their opponents by large margins.

However, there is a tipping point in there about the mid range long 2 point shot which I dont agree with completely. I would personally rather take an open 3 than an open long 2 pointer, all things being equal. Of course it depends on the range of the shooter, etc etc.

Dunleavy has a long history of NOT being a high percentage 3 point shooter. He seems like he has good form and would be better, but consistently he isnt that good. It will be interesting to see how much of a free hand O'Brien gives him. I suspect that one of our complaints we have all season is that we have poorer shooters taking too many "bad threes" as I defined them in the beginning of the thread.

Hopefully, our improved defense will coverup some of our inconsistent offense.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
06-02-2007, 03:49 PM
Id say we already saw a lot of situations 2 and 3 (from the 'good' situations) last season. And everytime we did I was infuriated. Id say we even saw some of situation 1, mainly when Murph was in the game.

I agree with Jay, Id much rather see them attacking the rim.

PaceBalls
06-02-2007, 04:03 PM
A good 3 point shot is not a wide open shot. It's not about the drive and dishout... with the wrong player. It is having the right player take the shot. Who are the right players on the Pacers? Danny, SWilliams and Troy I guess. Who else do we really want taking a lot of 3s?

After all this talk of shooting 3's these guys better be shooting 1000 3pters a day in practice all summer.

Evan_The_Dude
06-02-2007, 06:45 PM
The thing about falling in love with the three-point shot is that it's either going to help you or kill you. You can blow a lot of teams out by taking it and making it. You can get blown out by a lot of teams by taking it and missing it. Three-point misses are often long rebounds that can lead to a fast break by the opposition. If OB is really as big a fan of the three-point shot as he's said to be, I hope our transition defense is top notch.

Like Jay and I agree on a lot, I prefer to see us be aggressive and get to the basket and draw fouls - earning the three points the old fashioned way. I think the three-point shot is overrated. I don't mind us mixing in 20 footers with drives to the basket. But I'd prefer to keep going for two points and stay in the game vs. taking the bigger gamble with three-pointers to make or break us.

As far as a "good" 3 point shot, I think it's a shot that happens in rhythm. It can be in the rhythm of the offense, or in the rhythm of the players movement [which is kind of hard to explain]. Stephen Jackson used to just kill me when he'd take those standing still, wide open, no rhythm shots, and they'd just go "CLANK". Yet when somebody caught him in rhythm and he took the shot, he'd almost always make it. Rhythm is everything. I think what made Reggie Miller such a great shooter was the fact that the offense was built around his game and allowed him to get the ball and shoot in rhythm, something he is probably the best ever at doing.

So my answer is that any three-point shot taken within the rhythm of the offense is a good three-point shot.

#31
06-03-2007, 09:36 AM
The Good = Reggie Miller
The Bad = Stephen Jackson
The Ugly = Shawn Marion

:)

ajbry
06-03-2007, 11:39 AM
The Good = Reggie Miller
The Bad = Stephen Jackson
The Ugly = Shawn Marion

:)

Nah.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHSguZbGK0w"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHSguZbGK0w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Evan_The_Dude
06-03-2007, 02:53 PM
Nah.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHSguZbGK0w"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHSguZbGK0w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Perfect example of what I said about Jack. He was shooting in rhythm in every one of those plays.

Mr.ThunderMakeR
06-03-2007, 07:17 PM
I see ajbry's campaign to turn EVERY thread into a Stephen Jackson debate hasnt ended yet...

ChicagoJ
06-03-2007, 07:21 PM
That doesn't mean we have to pay attention to it.

ajbry
06-03-2007, 07:25 PM
Y'all need to read the thread more closely. My initial reply had absolutely no mention of Jack and then following that, there were two posters who referred to Jack in theirs. I gave a quick, effective rebuttal to one of them and that was it.

Damn.

BlueNGold
06-03-2007, 07:37 PM
Y'all need to read the thread more closely. My initial reply had absolutely no mention of Jack and then following that, there were two posters who referred to Jack in theirs. I gave a quick, effective rebuttal to one of them and that was it.

Damn.

I can understand how they could make that mistake. I don't know how others view your posts, but when I see "ajbry", I immediately think Jack. You are almost a synonym for him. It's almost like a trademark. He would be happy to know someone supports him as much as you do.

ajbry
06-03-2007, 07:50 PM
Obviously I am succinctly aware of my association with Jack and pretty proud of it, I get a little annoyed at the not-so-rare occasions where my original ideas are misconstrued into something that it's not.

Okay, now the discussion is about Jack. :)

Evan_The_Dude
06-03-2007, 08:34 PM
Okay, now the discussion is about Jack. :)

This is the house that Jack built.

This is the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the priest all shaven and shorn,
That married the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the **** that crowed in the morn,
That waked the priest all shaven and shorn,
That married the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

This is the farmer sowing his corn,
That kept the **** that crowed in the morn,
That waked the priest all shaven and shorn,
That married the man all tattered and torn,
That kissed the maiden all forlorn,
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn,
That tossed the dog,
That worried the cat,
That killed the rat,
That ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.

OakMoses
06-04-2007, 12:36 PM
I like Tbird's analysis. In general, I agree with Jay about threes. I thought the Pacers took way too many last year. There are only 3 players on the current roster who have any business shooting more than one or two 3's a game: Murphy, Williams, and Granger.

I'm truly hoping that Tbird is wrong about O'Brien encouraging his ball-handlers to take threes. If this is the case, Tinsley, Daniels, and Dunleavy will be the downfall of this team.

What I think is interesting is that this offense sounds a bit like the 4-out type of offense that Purdue ran last year. I didn't mind that offense, but I wonder how well it can work without a Carl Landry in the post. If JO hangs around, he can obviously fill that role, if he is willing. If he leaves, I don't see another player on the roster that can. Can you imagine playing a 4-out with Jeff Foster in the middle? I'm not sure if Bynum is ready for that much pressure yet, and Ike is a bit too small for the 5 slot.

The one thing about a 4-out type of offense that I could see working with the current roster is that with the PF out on the perimeter, it would give Tinsley a chance to go to his post game, which is really a pretty high % part of his game.

One last thought. If we're plugging guys into this "system" and looking for guys who can be successful, I think that Acie Law IV is probably the best PG in the draft for us. I think that Conley will be the better long term player, but Law is a much better shooter. Gabe Pruitt and Rodney Stuckey would also be worth a look as the system reportedly devalues "true" PG play. As for FA's, Charlie Bell (37% career 3-pt shooter) might be a nice fit.

Yes, I was intentionally trying to make this thread not about Jack.