Long Distance Relationship
by onlxn on Dec 7, 2009 2:50 PM PST
Email
Print(Slightly douchy self-promoting note: I originally wrote this for a blog a buddy of mine and I started, Golden State Worriers. It's like GSOM, only worse and less fun! Come check it out if you like, no worries if you don't... we are no threat to the Mothership. And this is the only time I'll bore y'all by mentioning it here.)
-----------------------------------
Looking at the Warriors' league-wide ranks in various statistics is always pretty amusing, as we can be found near the very top or very bottom of most of the categories. Thus far, this season is no exception: we play the fastest pace of any team, we're the worst-rebounding team, we're the next-to-worst defensive team. We lead the league in steals and forced turnovers, but only Indiana turns it over more often per game than us. Only two teams get blocked more often per game than we do.
All of these rankings should sound pretty intuitive: we're a bunch of little fellas, scurrying around with no rhyme or reason. You can practically hear "Yakety Sax" when you watch us play. And while we may have the spunk of a half-naked British policewoman, we would need a brilliantly efficient offense to overcome our various deficiencies. We don't have one -- despite all the storm and fury and Montaness and Morrowing, our offensive efficiency is 15th-best in the league, dead average. Wussupwidat?
For help, let's turn to Dean Oliver's esteemed Four Factors, the four attributes that most contribute to a team's offensive success. Those factors: shooting, limiting your turnovers, offensive rebounding, and the frequency with which you score free throws. Defensive success can be measured inversely -- good defenses make their opponents shoot poorly, force a lot of turnovers, and keep their opponents off the offensive glass and off the foul line. But this is a Warriors blog, so let's not depress ourselves with talk of "defensive success". It'll be a while till we stop giving up eighty thousand points per game... let's just see where there's room for improvement on offense.
Per KnickerBlogger.net, our rankings in the Four Factors: 7th in shooting (51.6% eFG), 18th in turnovers (16.1 per 100 possessions), last in offensive rebounding (21.4 OREB%), 16th in converting at the line (23.4 free throws made per 100 field goals taken). At first glance, it's not clear that there's much room for improvement here. If you account for pace, we're not actually that bad at taking care of the basketball, and with a rookie and a pocket-sized two handling the playmaking duties, we're not likely to shoot up the rankings in that department. More sanely designed lineups would boost our offensive rebounding a bit (MORE RANDOLPH AND HUNTER, PLEASE), but we're basically screwed there until Biedrins comes back. Getting to the line more often? It'd be nice, but Morrow, Curry and Watson hang out on the perimeter for a reason, and in 300 minutes, Mikki has only gotten to the line nine times. Again, bigger and saner lineups would help (MORE RANDOLPH AND HUNTER, PLEASE), but we already knew that.
It doesn't seem like this exercise has brought anything to light. I mean, it's not like we can improve our shooting. We're already shooting pretty damn well -- in fact, if we maintain our current .477 field-goal percentage, it'll be the highest for the Warriors since Webber's rookie year. There's no real way to improve on our scoring efficiency... is there?
In fact, there is. There's something we can do, a simple strategic change that could go into effect as early as tonight, a change that would absolutely improve our offense and our chances of winning every night.
The Warriors need to shoot more threes.
I'm not saying they should take one or two more a game. I'm saying they should take, like, ten more a game. Twelve wouldn't hurt.
We currently take 17.8 threes a game, 18th in the league, and when you account for pace, we fall even further behind; only 20.5% of our shots are threes, putting us 20th in the league. The Magic take 35.1% of their shots from behind the arc. We need to be like them. Now.
The eFG% that denotes shooting quality in the Four Factors stands for effective field-goal percentage... unlike regular FG%, it credits you for the extra point your three-pointers give you, which is why it's the best way to gauge effective shooting. Making threes at a 35% clip is better than making twos at a 50% clip, so if you can shoot the three competently, it's a pretty effective shot. After the dunk, the layup and the free throw, the three-pointer is the most efficient shot in basketball. In fact, it's so useful that taking lots of threes is positively correlated with winning, even if you don't shoot them all that well. Yes, really. No, really. And that shouldn't come as any surprise to Warriors fans. We led the league in 3PA/FGA just two years ago, with a much worse array of shooters than we have now.
If there was ever a roster meant to go whole-hog on three-point shooting, it's this one. We're 5th best in the league in three-point shooting as it stands. Our few remaining bodies include C.J. Watson (career 3P% .392), Vladimir Radmanovic (.382), Stephen Curry (.370, .412 in college), and Anthony By-God Morrow (.481), who -- let's be perfectly clear -- is on pace to be the best three-point shooter in the history of professional basketball. Monta's got an above-average percentage so far this season. Even Maggette can hit 'em. Yes, it's gross when he shoots threes. But his career percentage is .321... Baron's is .322. I'd sure rather see Maggette shooting from 23 feet than from 20.
It's not like this requires much of a shift. We've been living on drive-and-dishes and jump shooting already... we just need to be more energetic about taking those jump shots from long distance. Monta DRIVES and either SCORES or kicks it out, Morrow, CJ, Vlad and Curry LET IT RAIN, Maggette perhaps occasionally LETS IT RAIN, Randolph and Hunter BANG DOWN LOW, Mikki SITS, and the Warriors PROFIT. Sure, teams will start to cluster around us on the perimeter and we'll get a couple threes blocked per game. You got a better idea?
Even in these darkest of days, there are adjustments that can be made. We can claw our way back a bit closer to respectability. All we have to go is gun more from the outside. We're the Golden State Warriors. Should that really be all that hard?
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
43 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The irony is...
The last two years I thought we had the exact opposite problem. We got used to shooting a ton of 3s with JRich, Harrington, Pietrus, etc., and then two years ago thought it was still a good idea, even when it was basically Baron and Jack chucking them up, and then last year just…well….jack chucking them up with some help from CJ. Now with Morrow getting so much time, VladRad spreading the floor, the addition of Curry, and Monta developing the long-range, I completely agree.
As Rich Boy would say:
Throw some threes on that b****!
Agree with the whole post pretty much
Well written too. Rec’d!
Actually on second thought Ihave one problem... haha.
I’m not sure that the answer is that simple. Maybe we shoot 3s so well because we only take 3s at good opportunities and forcing more would lower our percentage. Even if that is true (which I’m not really sure if it is true) it still would probably be a good idea to take more 3s, and it probably wouldn’t lower our percentage too drastically…
Rec’d for sure. I have intuivitely been wondering what’s up with our not shooting more three’s, but your analysis brings some clarity. I think part of it has to do with wanting to share the ball and move it around, take higher percentage shots, etc. It would also help if our bigs could pass out of the post. This might be a bit much to ask of Randolph and Hunter, as they have lots of other things they need to worry about first. When Biedrins gets back it would be really nice to see some high/low action with he and Morrow/Curry.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
It’s kind of irrelevant right now whether or not the bigs are good passers out of the post. None of them are good enough offensively to command double teams. They need to become better scorers and be able to draw some attention.
If you were guarding Morrow and he just passed it to Randolph in the post, would you go help defend Randolph, who has no post moves, or stick close to Morrow, the NBA’s most accurate shooter?
"We Deserve"
That’s a valid point but it seems to me that just about any big man will draw a double team once he starts making his move to the basket. Biedrins does not “command” double teams, but defenders rotate to help all the time against him anyway. The ability to pass once they have initiated the move is the thing our bigs are missing.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
great post
But I don’t know about planning to shoot more 3’s. The 3, I think, is like a counter move, like when your man takes away your drive right so you spin left to counter. Great teams take a lot of 3’s because they force the defense to pick the lesser of two evils, between a dominant big or shooters camped at the line. You double Duncan, the ball gets swung to Bowen. We don’t have the dominant post player, and Monta might not be a good enough passer on the drive yet. Besides, he’s finishing pretty well right now so we might be getting better value with him scoring instead of risking the passes.
The danger, of course, is not having the counter at all- one trick ponies, like Maggette, often end up not even doing their one trick so well. But that’s the challenge of being the franchise player and the first option. I anticipate Monta stepping it up with the passing soon enough.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
It’s an excellent point, and I agree, that’s ideally how you want to use the three-pointer. Having said that, there are teams that launch a lot of threes without a post anchor. The Knicks lead the league in attempts per game, and they don’t have that anchoring big guy… David Lee’s offense is basically Biedrins + jumpers, Al is Al, Curry’s only played about forty minutes so far, and none of the three of them can pass. Now, the Knicks are shooting 33.7% from three, which isn’t very good — you could argue that that’s what happens when you try to make the three your primary weapon. I think it has more to do with the fact that they’re getting eleven attempts a game from Wilson Chandler (career .318), Larry Hughes (career .310), and the corpse of Chris Duhon (.358 career, but .246 in his current state).
The Knicks have a horrific lack of offensive talent compared to us: most of them can’t shoot, most of them can’t create, most of them can’t get to the line. And it shows in their numbers. They shoot 44.9% from the field, 33.7% from three; we shoot 47.7% from the field, 37.9% from three. Those are big, big differences. And yet their eFG% is only slightly worse than ours (51.6% to 50.3%), and their offensive efficiency is only slightly worse than ours (107.5 to 106.2), because when they shoot, they give themselves a chance at three points much more often. That’s smart offense on D’Antoni’s part.
A threes-first offense, with no skilled inside presence to balance things out, is never going to win a championship or even make much noise in the playoffs, “We Believe” may have in fact been the ceiling for that type of team. I’m not saying this strategy will make us good… I’m just saying it will make us better, because what we’re doing isn’t working very well. There’s no reason why three Knicks should be taking more threes per game than Anthony Morrow.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
I have to say, I love what the Magic are doing, and I believe it’s absolutely the correct strategy. They try to make everything either a shot at the rim or a 3. That’s exactly what we should do, especially with our personnel. Shooters in, spread the court, and the offense is completely based on driving and dishing. If they cover the 3, Monta et. al gets to the rim. If they stop the drive, you look to kick. Not sure our guys are prepared to do this effectively – Monta can get to the hole but doesn’t shoot well enough right now from 3 – the rest of the shooters don’t drive well enough, but I still like the thought.
By the way, oxlxn, what’s the difference between eFG% and TS%?
like Maggette, often end up not even doing their one trick so well
?
There are legitimate complaints against Maggette. Complaining about his one trick is not one of them. Dude is scoring at the highest volume of his career (22.4 points per 36) while maintaining his normal efficiency (.576 TS% this year compared to .577 TS% for his career)….he does his one trick well.
I’m surprised by Corey’s numbers. A player who drives in a straight line, usually from perimeter isolation, without great handles, a jump shot, or passing acumen? Seems like a terribly easy defensive assignment. I would guess, then, that Maggette is an anomaly. Most one-trick ponies, like catch-and-shoot wings or catch-and-dunk bigs, play the finishing role exclusively in the offense. Maggette tends to start and finish a play himself, from what I’ve seen, and so his successfulness seems odd.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
not necessarily true.
Maggette is a very efficient scorer, but he is no primary option and there is a huge distinction.
have to say, I love what the Magic are doing, and I believe it’s absolutely the correct strategy
Well it helps when you got a guy like Dwight Howard who can guard the middle by himself and rebound by himself. The Magic for me are set up EXACTLY how i think Nellie would like his team to play….
For me, I love addleman’s (rockets and old kings) general approach of high post and 3 point shooting and slashing. If Randolph can develop to the player some THINK he can be, we’d have 2 bigs w/ him and biedrins w/ great hands who could do that. Granted Biedrins isn’t a player who can hit jumpers. Randolph is showing he can hit that elbow jumper. Defensively and rebounding it’d be more benefical to the warriors to as we don’t have a dwight howard we can just sit down there and surround w/ 4 shooters.
eFG% vs. TS%
eFG adjusts for 3 pointers ((FGM + .5*3FGM)/FGA), so it sort of evens the playing field when comparing post player to 3 point shooters.
TS% takes it one step further and adjusts for free throws as well (PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA))). It’s a measure of how many points a player gets per shot (divided by 2 so it’s on the same scale as FG%).
There are reasons to look at each of them. True shooting is a nice, all in one number to see how efficient of scorer some one is, while eFG is nice when looking at the Four Factors from Basketball on Paper, which separates eFG from FT/FG.
Maggette is always a good example:
His TS% is .576, meaning he is an efficient scorer, but his eFG% is .490 which shows that most of that efficiency comes from his ability to get to the line.
Compate him to Morrow, who has a freakish .672 TS%, and a league leading .650 eFG. This shows that Morrows freakish ability to score lots of points on very few shots comes from his ability to hit shots from the field.
Exactly… a better description than I could’ve given. TS% is the more comprehensive stat and more useful in most situations, but eFG nicely balances out twos and threes, which is helpful when you’re separating aspects of the game.
Another way of looking at the distinction between the Knicks and us: we outshoot them from the field by a comfortable margin, but because they take threes so much more often than we do, their average shot attempt is worth more points than ours is. The average shot the Knicks take yields 2.32 points if made; the average shot we take yields 2.20 points if made. That’s a big difference.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
His TS% is .576, meaning he is an efficient scorer, but his eFG% is .490 which shows that most of that efficiency comes from his ability to get to the line.
what does it matter though, during his entire career he has shown consistency to get to the line. Points are points. The wqhole idea of TS% is to take the bias of ’he’s such a good shooter’ or ‘he takes more difficult shots’ out of the equation. Ultimately 3 points earned from the free throw line and 3 points earned from an acrobatic 3 pter r worth the same
I agree with this almost completely, though there may be some difference in what it does to the pace of the game. A player who scores largely by getting to the line gives the opposition breathers and game pace tends to drop. If your defense is predicated on forcing the other team into a pace beyond their preparation and the resulting fatigue and turnovers, it runs counter to this by allowing the opposition a chance to rest and set up for their next possession.
How important is this? I suspect not nearly as much as many would make it out to be, but it may not be completely negligible. The flip side is of course that a player who makes his living getting to the line is more likely to put the other team into foul trouble, helping his teammates get to the line in the bonus and perhaps making the opposition’s defense a bit tentative to avoid fouling out. Again, not sure how important this is, but it may be a strategic factor in some cases.
On the flip-flip side: anecdotally, you have to think guys who make their living drawing fouls at the rim (Wade, Monta, Maggs, et al.) are somewhat less likely to “live long” — i.e. have long, injury-free NBA careers — than pure shooters. I mean, knock thrice on wood whenever you talk about this stuff, but if I were an insurance man, I’d give a lower premium to a guy like Morrow than a guy like Monta or Wade…
There will be no extra point!
yeah i suppose in terms of maggette
I’m over the contract. Not much we can do about it now. But he isn’t as awful as many say. He has his value. It’s not 10 mil a year value. I’m sure if he was on a 3-4 million dollar contract he’d be loved.
We all saw how offensively challenged we were last night when he got ejected. This team just doesn’t have enough talent to score w/o him. Monta of course can, but no one else really can efficiently on there own. Morrow still needs to be set up more often than not. The rest I won’t go into.
I just don’t understand why Maggette gets the ball any other way than through that play where he flashes to the front of the basket and recieves a quick pass from the top of the key. That has to be one of the most efficient plays in the NBA when you take into account how often he gets fouled on it. The fact that we allow him to run isolations on the perimeter (or ANYthing else, for that matter) is a testament to our poor coaching.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
I love that play. If the Cavs ran that play, LeBron James could easily have 10 points a game from just that.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Dec 8, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
3's are boring, I'd rather know how you learned how much spunk a half-naked British policewoman has?
How many championships have been won by 3 happy teams? How many easy fouls not rung up by 3 point shooters? How many rebounds missed by teams featuring 3 point shooters?
If the knicks are doing it , is a poor argument for shooting too many threes. How many do the Lakers or Cleveland take is what you should be asking?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 8, 2009 7:04 PM PST reply actions
Top 10 teams in 3FG/FG last season, from the Hollinger piece Owen linked to (as of the end of March):
Orlando
Cleveland
Portland
Indiana
San Antonio
Houston
Atlanta
New Orleans
New York
New Jersey
Remember: this isn’t which teams shot their threes most wisely, judiciously, or efficiently — but simply which teams shot them the most.
The top 10 teams [in 3FGA] are winning at a .611 clip, the bottom 10 teams at a .404 pace.
Perhaps “where do we sign up?” is what we should be asking. Why so skeptical?
There will be no extra point!
To be fair, it’s partly a question of whether 3’s cause wins, or having good/dominant players cause both 3’s and wins. Orlando, Cleveland, and SA get so many 3s up because their dominant players force the defense to pick their poison, leading to an inordinate number of open shooters. On the other hand, the strategy “let’s chuck 3’s” without that dominant star (Indiana, NY) doesn’t make winning teams. Of course, those teams are undertalented anyway, so one can’t claim that shooting the 3’s made them worse off. Nevertheless, saying “teams that shoot 3’s win, so let’s shoot more 3’s” won’t always work.
It’s like the midrange jumper- “the most inefficient shot in the game.” But as a player there are times when you know you have a good midrange shot, numbers be damned, and you should take it. Even watching on TV we can tell that a Dirk fadeaway over a smaller man, or Monta pulling up with the defender out of position- those are acceptable shots to take. Clearly, the answer is not to come down court with the intention of shooting a midrange jumper, but eschewing them wholly is just as bad. This, I think, is what they mean by “flow of the offense,” and cliche as it is I think it’s often more helpful than blindly following the numbers.
So where do we fit on the 3’s spectrum? Morrow could probably shoot more. The other guys, CJ, Curry, and Radman, don’t look as confident on contested 3’s yet; I don’t think the marginal return on 3s is very good. Sadly, until we find that dominant player, our wins are going to be flukes and we should expect to lose. Stars change everything. Wish we had one.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
by antihero on Dec 9, 2009 12:16 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t entirely disagree with any sentiment you espouse, but some important caveats:
1) You acknowledge that the Knicks and Pacers would be bad teams whether or not they took tons of threes… the question is whether or not the strategy makes them better or worse. In the case of the Knicks, it rather obviously makes them better — the threes-early-and-often offense sneaks them far closer to credible than they otherwise would be. The Pacers are not evidently helped by their emphasis on the three-pointer, but they’re shooting .304 from beyond the arc, as compared to our .379. We could stand a pretty big deterioration in our accuracy due to greater shooting volume and still finish way, way ahead of the Pacers.
2) We’re not talking about eschewing any available midrange jumper, nor are we talking about taking more contested threes. CJ and Morrow both shoot whenever given the chance, but Curry and Vlad each pass up a couple open threes per night… we’re not capitalizing on every open three defenses give us. Moreover, it’s not as simple as forcing more three-point shots into our current offensive alignment. We could put more energy into getting guys open behind the line, as opposed to getting guys open anywhere beyond 12 feet.
3) Our wins are going to be flukes, and we should expect to lose. Having said that, we should still do everything we can to win as often as possible. There just isn’t any reason to think that MontaMania is the best that we can do; we’re on pace to have our worst offense in years, and we’re exhausting our marquee player for the privilege. In a lost season, it’s reasonable to try something new, especially when all available statistics suggests that that new strategy will bear fruit. You don’t have to believe a three-for-all will make us good… you just have to believe that a three-for-all will make us better. And none of this “pick your poison” talk negates the basic truth that shooting a lot of threes is a good idea for a bad team.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
I’d add in terms of trying to get guys open for the 3, not all 3’s are created equal. Across the league, the percentage on corner 3s, where the shot is a bit closer, is noticeably better than it is at the top of the arc.
Of course, it’s difficult to have a shooter camp in the corner as if he’s not firing the shot, he’s not going to have the same options for advancing the ball as he would at the top of the arc. If you have a guy like Howard to dump the ball into in the paint, that’s less of an issue. If you don’t, you don’t want to regularly have the ball trapped in the corner. This means if you’re trying for that shot, it needs to be the result of good ball movement and player movement. (No, I didn’t expect that to be particularly insightful. Ball movement and moving without the ball are hardly novel, though it seems at times as though for the Warriors, it is a novelty.)
But regardless of where the threes come from, presently, the 3 is a good shot for us. With an average TS% of ~54% across the league, our rate of return on 3s is presently well above average and exceeds our rate of return on 2 pt attempts, even factoring in the likelihood of being fouled. Is it possible that the 3pt percentage would decline with more attempts? Sure, but I doubt very, very much that we’re operating near an optimal point given our personnel’s abilities.
by jae on Dec 9, 2009 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
All true and good points — the corner three is ideal. The Warriors do seem to have some awareness of that… the closest thing we have to a consistent play right now may be Monta driving and kicking it crosscourt, under the basket, to CJ or Morrow for a three. But yeah, it’s not a shot we’re going to be able to create much, without a frontcourt player that commands at least a little attention.
Sure, but I doubt very, very much that we’re operating near an optimal point given our personnel’s abilities.
Just to drive this point home: through last Friday’s games (man, I wish 82games had the resources to update more frequently), 69% of our shots were jumpers. That ties us for third in the league with Dallas and OKC; only the Pacers and Wizards shoot a higher percentage of jumpers than we do. Jump shots are pretty inefficient shots unless you’re taking them from behind the arc. Smart teams realize that — about 54% of the Magic’s jumpers are three-point attempts. Only about 30% of our jumpers are three-point attempts. That’s dumb.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Moreover, it’s not as simple as forcing more three-point shots into our current offensive alignment. We could put more energy into getting guys open behind the line, as opposed to getting guys open anywhere beyond 12 feet.
How do we make this happen?
Curry and Vlad each pass up a couple open threes per night
Since shooters generally like to shoot 3’s I’m guessing they pass up them up because they really do not feel confident on that particular shot. As a shooter you just get that feeling- you didn’t catch it right, your feet are too close, whatever it may be. The coaching staff shouldn’t force players to take shots they’re not comfortable with, and probably have a 10-20% chance of making as a result.
I really just think offense should be an organic, reactionary process, controlled the “invisible hand,” if you will. Attempting to redistribute resources (shots) from a coach’s standpoint tends to fail for one reason or another. Obviously the coaches should establish a general gameplan, a few ground rules for the players. One of the conflicts, then, is to what extent running specific plays for specific ends interferes with players’ abilities to improvise. Players should be able to work within the framework of a play while maintaining the creativity and flexibility to try other options and get a bucket.
Clearly I have stretched this contrived analogy too far, but (without any solid evidence) I really do think this is how successful offenses work.
An empty barrel makes the most noise.
How do we make this happen?
Pick-and-rolls behind the arc? We’re already doing a fair number of those. Quicker, more D’Antoni-like passing around the horn? Shooters committing to positions behind the line when Monta starts to isolate. I mean, there are things you can do. There are teams without post presences that shoot threes to good effect. It’s not impossible.
The coaching staff shouldn’t force players to take shots they’re not comfortable with, and probably have a 10-20% chance of making as a result.
It’s not about forcing a guy to shot he’s not comfortable wish… it’s about telling a guy not to shoot as often from 18 feet, because it’s not a high-percentage play. Smart offenses orient themselves around the most effective types of scoring: threes, drives and free throws. We have some of each, but we also let guys take other, less advantageous shots as well. We don’t actually have to do that.
I really just think offense should be an organic, reactionary process, controlled the "invisible hand," if you will.
It’s an apt analogy, but only if, like me, you believe in behavioral economics. Much like markets, organic offenses are subject to biases that make them less efficient than simple theories would suggest. Saying the “invisible hand” is the best offensive guide is to suggest that guys like Monta Ellis and Corey Maggette are rational actors. They’re not, because they think eighteen-foot jump shots are more valuable than they actually are. The Warriors’ offensive market is malfunctioning because of biases like these. What we need is some regulatory reform.
Clearly I have stretched this contrived analogy too far, but (without any solid evidence) I really do think this is how successful offenses work.
Successful offenses like Phil Jackson’s, which have taken ten of the last nineteen championships? Phil’s had historic talents, but ask Jordan or Shaq or Kobe if they would’ve been as successful without the triangle offense. All three seem pretty convinced that it was important.
Some offenses can get by in a laissez-faire sort of way, but you need the talent to pull that off. Nellie didn’t have to draw up many plays when we had Baron, because he was versatile and dynamic enough to find opportunities in the moment. We just don’t have anybody like that right now; neither Monta nor Curry passes as well as Baron, and neither has his post game. Monta can improvise by driving to the hoop, but that’s his only improvisation, and defenses are well aware of it at this point. Improvisation has not been getting this offense very far. And let’s be clear: it didn’t get us all that far with Baron, either. The Baron’ll-figure-it-out offenses were good, but never great.
The ‘07-’08 Atlanta Hawks went 37-45; the ‘08-’09 Hawks went 47-35, with a slightly weaker lineup (Josh Childress had been downgraded into Maurice Evans) and no real leaps from any one player. The two teams performed almost identically across the board, with one exception: the ‘07-’08 team took 13 three-pointers a night, and the ‘08-’09 team took 20. That one little change — giving themselves a shot at an extra point seven times a night — took them from having slightly worse offenses than their opponents to slightly better offenses than their opponents, and that was enough for a ten-game improvement.
Our offense, and our team, is not good enough to justify sticking with the status quo for its own sake. We have a wealth of three-point shooters, and we are not currently prioritizing that. Call that organic or Hayekian or whatever you like… it’s a mistake. This is what you have coaches for.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Cool post
I’m afraid that this great discovery tells us moreso that “we are a bad offensive team, that’s why we can’t create more 3pt shooting opportunities” rather than “if we shoot more 3-pointers, we will be a better offensive team.”
This shouldn’t tell us that we need to start chucking up garbage like the New York Knicks. It shows that if you are a good offensive team, you will have more wide-open 3point shots.
Orlando shoots alot of 3’s because they have Dwight Howard in the middle drawing attention and they have a good PG who will find shooters. Cleveland has Lebron driving and kicking out to open 3pt shooters. These teams shoot alot of 3’s because they can get into the paint regularly (by driving or by posting up) and have willing passers who swing the ball.
We have nothing like this. At all. Monta can get into the paint almost at will, but he’s not good at finding (and passing to) open shooters. And even if Monta draws attention and he makes the pass, the rest of our team doesn’t have the natural instincts to swing the ball to the open shooter. That’s what happens when you assemble a roster full of shooters/black-holes.
"We Deserve"
While I do think you’re onto something, I think some of it is the good teams (or at least some of them) take 3’s. Yes, Orlando has Dwight, and obviously that has an effect, but they’ve also actively acquired 3 point shooters to surround him with. Lewis, Carter, Anderson, Pietrus (not in their class but still good enough to count), Redick, Nelson. Shooting 3’s is definitely an objective for that team beyond simply being a product of Dwight Howard, and they’ve been successful at it.
by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
In addition to having good 3pt shooters, they also create alot of open opportunities for their shooters with their offense.
We have premier 3pt shooters as well (Morrow, Watson, Azubuike), but our offense isn’t quite at the level where we can create alot of open opportunities for them. That’s the difference.
"We Deserve"
Agreed, we don’t have anything even close to resembling an inside presence to do it, and won’t anytime soon, so we basically need some of our slashers (looking at you, Monta) to develop their game to help get those guys shots.
by Missing Barry on Dec 8, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions
right now though....
it’s just a huge mess if we consider fact we r missing the bulk of our wings. And by bulk i mean buike, considering we let belinelli walk, jack traded, and a year before harrington/crawford.
Sadly even if biedrins and turiaf come back, we still are SORELY lacking on wings. I mean curry and morrow r good but behind them?
We could start by adding a guy who can play 4 and shoot 3s...
Ilyasova i like. I wouldn’t mind poaching Gomes from minnesota or Jared dudley from phoenix for your less obvious choices (dirk would work too..)….
perhaps speedy could obtain them (financial relief/cap room in 2010?)
While any of those guys would be useful, none of them is a wildly more useful spacing four than Radmanovic: Ilyasova’s a worse three-point shooter, Dudley’s a worse rebounder, and Gomes, while a bit better at most things, is even worse than Vlad at making noise around the rim.
Our problem is not lack of manpower… we have the horses to play a small, three-intensive style. Our problem is the lack of either willingness or ability to carry it out. Teams with less outside firepower than ours are profiting from letting it fly early and often. It’s a silly mistake that we’re not keeping pace with them.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
true
Rad’s shooting slump has got me disillusioned I guess, but career numbers indicate he’s a better bet.
However RIGHT NOW we do lack the man power at positions 1 thru 3. We have 4 players healthy and until bell comes back, we won’t have more for remainder of season. I don’t like mags or radmonovic at the SF position TBH.
I like Maggette at the three a whole lot better than I like him at the four, but I agree on Radmanovic, and it’s true… we’re low on bodies. Having said that, shooting more threes won’t tire them out more than they already are, so there’s no reason not to give it a whirl.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
This shouldn’t tell us that we need to start chucking up garbage like the New York Knicks. It shows that if you are a good offensive team, you will have more wide-open 3point shots.
Not to beat a dead horse, but here’s the thing: the gap between our offensive talent and the Knicks’ offensive talent is enormous. The gap between our offensive results and the Knicks’ offensive results is pretty small. The reason? They shoot a lot of threes, and we don’t.
I agree that our engaging in three-point-mania wouldn’t be nearly as effective as Orlando doing it… without a threatening big to draw double-teams, this strategy’s upside is not all that big. But the point is, what we’re doing right now kind of sucks. It’s fun to watch Monta go for it constantly, but he doesn’t score often enough, or retain possession often enough, for The Monta Ellis Show to be a viable NBA offense. A three-pointer-obsessed offense would net more benefits than this one.
On your final point: we actually have been swinging the ball to the open shooter pretty consistently since Jack left… the “selfish” talking point just doesn’t hold water anymore. Our problem is not a willingness to find the open man. Our problem is ensuring that that open man is standing behind the three-point line. Crappier teams than ours do this, and profit from it. It’s time we opened our eyes.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
- The Facebook campaign to hire Will Ferrell for All-Star Game player intros is underway
- Video: Meet the infamous bearded guy that goes nuts by the 76ers’ bench
- Video: Russell Westbrook makes the TNT crew go nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
