When did Bradley become a chucker?

[kozlodoev]

For the record, two-point shooting can improve too. And even if Sullinger ends up shooting .450 on long jumpers, and .300 from the three, which is a completely reasonable expectation, three pointers will still not be a better weapon for him.

I disagree.  Because it is not just about shooting percentages, it is about getting the shots, and floor spacing for the team.  If Sully becomes a decent three point shooter, it is going to open up the floor for him inside, and for the rest of his teammates.  It is an incredibly valuable skill to have that goes well beyond simple numbers.  Just ask Kevin Love.  He didn't make the leap just because his three point shooting gave him more points, he made the leap because his three point shooting opened up the rest of the game, and made teams defend him wherever he was on the floor.  That is why Stevens is pushing Sully to shoot that ball.  If he doesn't shoot it, then defenses can ignore him.

This doesn't make any sense. So if you can't shoot the three, and spot up for a 16-18 footer which you can make with regularity, the defense will ignore you and that doesn't stretch the floor?

After observing Garnett and Bass for multiple seasons, I beg to differ.

[byennie]

When it comes down to 2pt versus 3pt the primary consideration is always going to be percentages. Basically, 33% = 50%. Yes, there are other factors, but that's the driving force.

I personally don't like Sullinger shooting threes because I think it's a distraction. He should be establishing his game and then adding that later. However, the coaching staff may believe he's ultimately 35% or so from out there. If that's the case, it's a worthy weapon and as valuable as being an *excellent* shooter on long 2s. I think it's more likely that he can shoot 35% from 3pt than 52.5% on long 2s.

[Chris]

For the record, two-point shooting can improve too. And even if Sullinger ends up shooting .450 on long jumpers, and .300 from the three, which is a completely reasonable expectation, three pointers will still not be a better weapon for him.

I disagree.  Because it is not just about shooting percentages, it is about getting the shots, and floor spacing for the team.  If Sully becomes a decent three point shooter, it is going to open up the floor for him inside, and for the rest of his teammates.  It is an incredibly valuable skill to have that goes well beyond simple numbers.  Just ask Kevin Love.  He didn't make the leap just because his three point shooting gave him more points, he made the leap because his three point shooting opened up the rest of the game, and made teams defend him wherever he was on the floor.  That is why Stevens is pushing Sully to shoot that ball.  If he doesn't shoot it, then defenses can ignore him.

This doesn't make any sense. So if you can't shoot the three, and spot up for a 16-18 footer which you can make with regularity, the defense will ignore you and that doesn't stretch the floor?

After observing Garnett and Bass for multiple seasons, I beg to differ.

Sure it makes sense.  You are just misinterpreting what I am saying.

I am saying that the more range he adds to his jumpshot, the more the floor opens up.  Pretty simple.  And if he only has the 18 footer, then when he steps beyond 18 feet, he doesn't need to be guarded, which allows defenders to sag way off him, clog up passing and driving lanes.

In todays NBA, with the length and athleticism of these players, and their ability to clog the lane, they really need to space the floor as much as possible, which has made big men who can shoot threes a really hot commodity. 

Also, KG shooting the 18 footer and Sully shooting it are a bit different, just because of their release points.  Sully needs a lot more room to shoot than KG, because he doesn't get the lift or have the high release point of KG.  So, it is actually harder to get open 18 footers for Sully than it is for KG, who is basically open, even when he isn't. 

[kozlodoev]

For the record, two-point shooting can improve too. And even if Sullinger ends up shooting .450 on long jumpers, and .300 from the three, which is a completely reasonable expectation, three pointers will still not be a better weapon for him.

I disagree.  Because it is not just about shooting percentages, it is about getting the shots, and floor spacing for the team.  If Sully becomes a decent three point shooter, it is going to open up the floor for him inside, and for the rest of his teammates.  It is an incredibly valuable skill to have that goes well beyond simple numbers.  Just ask Kevin Love.  He didn't make the leap just because his three point shooting gave him more points, he made the leap because his three point shooting opened up the rest of the game, and made teams defend him wherever he was on the floor.  That is why Stevens is pushing Sully to shoot that ball.  If he doesn't shoot it, then defenses can ignore him.

This doesn't make any sense. So if you can't shoot the three, and spot up for a 16-18 footer which you can make with regularity, the defense will ignore you and that doesn't stretch the floor?

After observing Garnett and Bass for multiple seasons, I beg to differ.

Sure it makes sense.  You are just misinterpreting what I am saying.

I am saying that the more range he adds to his jumpshot, the more the floor opens up.  Pretty simple.  And if he only has the 18 footer, then when he steps beyond 18 feet, he doesn't need to be guarded, which allows defenders to sag way off him, clog up passing and driving lanes.

I've highlighted the sentence I commented on. Defense can only ignore him if he's actually in a position that  can be ignored. So if you can't shoot threes, don't shoot threes, and are not further than 18 feet from the basket, defenses can't ignore you all the same.

Sullinger may be different than Garnett, but I don't think someone like Bass or even Scola has a much higher release point -- and it's working just fine for them.

Also, there's a discussion to be had about propping one of your better offensive rebounders at the three point line.

[Interceptor]

Also, there's a discussion to be had about propping one of your better offensive rebounders at the three point line.

There is -- and I am on record as saying I don't like Sully take threes for this exact reason -- however a bricked three tends to be a long rebound anyway.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Also, there's a discussion to be had about propping one of your better offensive rebounders at the three point line.

There is -- and I am on record as saying I don't like Sully take threes for this exact reason -- however a bricked three tends to be a long rebound anyway.

The thing also is that rarely the player taking a shot is the one in position to get an offensive rebound regardless...unless it's a shot at the rim.

So, to me the fact that Sully is away from the basket and not in position to grab an offensive rebound while taking a 3 should not be an issue to be considered too strongly.

Unless you guys are proposing that Sully should only take shots near the rim, or not shoot at all...

I saw a line of "5 three pointers per game" as a comparable to exaggerate the situation, when Sully has taken more than 2 threes in a game only 3 times, and 5 threes in solely one game (which was the last one, which included one or two at the end of the shot clock which he was forced to put up, and one that was from half court to end a quarter).

And in that last game, where he took "five" 3-pointers, he grabbed 4 offensive rebounds, and that's the most he's grabbed this season if not mistaken (and as an aside, we won the rebounding battle in that game).

[kozlodoev]

I saw a line of "5 three pointers per game" as a comparable to exaggerate the situation, when Sully has taken more than 2 threes in a game only 3 times, and 5 threes in solely one game (which was the last one, which included one or two at the end of the shot clock which he was forced to put up, and one that was from half court to end a quarter).

He's currently launching close to 4 three-pointers per 36 minutes (and over 5 per 48), so this is not as exaggerated as it may seem.

[Chris]

For the record, two-point shooting can improve too. And even if Sullinger ends up shooting .450 on long jumpers, and .300 from the three, which is a completely reasonable expectation, three pointers will still not be a better weapon for him.

I disagree.  Because it is not just about shooting percentages, it is about getting the shots, and floor spacing for the team.  If Sully becomes a decent three point shooter, it is going to open up the floor for him inside, and for the rest of his teammates.  It is an incredibly valuable skill to have that goes well beyond simple numbers.  Just ask Kevin Love.  He didn't make the leap just because his three point shooting gave him more points, he made the leap because his three point shooting opened up the rest of the game, and made teams defend him wherever he was on the floor.  That is why Stevens is pushing Sully to shoot that ball.  If he doesn't shoot it, then defenses can ignore him.

This doesn't make any sense. So if you can't shoot the three, and spot up for a 16-18 footer which you can make with regularity, the defense will ignore you and that doesn't stretch the floor?

After observing Garnett and Bass for multiple seasons, I beg to differ.

Sure it makes sense.  You are just misinterpreting what I am saying.

I am saying that the more range he adds to his jumpshot, the more the floor opens up.  Pretty simple.  And if he only has the 18 footer, then when he steps beyond 18 feet, he doesn't need to be guarded, which allows defenders to sag way off him, clog up passing and driving lanes.

I've highlighted the sentence I commented on. Defense can only ignore him if he's actually in a position that  can be ignored. So if you can't shoot threes, don't shoot threes, and are not further than 18 feet from the basket, defenses can't ignore you all the same.

Sullinger may be different than Garnett, but I don't think someone like Bass or even Scola has a much higher release point -- and it's working just fine for them.

Also, there's a discussion to be had about propping one of your better offensive rebounders at the three point line.

I know what sentence you are referring too.  And I am saying you are picking a minor comment and trying to take it out of context of the actual argument I am making.

As for comparing Bass with Sully, I simply have higher hopes for Sully.  I think if Bass could shoot 3's, he would be a significantly better player than he is, rather than a one dimensional role player.  Scola also could be better if he shot 3's. 

[kozlodoev]

As for comparing Bass with Sully, I simply have higher hopes for Sully.  I think if Bass could shoot 3's, he would be a significantly better player than he is, rather than a one dimensional role player.  Scola also could be better if he shot 3's.

Yes, but given that not every player can master every shot, and the degrees of mastery will be different, some  choices will have to be made -- otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And I don't think the choice with Sullinger is a good one for all the reasons I've already listed in this thread.

[Chris]

Also, there's a discussion to be had about propping one of your better offensive rebounders at the three point line.

There is -- and I am on record as saying I don't like Sully take threes for this exact reason -- however a bricked three tends to be a long rebound anyway.

It also is more complicated than that. 

Kevin Love averages 3.5 offensive rebounds per game, and also shoots 6 threes a game.  Sully still averages 2 offensive rebounds per game in just about 20 minutes, which is essentially the same rate he was at last year.

It is a missed conception that rebounders need to be playing close to the hoop to grab offensive rebounders.  In fact, the best offensive rebounders (other than the few rare guys who just are so big they grab everything, like say, Andrew Bynum), are guys who are mobile and keep moving.  And that is what Sully (and Love) do when they play on the perimeter.  They don't stand in one place, waiting for the ball.  They are in constant motion, and can see the ball going up and get in position. 

This is also why Rondo is such a good offensive rebounder.  He doesn't play under the basket.  He just reads the play, and from the perimeter, he is able to read the shots, and see where the rebound is going to go. 

Sully is at his best, when he uses the whole court.  He does damage in the low-post, high-post, and on the perimeter.  And he is constantly moving, setting picks, and moving the ball as part of the offense.  He disappears when he stays in one place. 

So, I think having him add this as part of his game, and keep him moving just helps him stay active, and often gives him good reads on offensive rebounds. 

[Chris]

As for comparing Bass with Sully, I simply have higher hopes for Sully.  I think if Bass could shoot 3's, he would be a significantly better player than he is, rather than a one dimensional role player.  Scola also could be better if he shot 3's.

Yes, but given that not every player can master every shot, and the degrees of mastery will be different, some  choices will have to be made -- otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And I don't think the choice with Sullinger is a good one for all the reasons I've already listed in this thread.

Oh absolutely.  There is a reason why they are not having Bass shoot threes.  But Sully has great form, and has been working on the three pointer for a number of years now.  He has the ability to hit the shot, and they see that. 

Just like Olynyk, who didn't shoot a ton of threes when he first got to college has the form to transition even more to the perimeter in the pros, Sully has that too.  It has been a gradual progression from being primarily just an inside guy in highschool to moving further away from the basket each year.  Adding the college three his sophomore year, working on the NBA three last year and now adding it to his in-game repertoire this year.

This is how new skills are added.  You identify whether it fits within your abilities (and I think the C's and Sully strongly believe this does), and then you practice it, and implement it over time. 

Kevin Love did the exact same thing.  Barely shot any threes as a rookie, and then gradually started adding them to his repertoire, and gradually improving. 

[kozlodoev]

.

[kozlodoev]

As for comparing Bass with Sully, I simply have higher hopes for Sully.  I think if Bass could shoot 3's, he would be a significantly better player than he is, rather than a one dimensional role player.  Scola also could be better if he shot 3's.

Yes, but given that not every player can master every shot, and the degrees of mastery will be different, some  choices will have to be made -- otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And I don't think the choice with Sullinger is a good one for all the reasons I've already listed in this thread.

Oh absolutely.  There is a reason why they are not having Bass shoot threes.  But Sully has great form, and has been working on the three pointer for a number of years now.  He has the ability to hit the shot, and they see that. 

Just like Olynyk, who didn't shoot a ton of threes when he first got to college has the form to transition even more to the perimeter in the pros, Sully has that too.  It has been a gradual progression from being primarily just an inside guy in highschool to moving further away from the basket each year.  Adding the college three his sophomore year, working on the NBA three last year and now adding it to his in-game repertoire this year.

This is how new skills are added.  You identify whether it fits within your abilities (and I think the C's and Sully strongly believe this does), and then you practice it, and implement it over time. 

Kevin Love did the exact same thing.  Barely shot any threes as a rookie, and then gradually started adding them to his repertoire, and gradually improving.

Kevin Love never shot less than .330 from three in a season where he took more than 100 three pointers. Sullinger is on pace to take 160 (that's given that his minutes per game don't change). Just saying.

Also, I don't know how Sullinger has practiced the three for a "number of years", given he didn't shoot any last season, and the college three is pretty much the long jumper I'm advocating he should take.

It is a missed conception that rebounders need to be playing close to the hoop to grab offensive rebounders.  In fact, the best offensive rebounders (other than the few rare guys who just are so big they grab everything, like say, Andrew Bynum), are guys who are mobile and keep moving.  And that is what Sully (and Love) do when they play on the perimeter.  They don't stand in one place, waiting for the ball.  They are in constant motion, and can see the ball going up and get in position.

I pulled a list of the best offensive rebounders in the league, by rate, from last year, and saw exactly zero guys that play on the perimeter.

[Chris]

As for comparing Bass with Sully, I simply have higher hopes for Sully.  I think if Bass could shoot 3's, he would be a significantly better player than he is, rather than a one dimensional role player.  Scola also could be better if he shot 3's.

Yes, but given that not every player can master every shot, and the degrees of mastery will be different, some  choices will have to be made -- otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And I don't think the choice with Sullinger is a good one for all the reasons I've already listed in this thread.

Oh absolutely.  There is a reason why they are not having Bass shoot threes.  But Sully has great form, and has been working on the three pointer for a number of years now.  He has the ability to hit the shot, and they see that. 

Just like Olynyk, who didn't shoot a ton of threes when he first got to college has the form to transition even more to the perimeter in the pros, Sully has that too.  It has been a gradual progression from being primarily just an inside guy in highschool to moving further away from the basket each year.  Adding the college three his sophomore year, working on the NBA three last year and now adding it to his in-game repertoire this year.

This is how new skills are added.  You identify whether it fits within your abilities (and I think the C's and Sully strongly believe this does), and then you practice it, and implement it over time. 

Kevin Love did the exact same thing.  Barely shot any threes as a rookie, and then gradually started adding them to his repertoire, and gradually improving.

Kevin Love never shot less than .330 from three in a season where he took more than 100 three pointers. Sullinger is on pace to take 160 (that's given that his minutes per game don't change). Just saying.

Also, I don't know how Sullinger has practiced the three for a "number of years", given he didn't shoot any last season, and the college three is pretty much the long jumper I'm advocating he should take.

It is a missed conception that rebounders need to be playing close to the hoop to grab offensive rebounders.  In fact, the best offensive rebounders (other than the few rare guys who just are so big they grab everything, like say, Andrew Bynum), are guys who are mobile and keep moving.  And that is what Sully (and Love) do when they play on the perimeter.  They don't stand in one place, waiting for the ball.  They are in constant motion, and can see the ball going up and get in position.

I pulled a list of the best offensive rebounders in the league, by rate, from last year, and saw exactly zero guys that play on the perimeter.

I think we just just have to agree to disagree on this.  I believe in a well balanced game for Sully, and this is all a part of it. 

[kozlodoev]

I think we just just have to agree to disagree on this.  I believe in a well balanced game for Sully, and this is all a part of it.

That's interesting, because I consider a PF who can rebound, score inside, and hit a 18-foot jump shot pretty balanced.