Too many three's: time for a change?

[LilRip]

I'm sure you've posted or thought about it: this team takes too many three's. There's nothing with the three point shot per se, but when you're one of the league leaders in 3PA but only middle of the pack in %, that doesn't seem like a very efficient use of possessions.

CBS is a great tactician but wouldn't it better serve our players if he put them in sets that play to their strengths rather than giving them the green light to just bomb away? Most of the time, it feels like the C's take the first 3 pointer they see after a couple of passes because "it's there". On a hot night, it's a recipe for a blowout. But on an average to cold night, C's will shoot themselves out of games.

[Bobshot]

If you want to make the 3 a big part of your game, you better have a few guys who can make more than 33% of them. That's the cutoff point. The Celtics had Bird and Ainge, two guys who could shoot the 3 well. But they also had Parish and McHale, two guys who could rebound who played closer to the basket. They had balance.

The current team has no such balance. Horford, the one big who can rebound, is encouraged to shoot the 3.

When you miss 67% of your shots, you better have somebody inside who can get you a 2nd shot. Or you're dead.

[A Future of Stevens]

The way the game is set up, even if you are only middle of the pack in 3P% it still behooves you to take a lot of 3s.

A very simplistic math example of this would be say you were given 20 shots. Say you shot 45% from 2 as a team and 33% from 3 as a team.

On the 2pters you would score 18 pts (.45x20x2)

On the 3pters you would score 19.8 pts.

Granted its a very quick example, and I am sure I am off on the percentages, but even if you shot 50% from 2pt and 30% from 3, you would score 20 and 18 respectively. And those are extremely high and low percentages for each.

[droopdog7]

Look at our roster and tell me what they're good at offensively.  This offense probably is their best shot.

[Rosco917]

Look at our roster and tell me what they're good at offensively.  This offense probably is their best shot.

Good point, The C's are right on that border line, being in the middle of the NBA pack, as far as a competent 3 point shooting teams.

We don't have enough players that can score off the dribble or create their own shot. At this point taking 3's may be the most efficient way we can score. 

[oldtype]

The Celtics shoot 35% from three and 50.6% from two. 

3 x .35 = 1.05

2x .506 = 1.012

Math.

[bdm860]

The Celtics shoot 35% from three and 50.6% from two. 

3 x .35 = 1.05

2x .506 = 1.012

Math.

Except your math is missing one huge variable, free throws, of which the C's shoot 80%.

Do you think the team is more likely to get to the line or get an and-one shooting 2's or 3's?  When you factor in free throws, I believe it moves the needle over to the 2 pointers.

If we assume the C's get to the line 10% of the time and get and-one's 2% of the time when shooting 2's vs. only getting fouled 1% of the time and getting an and-one an insignificant number of times when shooting 3's, the math would look more like:

3 * .350 * .99 + 3 * .80 * .01 = 1.0635
2 * .506 * .90 + 2 * .80 * .10 + 1 * .80 * .02 = 1.0868

I don't think the math is as straightforward as you make it.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

The Celtics shoot 35% from three and 50.6% from two. 

3 x .35 = 1.05

2x .506 = 1.012

Math.

Except your math is missing one huge variable, free throws, of which the C's shoot 80%.

Do you think the team is more likely to get to the line or get an and-one shooting 2's or 3's?  When you factor in free throws, I believe it moves the needle over to the 2 pointers.

If we assume the C's get to the line 10% of the time and get and-one's 2% of the time when shooting 2's vs. only getting fouled 1% of the time and getting an and-one an insignificant number of times when shooting 3's, the math would look more like:

3 * .350 * .99 + 3 * .80 * .01 = 1.0635
2 * .506 * .90 + 2 * .80 * .10 + 1 * .80 * .02 = 1.0868

I don't think the math is as straightforward as you make it.

Add to that how threes and long rebounds lend to fast breaks for the other teams and good looks, which hurts our defense.

I don't mind us shooting a ton of threes, but that should be considered too.

[Chris22]

Brad knows what he is doing.

[nickagneta]

Given the personnel and how statistically the Cs are shooting well enough to break even or exceed shooting 2s by shooting threes, I dont see the need for change. We have exactly 1 player that has any success at taking it to the rim and that player is also the only one that can drive and dish during a drive to the hoop. We are who we are. Shoot the threes until other options(players that can drive to the hoop, players that can create their own offense from anywhere, players that can score and play in the paint) arrive.

[bdm860]

The Celtics shoot 35% from three and 50.6% from two. 

3 x .35 = 1.05

2x .506 = 1.012

Math.

Except your math is missing one huge variable, free throws, of which the C's shoot 80%.

Do you think the team is more likely to get to the line or get an and-one shooting 2's or 3's?  When you factor in free throws, I believe it moves the needle over to the 2 pointers.

If we assume the C's get to the line 10% of the time and get and-one's 2% of the time when shooting 2's vs. only getting fouled 1% of the time and getting an and-one an insignificant number of times when shooting 3's, the math would look more like:

3 * .350 * .99 + 3 * .80 * .01 = 1.0635
2 * .506 * .90 + 2 * .80 * .10 + 1 * .80 * .02 = 1.0868

I don't think the math is as straightforward as you make it.

Add to that how threes and long rebounds lend to fast breaks for the other teams and good looks, which hurts our defense.

I don't mind us shooting a ton of threes, but that should be considered too.

Actually, I kind of think shooting threes increases the odds of the C's getting the offensive board, since their ball handers, wings, and swings seem to be better rebounders than their bigs.

Definitely something to consider though, and you help back up my point, this calc is not just as simple as FG% * Points.  There's other variables to consider.

[LilRip]

Scoring 2's doesn't mean creating a shot by driving to the hoop nor does it mean not shooting threes at all. Given how people are structuring their "math" argument, it's sounding like we should just exclusively be shooting threes.

I think the focus should be on cutting hard to the basket and leading with passes, or starting possessions with post ups, rather than having the three pointer as the first option. This team does it at times, but very often, the default is to hang back or pick and pop, and shoot three after three after three. Note, these aren't even corner three's which more often than not are good shots. These are top of the key or wing three's.

[rayallen_35_24]

Brad knows what he is doing.

(drops the microphone)