Sullinger and Olynyk duo

[mgent]

Interesting comment tonight on the telecast -- one of those "from the huddle" tidbits -- KO and Sully are apparently being told to take "in rhythm" three-pointers. That's interesting. I guess the directive is coming from the top.

Did anyone not think this was the case?  It's the smart thing to do and Stevens is a smart coach.

Having sub-30% shooters take sub-30% shots with regularity is a smart thing?

Probably takes time to learn to shoot 3's in game.

I reckon it's smarter than basing your entire offense around long 2's, the worst shot in basketball.

The 3 seems to be a nice weapon to have.

It's smarter to take a shot that you're going to make with regularity.

But I reckon you believe that everyone's bound to learn if they unload enough bricks in actual games, so there's no point convincing you?

It's not like Olynyk doesn't have the range. I'm sure you've read about this (as I myself found out about this in CB) but in case you haven't, Olynyk did very very well in a drill called the 'Jazz 100 drill'. Apparently he came in second best in the 3 point shooting drill, and the drill is usually reserved for non-big players.

Draftexpress noted Sullinger has range and has tried to expand to the 3 point line in college.

If it were bigs who have zero history and/or indication that they have any ability to shoot 3's, I would probably agree with you.

But I see 2 bigs with less than a year of NBA experience learning a new style of basketball.

This year being what it is, why the hell not.




I'm not just talking about the duo, though. Currently the team sits at 20th in 3's attempted versus finishing 27th last year.

I remember long 2's being the worst shot in basketball is pretty much proven to be factual (I think it might even have been explored in a front page article on CB).

Attempting less of those and more 3's with a team that doesn't have much firepower in the paint seems smart.

Not completely ignoring an entire facade of the game (which Doc seems to have done) that has a high payoff, that is very much used on many of the top teams of the NBA, is also smart.

Hitting 63% of your wide open 3s in practice is probably what most in-game 30% shooters can do.  I'm inclined to give KO and Sully some more time, but success in shooting drills doesn't always translate to the actual game.

[kozlodoev]

Having sub-30% shooters take sub-30% shots with regularity is a smart thing?

So, are you implying that Stevens is some kind of idiot? He's the one who wants them to take open threes, after all.

I don't know, you tell me. All I know is that I see two guys who have had little success shooting threes in college, little success shooting threes in Summer League, little success shooting threes in preseason, and now -- little success shooting threes in actual NBA games. It's not a small sample issue, it's been happening with regularity at any level they've played at.

And yes, when you're a sub-30% three-point shooter you're going to get a ton of wide open threes. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to take them.

[kozlodoev]

Hitting 63% of your wide open 3s in practice is probably what most in-game 30% shooters can do.  I'm inclined to give KO and Sully some more time, but success in shooting drills doesn't always translate to the actual game.

That is all.

[D.o.s.]

Having sub-30% shooters take sub-30% shots with regularity is a smart thing?

So, are you implying that Stevens is some kind of idiot? He's the one who wants them to take open threes, after all.

I don't know, you tell me. All I know is that I see two guys who have had little success shooting threes in college, little success shooting threes in Summer League, little success shooting threes in preseason, and now -- little success shooting threes in actual NBA games. It's not a small sample issue, it's been happening with regularity at any level they've played at.

And yes, when you're a sub-30% three-point shooter you're going to get a ton of wide open threes. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to take them.

Pardon me, sir, but I disagree.

[kozlodoev]

Having sub-30% shooters take sub-30% shots with regularity is a smart thing?

So, are you implying that Stevens is some kind of idiot? He's the one who wants them to take open threes, after all.

I don't know, you tell me. All I know is that I see two guys who have had little success shooting threes in college, little success shooting threes in Summer League, little success shooting threes in preseason, and now -- little success shooting threes in actual NBA games. It's not a small sample issue, it's been happening with regularity at any level they've played at.

And yes, when you're a sub-30% three-point shooter you're going to get a ton of wide open threes. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to take them.

Pardon me, sir, but I disagree.

I've got no idea why you're bringing Toine in the discussion. He didn't really want to shoot any threes, only fours.

[D.o.s.]

 

TP.

[pokeKingCurtis]

Interesting comment tonight on the telecast -- one of those "from the huddle" tidbits -- KO and Sully are apparently being told to take "in rhythm" three-pointers. That's interesting. I guess the directive is coming from the top.

Did anyone not think this was the case?  It's the smart thing to do and Stevens is a smart coach.

Having sub-30% shooters take sub-30% shots with regularity is a smart thing?

Probably takes time to learn to shoot 3's in game.

I reckon it's smarter than basing your entire offense around long 2's, the worst shot in basketball.

The 3 seems to be a nice weapon to have.

It's smarter to take a shot that you're going to make with regularity.

But I reckon you believe that everyone's bound to learn if they unload enough bricks in actual games, so there's no point convincing you?

It's not like Olynyk doesn't have the range. I'm sure you've read about this (as I myself found out about this in CB) but in case you haven't, Olynyk did very very well in a drill called the 'Jazz 100 drill'. Apparently he came in second best in the 3 point shooting drill, and the drill is usually reserved for non-big players.

Draftexpress noted Sullinger has range and has tried to expand to the 3 point line in college.

If it were bigs who have zero history and/or indication that they have any ability to shoot 3's, I would probably agree with you.

But I see 2 bigs with less than a year of NBA experience learning a new style of basketball.

This year being what it is, why the hell not.




I'm not just talking about the duo, though. Currently the team sits at 20th in 3's attempted versus finishing 27th last year.

I remember long 2's being the worst shot in basketball is pretty much proven to be factual (I think it might even have been explored in a front page article on CB).

Attempting less of those and more 3's with a team that doesn't have much firepower in the paint seems smart.

Not completely ignoring an entire facade of the game (which Doc seems to have done) that has a high payoff, that is very much used on many of the top teams of the NBA, is also smart.

Hitting 63% of your wide open 3s in practice is probably what most in-game 30% shooters can do.  I'm inclined to give KO and Sully some more time, but success in shooting drills doesn't always translate to the actual game.

Well apparently for that particular drill, Olynyk made the second most 3's that "anyone" did.

By "anyone" they probably meant anyone in the combine that year.

Of course, I'm very well aware that 3's in practice do not translate to 3's in games, obviously. But outperforming guards that may be hoping to make a living with that shot is somewhat of a feat.

Unlike Toine, Sullynyk is just taking 2 3's a game.

It's not like Brad Stevens is trying to turn them into jump-shot-happy morons (like BBD), which you guys seem to be implying.

[kozlodoev]

Unlike Toine, Sullynyk is just taking 2 3's a game.

It's not like Brad Stevens is trying to turn them into jump-shot-happy morons (like BBD), which you guys seem to be implying.

I'm only implying that he's encouraging them to take shots that are evidently not good shots.

Because the long 2 may be the "worst shot in the game", but when you're making 4 out of every 10, it's decidedly better than making 2 out of every 10 three pointers.

[D.o.s.]

Clearly they just need to try harder.

[pokeKingCurtis]

Unlike Toine, Sullynyk is just taking 2 3's a game.

It's not like Brad Stevens is trying to turn them into jump-shot-happy morons (like BBD), which you guys seem to be implying.

I'm only implying that he's encouraging them to take shots that are evidently not good shots.

Because the long 2 may be the "worst shot in the game", but when you're making 4 out of every 10, it's decidedly better than making 2 out of every 10 three pointers.

The difference in our views seem to be built on whether Sullynyk could and whether they should develop the 3 point shot by taking them in game.

Could they?

I don't know, you tell me. All I know is that I see two guys who have had little success shooting threes in college, little success shooting threes in Summer League, little success shooting threes in preseason, and now -- little success shooting threes in actual NBA games. It's not a small sample issue, it's been happening with regularity at any level they've played at.

Their stats seem to disagree with them being incapable 3 point shooters "at any level" as Sullinger hit 40% of his 3's in his last year of college and 36.5% overall. Olynyk hit 33.3% of his 3's in college, hitting 44.4% of them before his redshirt season.

You could argue that college 3's are different but "little success at every level" isn't a fact.

I see that both of them have a nice looking stroke. Both not being dominant physically(Olynyk with his dinosaur arms), the jumpshot is a weapon they have been and will continue to be relying on.

I think they could and you seem to think they couldn't. That's a difference of opinion, which perhaps may never be resolved.

Should they?

I still stand by what I've said:

As much as I'm not one for tanking, I certainly don't see anything more than a second round exit. The 3-4 3's a game Sully and Olynyk take definitely won't hurt us in the long run and I would say won't hurt us much in the short run either.

Additionally, unlike BBD or Toine, Sully and Olynyk aren't trigger happy with their jumpshots. There certainly is a danger of them falling in love with the 3. But so far, Sully is shooting 50% from the field. Olynyk, on the other hand, has been taking good shots outside of his 3's but shots just aren't falling.

*You seem to disagree with this too. My impression is that you're one or both of: Sullynyk shooting 3's doesn't help us win games and/or this is bad player development.

Again, difference of opinions.










The disagreement about whether Sully/Klynyk should take 3's may never be settled. I'm fine with that since having differences of opinion and different viewpoints is a good thing.

But what I find more interesting (and perhaps more important) is that the team as a whole is taking more 3's. And I'm actually quite happy about this change.

Not being a stathead, reading this (http://www.celticsblog.com/2012/9/3/3289527/three-pointers-are-king-and-long-2s-are-bad) article was particularly enlightening.

Not long ago, a related article also touches upon this (http://www.celticsblog.com/2013/10/21/4864588/can-the-celtics-beat-the-spread). The Jeff Green part was the part I really focused on.

Both good reads.

Because the long 2 may be the "worst shot in the game", but when you're making 4 out of every 10, it's decidedly better than making 2 out of every 10 three pointers.

This example is interesting since it does kind of prove the point (3's good, long 2's bad).

The difference in the example is 2 points.

Unless you're Brandon Bass, hitting mid range shots at an absurd rate (I recall it's something like 50%) and basically making a living off of such a shot, the payoff of the 3 is better and this is exemplified here.

Being a team without inside scoring, the only other option is jumpshots, and it seems intuitive to have the option in the gameplan to take the more rewarding shot.

Last year, most top teams ranked in the upper half of 3's attempted (at 16th place, OKC attempted one less 3 than the 15th place Pacers).

Notable exceptions: Celtics, Grizzlies and Bulls. I believe the Grizzlies have tried to add more 3 point shooting last year. The Bulls I'm not too sure about.



Having the 3 point shot at your disposal (and not relying on it unlike the recent Knicks and Dwightmare-Magic) seems important. I'm glad Brad Stevens seems to have recognized that. With BS being a labelled stat geek, I'm optimistic that he'll find the right mix of 3's and I am optimistic about this change.

*Edits in asterisks

[jambr380]

Having sub-30% shooters take sub-30% shots with regularity is a smart thing?

So, are you implying that Stevens is some kind of idiot? He's the one who wants them to take open threes, after all.

I don't know, you tell me. All I know is that I see two guys who have had little success shooting threes in college, little success shooting threes in Summer League, little success shooting threes in preseason, and now -- little success shooting threes in actual NBA games. It's not a small sample issue, it's been happening with regularity at any level they've played at.

And yes, when you're a sub-30% three-point shooter you're going to get a ton of wide open threes. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to take them.

Pardon me, sir, but I disagree.

I've got no idea why you're bringing Toine in the discussion. He didn't really want to shoot any threes, only fours.

I guess I need to clarify the Antoine situation a little bit - especially for those that really came on board during the Big 3 era:

00-01, 01-02, and 02-03 were by far his three biggest year taking [and making] the three. During these years, he went 631/1830 (34.5%). During this same three year period, he shot 1349/3133 on twos (43%). Taking into account that you get one extra point on threes, he actually made the right decision taking so many threes and not as many twos. It proved to be a much more efficient shot as the adjusted percentage on his threes actually goes to about 52%.

And, if you think that he still took too many threes, well, you can blame Jim O'Brien for this. He was big believer in the three getting you an extra point (as well as the increased percentage of a rebound since it tends to be longer). The Celtics were about as successful as they could have been during this period in time...still one of my favorite times to be a Celtics fan.

I guess what I am saying is, there is no reason KO and Sully shouldn't become decent 3 point shooters. It is a great tool to have in your arsenal, especially when neither is going to consistently be dunking on people.

[D.o.s.]

Fair enough. I still like the idea of 'Toine shushing anyone who thinks not taking the open three is a good idea.

[jambr380]

Fair enough. I still like the idea of 'Toine shushing anyone who thinks not taking the open three is a good idea.

I definitely agree...as for the explanation, I'm just a tad sensitive when he gets brought up around here - it isn't usually to talk about how great he was.

[D.o.s.]

Fair enough. I still like the idea of 'Toine shushing anyone who thinks not taking the open three is a good idea.

I definitely agree...as for the explanation, I'm just a tad sensitive when he gets brought up around here - it isn't usually to talk about how great he was.

That's true. I really enjoyed the Walker-Pierce Celtics teams, especially those three years you mentioned. Lots of fun basketball (and one awesomely overachieving playoff run).

[Interceptor]

I don't know, you tell me.

I asked first. If it's not a smart idea, what's the explanation for Stevens telling Sully/KO to shoot open threes? I'd say that he either thinks that they are there already (in terms of skills), or can get there with time. Surely the coach has at least the same understanding of the game of basketball as you or I do, and doesn't think that a sub-30% shooter should be hurling those shots up if that's their ceiling.

KO is a rookie, and Sully is basically still half a rookie. These aren't players who have been in the league for five years.