Do you agree with how Stevens is using Sully?

[kozlodoev]

If Sullinger really couldn't shoot the three, I don't think he'd be asked to: Bass has only taken two of them, after all.

There's nothing that indicates, so far, that he CAN shoot the three. That Stevens encourages this disaster is a clearly poor coaching decision -- it shows the coach either doesn't have a clue, doesn't care, or listens too much to Satch Sullinger.

In fact, I think Bass could probably be the better three-point shooter of the two.

There's plenty to indicate, so far, that he CAN shoot the three. That he's yet to find success with it during the regular season is another matter entirely, but not enough for me to discourage the attempt yet.

Shooting 19 for 52 from college three and having one unsustainably hot streak in preseason basketball doesn't constitute "plenty" to me. Any such "evidence" is dwarfed by the 220+ attempts he took in real games over the couple of seasons. But to each their own.

[BudweiserCeltic]

If Sullinger really couldn't shoot the three, I don't think he'd be asked to: Bass has only taken two of them, after all.

There's nothing that indicates, so far, that he CAN shoot the three. That Stevens encourages this disaster is a clearly poor coaching decision -- it shows the coach either doesn't have a clue, doesn't care, or listens too much to Satch Sullinger.

In fact, I think Bass could probably be the better three-point shooter of the two.

There's plenty to indicate, so far, that he CAN shoot the three. That he's yet to find success with it during the regular season is another matter entirely, but not enough for me to discourage the attempt yet.

Shooting 19 for 52 from college three and having one unsustainably hot streak in preseason basketball doesn't constitute "plenty of evidence" to me, but to each their own.

It does to me when the question is about whether he can shoot the 3 or not, whether he has that range him or not.

When he starts volume shooting at a highly inaccurate rate, I'll worry. But for 2-3 a game, not worth the time or effort to discourage it, as I said, yet.

[LooseCannon]

If Sullinger really couldn't shoot the three, I don't think he'd be asked to: Bass has only taken two of them, after all.

There's nothing that indicates, so far, that he CAN shoot the three. That Stevens encourages this disaster is a clearly poor coaching decision -- it shows the coach either doesn't have a clue, doesn't care, or listens too much to Satch Sullinger.

The numbers from last season seemed to suggest that he should maybe shoot threes in certain scenarios (pick and pop) and not shoot threes in other scenarios (spotting up).

[kozlodoev]

It does to me when the question is about whether he can shoot the 3 or not, whether he has that range him or not.

College three is not "that range". It is, in fact, a completely different range.

When he starts volume shooting at a highly inaccurate rate, I'll worry. But for 2-3 a game, not worth the time or effort to discourage it, as I said, yet.

It seems shocking to me that I have to explain that three point shooting is not about "having that range". At least, not when the definition seems to be as rudimentary as being able to throw it all the way to the rim in most attempts.
 
It's about being able to make that shot with some sort of regularity (which for the NBA appears to be in the neighborhood of 35%). In what world is 26% not a "highly inaccurate rate"?

[Celtics4ever]

That is an absurd claim, and you're equating two different types of strength.  First off, what in the world would BP have anything to do with basketball? It really only matters in football. Secondly, that type of strength with lower amounts of weight for more reps is a muscular endurance strength, which obviously won't be Sully's greatest asset.  I can almost guarantee you that Sully will have a higher ORM  BP than Smart.

I like guys who spout without knowing the facts, or know how strength affects every facet of the game.  BP is all important to basketball but it is a good diagnostic lift and used by NFL and NBA.  I think the fact that he only did 9 shows poor endurance and lack of strength.    If he could have lifted more one would think he could have done it more often.   I lifted 225 lbs the NFL standard 28 times when I was 23 so what do I know about endurance and strength.  I am as tall as Sully and have long arms.   It is a harder exercise for tall guys.   It is pretty from Butterball's (Sully) looks that he does not place a high regard on fitness.

Marcus did 19 reps last year.

 http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2069328-marcus-smarts-strong-combine-numbers-help-2014-nba-draft-stock

Sully did 9 and was tied for second worse his year.

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2012/6/24/3079900/phoenix-suns-nba-draft-series-jared-sullinger-pf-ohio-state

Now he might have done more could have been his back.  But I think they would have avoided it entirely if they thought it would hurt his stock.  I think one could do 9 with just their triceps if they were strong.  But onto strength and post play.

Post players use pushes all the time to create space.   Sully pushes guys to get boards all the time.  You also need strength to hold guys off the ball.   Given two players of equal skill most will choose the stronger or more athletic guy as most people like to win.  I would guess that you never played ball outside of grade school.   A lot high schools, almost all colleges have their players lift weights.   In the pros, you have a trainer, period, some guys do not get bigger like Reggie Miller but you can bet he got stronger. 

In a few years I think Sully will be stronger.   Strength is pretty easy to build up.   I think Oly shows improved strength from last year.  Sully is an expert at using his body, you can see how he positions himself.   He is more skill and saavy than strength at this point.   Now he is not adverse to pushing a guy and he has a big butt that can create space.

Marcus's great strength makes him unique.  Guys bounce off him.  He can rip away the ball.  He is a beast.

[BudweiserCeltic]

It does to me when the question is about whether he can shoot the 3 or not, whether he has that range him or not.

College three is not "that range". It is, in fact, a completely different range.

When he starts volume shooting at a highly inaccurate rate, I'll worry. But for 2-3 a game, not worth the time or effort to discourage it, as I said, yet.

It seems shocking to me that I have to explain that three point shooting is not about "having that range". At least, not when you seem to define having that range as being able to throw it all the way to the rim in most attempts.
 
It's about being able to make that shot with some sort of regularity (which for the NBA appears to be in the neighborhood of 35%). In what world is 26% not a "highly inaccurate rate"?

I don't care about the college 3, that's something you brought up to the discussion and I didn't care to address it.

Who said that 26% is not highly inaccurate. I specifically mentioned volume shooting it, as in a per game basis. Also, he was shooting 32% before he got injured, so he wasn't that off from league average... you know for someone who had just begun to implement that in his NBA game.

As much as you want to make it about sort of regularity, the 3-point shot has been a shot that is very streaky... one were you can easily go game to game shooting sub 30% and then have a very hot night.

The awesome Stephen Curry is shooting 27% from the field right now, I don't think anyone expects that to last.

Also, making a 3-pointer is quite different than being able to hit in games consistently, the latter depends highly on positioning and stance and repetitious motion, being ready for the shot and all that as well with shot selection.

My argument is that he's can shoot the 3 no problem, and make it, but needs to work quite a bit still on the other areas, and I think that's the work in progress. So to me is not a matter of him being able to shoot the 3, but create good habits so that he can shoot the 3 with better consistency.

[SHAQATTACK]

Not exactly.   I d rather have a high percentage two than bombing away praying a shot goes down.

During the bombs away routine , we could be going inside , for a better shot , and maybe some "and 1" too

I really don't like the do or die by the three approach .  I hated Orlando scheme while Howard was there.

Too many shooter are streaky .

I don't mind Sully shooting a three , he is not bad for a big....but he rebounds so well, it's a shame not to have him in the paint more.

[kozlodoev]

I don't care about the college 3, that's something you brought up to the discussion and I didn't care to address it.

Who said that 26% is not highly inaccurate. I specifically mentioned volume shooting it, as in a per game basis. Also, he was shooting 32% before he got injured, so he wasn't that off from league average... you know for someone who had just begun to implement that in his NBA game.

As much as you want to make it about sort of regularity, the 3-point shot has been a shot that is very streaky... one were you can easily go game to game shooting sub 30% and then have a very hot night.

The awesome Stephen Curry is shooting 27% from the field right now, I don't think anyone expects that to last.

Also, making a 3-pointer is quite different than being able to hit in games consistently, the latter depends highly on positioning and stance and repetitious motion, being ready for the shot and all that as well with shot selection.

My argument is that he's can shoot the 3 no problem, and make it, but needs to work quite a bit still on the other areas, and I think that's the work in progress. So to me is not a matter of him being able to shoot the 3, but create good habits so that he can shoot the 3 with better consistency.

I don't know what you care or care not about, since you didn't bother to specify the nature of your evidence.The bottom line is that streaky or not, decent three-point shooters manage to be decent over a large sample, which a full season usually is. Injuries or no injuries.

I don't really care whether he's not making threes because he's not accurate, or not making threes because he lacks in the "positioning and stance" department (you shouldn't, either). A missed three is a missed three, and he has missed threes with remarkable consistency so far.

I mean, I can shoot threes no problem -- I just need to improve my arm strength, fix the follow-through, and make sure no-one is around to block it...

Also, I don't remember bringing the 12.5% of this year's Sullinger into the discussion, so the ridiculous Curry example is uncalled for.

[kozlodoev]

I don't mind Sully shooting a three , he is not bad for a big....

Just out of curiousity, do you think Zach Randolph is "not bad" shooting the three, too? Because over his career, he's just .004 worse than Sullinger.

You know, the guy who did this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A13PKLR-HyY

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh2fn01cngg

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't care about the college 3, that's something you brought up to the discussion and I didn't care to address it.

Who said that 26% is not highly inaccurate. I specifically mentioned volume shooting it, as in a per game basis. Also, he was shooting 32% before he got injured, so he wasn't that off from league average... you know for someone who had just begun to implement that in his NBA game.

As much as you want to make it about sort of regularity, the 3-point shot has been a shot that is very streaky... one were you can easily go game to game shooting sub 30% and then have a very hot night.

The awesome Stephen Curry is shooting 27% from the field right now, I don't think anyone expects that to last.

Also, making a 3-pointer is quite different than being able to hit in games consistently, the latter depends highly on positioning and stance and repetitious motion, being ready for the shot and all that as well with shot selection.

My argument is that he's can shoot the 3 no problem, and make it, but needs to work quite a bit still on the other areas, and I think that's the work in progress. So to me is not a matter of him being able to shoot the 3, but create good habits so that he can shoot the 3 with better consistency.

I don't know what you care or care not about, since you didn't bother to specify the nature of your evidence.The bottom line is that streaky or not, decent three-point shooters manage to be decent over a large sample, which a full season usually is. Injuries or no injuries.

I don't really care whether he's not making threes because he's not accurate, or not making threes because he lacks in the "positioning and stance" department (you shouldn't, either). A missed three is a missed three, and he has missed threes with remarkable consistency so far.

I mean, I can shoot threes no problem -- I just need to improve my arm strength, fix the follow-through, and make sure no-one is around to block it...

Also, I don't remember bringing the 12.5% of this year's Sullinger into the discussion, so the ridiculous Curry example is uncalled for.

Well that just about says it all doesn't it? If you don't care about WHY he's missing then there's no point in extrapolating future success or failure.

[kozlodoev]

Well that just about says it all doesn't it? If you don't care about WHY he's missing then there's no point in extrapolating future success or failure.

Of course there is -- and sustained past failure predicts probable future failure. Given he's had more than enough time to fix this, the exact issue is immaterial.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Well that just about says it all doesn't it? If you don't care about WHY he's missing then there's no point in extrapolating future success or failure.

Of course there is -- and sustained past failure predicts probable future failure. Given he's had more than enough time to fix this, the exact issue is immaterial.

Enough time? I don't think so, particularly for 22 year old who just began incorporating that into his game last year, shot selection is still something very correctable that comes with experience. He hasn't had enough of that yet.

[TheFlex]

Well that just about says it all doesn't it? If you don't care about WHY he's missing then there's no point in extrapolating future success or failure.

Of course there is -- and sustained past failure predicts probable future failure. Given he's had more than enough time to fix this, the exact issue is immaterial.

Enough time? I don't think so, particularly for 22 year old who just began incorporating that into his game last year, shot selection is still something very correctable that comes with experience. He hasn't had enough of that yet.

Why are you wasting your time on this? I haven't seen koslodoev say one good thing about a Celtic player or Celtic front office decision since I joined this forum.

[D.o.s.]

Well that just about says it all doesn't it? If you don't care about WHY he's missing then there's no point in extrapolating future success or failure.

Of course there is -- and sustained past failure predicts probable future failure. Given he's had more than enough time to fix this, the exact issue is immaterial.

Enough time? I don't think so, particularly for 22 year old who just began incorporating that into his game last year, shot selection is still something very correctable that comes with experience. He hasn't had enough of that yet.

Why are you wasting your time on this? I haven't seen koslodoev say one good thing about a Celtic player or Celtic front office decision since I joined this forum.

You haven't been looking hard enough, then.

[kozlodoev]

Enough time? I don't think so, particularly for 22 year old who just began incorporating that into his game last year, shot selection is still something very correctable that comes with experience. He hasn't had enough of that yet.

That's something he should have been doing at 16. It's a bit of a luxury using NBA games as a skills academy.