Are the 2018-2019 Celtics the Best 3 Point Shooting Starting Lineup Ever?

[jpotter33]

Was just thinking about this, and I think this year's Celtics might legitimately have the best three point shooting starting lineup of all time.

http://bkref.com/tiny/hwbRG

Going off of last year's three point percentage for each player (obviously the year before for Hayward), our starting lineup ends up with an average three point shooting percentage of 41.3%! And beyond a high average three point percentage, when considering Kyrie (40.8%), Jaylen (39.5%), Jayson (43.4%), Gordon (39.8%), and Al (42.9%) as our starters, we do not have a weak area in our lineup with every shooter being an above average threat from beyond the arc.

The obvious rebuttal would be GS (historically), but I'm not sure that they can actually compete for two reasons. First, GS usually starts games and plays long portions with a more traditional, non-shooting big, e.g. Pachulia, McGee, Bell, etc. That probably takes them out of the running itself; however, even giving them the benefit of the doubt and counting their "death lineup" as a starting lineup (Curry, Thompson, Iggy, Durant, and Green), both Green and Iggy really drag down their overall threat from behind the arc, shooting 30% or worse from beyond the arc last season.

So what do you think? Are there any other starting lineups that can compete with this year's Celtics in terms of three point shooting, both a total average and the widespread threat from beyond the arc from each position?

(P.S. - our offense is going to be soooooo dynamic this season! I can't wait to see how Kyrie, Brown, Tatum, and especially Gordon operate with so much spacing and ability to penetrate and get to the hole!)

[Boris Badenov]

You won't get any argument from me:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=95991.msg2485029#msg2485029

[Ogaju]

Answer is most likely, yes. One of the reasons I believe the Cs can win banner 18 next season,

[blink]

We are going to be a handful for teams to guard on the perimeter this year.  I don't even care if we are the best ever, or 4th best or whatever.  All (5) starters can hit the 3 and are a weapon from range.  Can't wait to see this offense once we get everyone back up to speed.

[Boris Badenov]

We are going to be a handful for teams to guard on the perimeter this year.  I don't even care if we are the best ever, or 4th best or whatever.  All (5) starters can hit the 3 and are a weapon from range.  Can't wait to see this offense once we get everyone back up to speed.

And this is before the annual "Marcus Smart has been working on the deep ball" update. Aren't we due for that soon?

It'll be some shaky Instachat video of him hitting 4 3s in a row, with a "fundamental" change in form that will never be seen again after about 3 minutes of regular season ball.

[jpotter33]

You won't get any argument from me:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=95991.msg2485029#msg2485029

TP. Didn't realize a very similar thread had already been posted months ago.

[gouki88]

In terms of versatility and spread of shooters, I think it would be hard to argue with that. Potentially 5 40% shooters from deep is ridiculous.

But in terms of actual danger from deep, I don't think you can get past GSW. 2 of the greatest shooters of all time, and a perennial 50/40/90 guy who drops 25ppg.

Maybe we can catch them if Tatum & Brown up there output from three

[Boris Badenov]

You won't get any argument from me:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=95991.msg2485029#msg2485029

TP. Didn't realize a very similar thread had already been posted months ago.

Back atcha. Great minds, something something.

[Sophomore]

One reason GSW has a historic 3-pt shooting year in 2015-16 is that the guys with the highest percentages took a lot of the shots. The *team* shot .416 from 3(!) Which is because Curry and Thompson launched more than 13 a game and hit a very high %. Curry was .454 that year(!)

As a team, next year’s Cs have the chance to have the best 5-out lineup of shooters, maybe ever, even if they don’t get the team %age record or starting-five record (if we’re inventing that one). As others have said there was usually a dead spot somewhere is the GSW lineup. We really could have five guys averaging around 40%, playing together, Which is nuts.

And I can’t wait to see if some of the guys shoot even a little better than last year because of the synergies - they should be getting lots of open looks, catch and shoot 3s in rhythm after the D collapses. People have posted some highlights from last preseason that remind you how tough we can be with all those playmakers and all that shooting and passing. Here’s one - yes it’s the Hornets in preseason, but ...

https://youtu.be/k5MQmoHQJpc

[Androslav]

Yes.
Also all in our 5, can dribble and pass,
We are a 1st/most skilled in those too.

[scaryjerry]

Nope. GSW have 3 of the best shooters of all time from distance don't care if the other 2 starters can't shoot a lick

[greece66]

The starters avg 3pt % and "best 3pt shooting starting lineup" are not the same thing.

[Csfan1984]

Have more faith in the House, Allen, Pierce, Posey, KG lineup but they weren't always starting. I don't know if they ever did start all together.

[nickagneta]

The starters avg 3pt % and "best 3pt shooting starting lineup" are not the same thing.

Agree and disagree. You need context.

For instance. You can have all 5 starters shoot over 45% from 3 but if each starter only takes 1 3pointer per game,  then you could be dealing with a ridiculouly small sample size that you need to throw out. Also, it's hard to call that team a 3 point shooting starting team. But, if you have a starting lineup that shoots 40 3 pointers a game at 45% but one of the starters doesn't shoot any 3 pointers, you kinda have to give that lineup a nod for best 3point shooting starting lineup while they have the best 3 point percentage.

[greece66]

The starters avg 3pt % and "best 3pt shooting starting lineup" are not the same thing.

Agree and disagree. You need context.

For instance. You can have all 5 starters shoot over 45% from 3 but if each starter only takes 1 3pointer per game,  then you could be dealing with a ridiculouly small sample size that you need to throw out. Also, it's hard to call that team a 3 point shooting starting team. But, if you have a starting lineup that shoots 40 3 pointers a game at 45% but one of the starters doesn't shoot any 3 pointers, you kinda have to give that lineup a nod for best 3point shooting starting lineup while they have the best 3 point percentage.

You could have a team that has the highest starters avg 3pt % and the best 3pt shooting starting lineup. It still isn't the same thing.

"best 3pt shooting" includes an implicit claim about the volume of shooting.

Also, (and correct me if I'm wrong) jpotter mentioned the % of each of the starters, but did not calculate their collective avg 3pt %.

I definitely agree about context and with the examples you brought up.