this is 100% false. many times missed 3's lead to long rebounds which lead to fast breaks for the other team.
NAILED IT. This is the entire point of this thread. I don't know why people don't get this. This IS our best strategy given who we have. Obviously if we had LMA or when we had Luis Scola, it's a different story.
NO. There are two things that happen. Yes, they can lead to increased fast breaks against us, but ALSO, threes increase offensive rebounds. Both things happen. There is a reason that Houston is NUMBER 4 in the league in offensive rebounds, despite Dwight missing so many games. and we are only NUMBER TWENTY TWO in defensive rebounds. It's facts and numbers people. It's all out there.
very true, but I think the layup bit is common sense and not debatable. So I was sticking to the point about midrange.
yea the reason is we brick so many damn shots including layups. have you been watching games. it's a brickfest even for james lately. btw... it's threads like these that make me hate analytics. it's a basketball game with so many other factors, some that can't be measured. it's not that simple as math. also, everyone is doing some type of metrics now so that eliminates any advantage you had. for example, if our strategy is to hit 33%+ from 3's then I'm sure there is a metric against us to counter it. advantage gone, and now you've got to really on the un-measurables to get the win.
We all know we don't have great shooters. You're not really breaking ground here. But when you average shooters, you would rather them take THREES than LONG TWOS It's not rocket science. It's ROCKETS science.
Again - I want LPH to tell me if he ever sees Ariza shooting Fifty Percent from midrange. or Beverly shooting ABOVE 50% from midrange. Because they would have to do that in order to match their current production from three.
Does that mean they are offensively potent players, because their 3p percentage scores better than their 2p percentage? Can they even be considered as 3P specialist? Hardly.
The point is that in a perfect world we have Kyle korver on our team but we don't. We have Ariza and Bev. And they get a ton of open threes. And that them shooting 33% (Bev shooting better than that) is better than anything we could hope to get from them shooting midrange shots (which btw probably wouldn't be open because of the way Harden creates his shots). It's a pretty simple concept I don't get what you don't get.
Basketball is an art my fellow posters. If you think an offense should be as simple as Harden drives and kicks to 3-point shooters, then you don't really know the game. OP, you talk about midrange like they are the same thing as 3's just closer, when they are not! Midrange shots fit within the flow of an offense much more than 3's do. The teams with the best ball movement, like GSW, ATL, SAS, don't have a law to only shoot 3's. If you look at my original reply that you didn't really reply back to, then you'll see that those teams do shoot a lot of 3's, but they shoot them within the flow of the offense. In addition to shooting 3's, they will also shoot the midrange shots if they fit within the flow. We don't do that, we just jack up shots the second we're open. Our offense is far to simple and easy to defend. An offense shouldn't be built on the foundation of the 3, it should be built on the foundation of ball movement.
It's not as black and white as you think man. We don't have to force ourselves to shoot 3's if we don't have the personnel. You can create strategies that don't always focus on the 3.
Our offense is built to maximize the abilities of our limited offensive players. GSW and SAS take a ton of threes. A TON. But they also have more options than us on offense because they have more than ONE guy that can create off the dribble. We are starting from a point of weakness. We cant rely on Ariza and Bev to create shots. The best they can offer with their limited shooting ability (and Ariza HAS been known to be a good three point shooter in the past and Bev ws good earlier this season) is shooting threes. What has anyone seen from Trevor or Pat to want anything else from them. Even in the best case scenario of some magical offense, can anyone see them ever being consistently better than 50 percent from midrange? That's the question I want you to answer, getbloodyred.
So the point of this thread is Ariza and Bev should stick to 3s because that's what they are better at. Indeed, those two, with their erratic two point attempts, probably should be shooting 3s, and get lucky. However, is this a thread-worthy topic? Let's ignore, they, Bev in particular, have been holding back our offense as of late. Most of his 3s, as you said, are wide open ones. People should be shooting practice 3s better than 33%.
The real answer is what Josh Smith, Brewer and Dmo give us inside. And we are doing well with that, but we have room for improvement - most notably D-mo. who has the potential to dominate but needs to be more agressive.
What, but success should be measured by W-Ls. All six of the teams shooting 50% from 3 are playoff teams. Obviously, not all 22 teams shooting 33% from 3 are playoff teams. We can explain this many ways.
Yes, of course it is. Because there are tons of posters here to whom it never registered that shooting 33% from three is the same production as 50% from two. You have an entire thread right now on this site questioning the Rockets' philosophy in shooting threes, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why all the smartest teams in the NBA - why the FUTURE of the NBA is going towards shooting more and more three pointers. at some point I think something will give. The NBA will find a way to change the rules. Because no one wants to see teams shooting and missing so many long range shots. But as long as the numbers are what they are, teams will shoot them at will.
There are some dense posters on this board, but I feel like you just topped a lot of them. Reminds me of this guy I knew that learned about p53 and next thing you know , "I LuRNDz thE CuREZ 2 CaNCERZ GuIZ!" Your entire point was theoretical and considered the game in a vacuum...completely disregarding the many variables we have every time a player runs down the court. If you want to play the "I can playz basketball too!" game , sure have at it, but don't pretend you won't look like a moron. 3 pt shots are good, and they HAVE to be taken for you to be a good team, ironically, the guy you brought up (Byron) is just like you as both you are polarized. The truth to success lies in the middle, where teams like the spurs and pretty much how every champion have ran their offense, with versatility. You're going to try and run me off the 3pt line? I'll mix it up and add some midrange, set screens, etc. You're going to give me the 3? I'll take it. You don't shoot 3 after 3 after 3 like a damn college team like the rockets have been. That was your entire point. You think the rockets can run up and shoot 3s all game long and if they somehow hit at that clip they'll win (not the case in the post season especially). Another poster brought up a resultant variable as well, the number of long rebounds, which will lead to fast breaks and the other team's %. Then you have the psychological beatdown, where you see your opponent constantly run down and dunk on fastbreaks from your 3pt misses while you chuck away. There is just so much to consider. You have to be a Morey fan, and for you to oversimplify his job is you actually making an effort to say he's an idiot. You brought up contested midrange when thats not the case. I never said they had to be contested. You swing the ball around enough, run screen etc, you get open midrange shots which players can knock down like FTs. Hell, a lot of them are the same distance. The 3pt shot is subject to a lot of variance, and this variance increases in the post season , where as a poster much smarter than yourself already pointed out, it doesn't work. For that you could use the eye test alone if you have been watching long enough. You know why? Well here is some science for you, something empirical you can actually test by going to the Y and playing ball for the first time in your life. Shoot the ball from a foot away , 5 ft, 10 ft, and gradually move back. Notice why your % drops, and drops more under pressure? No, the explanation is not "just because I moved back derp derp." Its because you have to use more motor units for increased strength. The more motor units you use, the less fine control you have over your movements. In a pressure situation, this worsens FAR more. Where do you encounter pressure situations routinely? The playoffs genius. So yea, you could shoot a good number of good 3s within your offense at that % that might be equivalent to shooting that same number of 2s, but trying to defend the point that you could chuck away from 3 all game long, hoping to attain that % is just stupid.
