I Want to continue to see the Dmo post up as a #1 option. He's not a ball stopper like Dwight can be. Dmo makes quick decisions. He either makes a quick post move and takes a high % shot or he dishes it out to Harden or another wing. If fine with taking 20+'threes in a game but would like to see the attempts in transition or from working the inside out game thru Dmo. Howard is there to pick up the scraps. Dwight could easily be a 20ppg / 13reb per game if he primarily just played the garbage
I agree. One thing that is also not mentioned is the type of defense the opposition needs to employ. There should be no argument that it is easier to defend a 15-18 ft perimeter than 24 ft. If they shut down the 3, it will give our post up players and slashers more room to operate. The only philosophy I am not comfortable with is taking 3 ptr's on a fast break.
Ok I get what you're saying, but we're talking about different things then. I don't disagree with your observations (the difference between long 2's and 3's) it just doesn't pertain to the question I'm asking.
But no other team shoots more 3's than us. If the other teams in the playoffs did I could see your point but they don't (it's not nullified since there is a difference in shot selection between teams). The question this seems to drive home is: is it STILL a winning strategy in the playoffs where a string of 2-3 losses in a row due to your 3 point shot not falling could kill your playoff chances, or do the shares of shots need to be weighed more to post up plays where variance is lower or even midrange 2's if you want to argue for that.
This is what I'm coming to more so even now after thinking about this information. More DMo postups (especially when we get into the playoff and defenses kick it up a notch) would seem like a ideal shift in strategy. In fact utilizing more shots for 3 pointers and less postups in the regular season might be a good strategy to keep injuries/wear and tear down but to shift more weight to postups during the playoffs to ensure greater success in a time limited 7 game series.
First, the probability that nobody can make their 3 ptr's is just as much as everybody making theirs - it will most likely be somewhere in the middle. I agree that if we don't make those shots, we might lose 3 games in a row. What about the other possibility, if we hit them at a high clip? Just as a reminder, we did not lose last year because of our offensive strategy. It was on the other side of the floor. I really don't understand why we keep on harping on getting better on offense. If we can play top notch defense, we should be able to stay within striking distance to give ourselves a chance to win the game. If we played a tad better on defense against POR, we win that series easily.
The Spurs shoot 38% on mid-range shots. If you subscribe to the theory that they take the best shots, aka wide open ones, then it means their best shot result in 0.76 points expectancy. That is massively below even the worse offenses in the history of the NBA. You have to shoot below 19% on 3s for those mid-range shots to be good. That's Josh Smith territory.
You are asking about variance and criticizing a shot that has roughly 34% chance to go in vs a shot (worth only 2/3 value of previous shot) that has 38% chance to go in should make the Rockets win more. I'm not sure how that is arguable.
Right the upside probability is equal to the low side. Variance implies this. It's just more volatile. If we hit them at a high clip for 3 in a row we probably we three straight games, which would give us a great shot at winning the series. But it's a risk if we're shooting at a low clip. I think about it like this. If I sit a no limit poker table and its tournament style, I can be more agressive in the beginning by pushing my chips in more often. If it pays off I get a dominate lead in chips that increases my chances of winning. However there's as much a likelihood I bust out too. High risk high reward which might work over a poker season but during a tournament I might need to change to be a bit more conservative (grinding out pots and chose my spots to risk high). I agree the defense was by far the biggest concern. I'm personally talking about it now because it's our offense that seems suspect.
Spurs have better ball movement and don't turn the ball over as much. That equals more and better shots.
Man go back and reread that's not what I'm arguing or saying. I don't think the long 2 is anywhere near the value of the 3. I'm talking about having to use the 3 too much in game bound tournaments. And subsequently perhaps needing to move some of us shot selection to more post ups (Dmo).
Apologize that I keep disagreeing with you. On our latest loses, both Rocks and their oppositions scored more than their average with the exception to the Pelicans game. On the Cavs game, they even mentioned and showed that our defense started slipping after we added the 3 new guys to the team. Everybody was scoring more than 100 pts.
No apologies needed, that's what a discussions for right? Your point is actually my point too. The last few games the shots have fallen so we play well and win when the 3 point shot falls. But we also lost a series of close (and not so close) games when it wasn't falling. In the context of the regular season it's fine and all evens out to a lot more wins than losses. But what about during the playoffs? A string of 2-3 bad shooting games cripples us. Edit: to be clear I do see our defense slipping for some reason and not that it's not a thread worth discussing. It just not what I'm talking about in this thread.
On those loses, if we held the other team to their average, we win all those games (except NO). We scored enough points. At this point, I don't think we will be changing our offensive approach. If our 3 ptr's are not going in, it would not be a stretch to think that our mid range shots will have the same percentage as we all know it is all mental. I guess only time will tell if this revolutionary style of play can also be effective in the playoffs.
No, I don't subscribe to any theory regarding the Spurs shooting. All I am saying is that there are more variables here: shot quality being one. At the end of the day, if the probability of scoring on a 3 is greater then 2/3 of the probability of scoring a 3, then (and only then) you are better off going for 3s (over the long run) because the expectation is higher. I'm just pointing out that defenses may sometimes be giving you higher percentage 2s (because that is how they are set up or because the 3s strategy has become more predictable), so that the expectation value becomes higher for 2s, likely shorter 2s (not dunks, but 2s nonetheless). It would be interesting to look at score expectation values, particularly against teams whose defenses are geared to guard the 3 point perimeter very well. If the expectation values for 3s exceed that for 2s (even short 2s) against teams like that, then I would agree with you.
This probably explains, at least in part, why Morey has emphasized increasing pace and getting more possessions (of course those are good in their own right) - to try to smooth out that variance, particularly when it would be important to do so in a 7 game series where the normal smoothing methods of many games aren't applicable.
