Dante has been out forever because he ded

[MVP]

You only need 34% from the 3 (which is average) to match 50% from mid-range(that's elite). We need to continue to take a ton of 3s and dunks/layups. A mid-range shot is better than no shot, but that's about it.

I do not mind tons of 3's when the come from some well executed plays ( screens, drives and kicks, pick and pop, etc). I hate what we did vs Houston when it was dribble, dribble, iso play and desperation 3 launch at the end of the shot clock. Better drive in the paint and try to draw foul IMHO.

 

[Alfalfa]

I do not mind tons of 3's when the come from some well executed plays ( screens, drives and kicks, pick and pop, etc). I hate what we did vs Houston when it was dribble, dribble, iso play and desperation 3 launch at the end of the shot clock. Better drive in the paint and try to draw foul IMHO.

Of course. There's no point in chucking 50 contested 3s at 20% rate.

 

[The Thriller]

But our shooters can still hit the 3 at a greater point-per-possession rate than they would if they took mostly 2s, as was the convention you speak of. We are shooting at 34.4% from the three, which isn't great, but it's pretty much an impossible rate to match from the mid-range (like 52%). Not to forget that focusing on the 3 and the inside, instead of mid-range 2s, creates more space that helps the offense in every way. There is a case for old school centers being able to dominate in the current system, since they were very efficient. But not for old-school systems that mostly generate 2 point jumpers.

Yeah, I've heard the arguments... Many times. I don't buy it.

What we never talk about?

The fastbreak opportunities the other team gets because of the long rebounds resulting in easy fastbreaks for them. The inability to stop the bleeding because we keep chucking 3s results in unnecessary blowouts.
The frustration our players and fans feel after we've clunked our last 500 3 point attempts.
The loss of "attack" mentality.

Sloan didn't have great post up players either in the post S2M era. I feel a more conventional offense would be better for us as I believe we would score more efficiently, build more momentum, and limit fastbreak points.

 

[Sandman822]

The Jazz are 2nd in opponent's fast break points allowed so I don't understand how the current Jazz offense is bleeding transition points on the other end. The inability to stop the bleeding also has very little to do with our 3pt shooting, the real problem with that is that the Jazz have no one in their starting lineup who can easily get to the rim so when the shooting dries up the Jazz end up running blenders all over the place just to brick shots. Mitchell and Rubio can both get by their primary defender consistently enough, but Mitchell lacks the explosion to easily get by the secondary defender and often has to put on a series of moves to get to the rim (if he even gets there instead of putting up a floater), and he often slows down while doing it which allows recovery/rotations/etc on defense time to get to where they need to be. Rubio has almost zero ability to get by a secondary defender which is why you see him take a lot of those short/mid range 2s.

What this means for the offense is that if the Jazz are missing jumpshots, defenses start to overplay the roll man (Gobert/Favors) to take away the Jazz' most efficient PPS options, and then the Jazz' offense boils down to blenders and missed shots. It's where the value of Exum shows itself the most offensively as when the shots aren't falling and they're overplaying the roll man he's the only guy who can manage to find his way to the rim easily by blowing by his primary defender and pressuring/exploding by his secondary defender too, which is why the Exum/Gobert or Exum/Favs in particular PnRs have historically been one of the more efficient scoring options for the Jazz, and it was a large reason why the Jazz were getting back into games in that December stretch after the starters came out slow. Even with Exum's poor finishing ability, just being able to get off shots near the rim while committing the rim protector to him allowed easy offensive put backs for the big guys (aka the most efficient shot takers on the team), and that pressure at the rim would get the shooters wide open on catch and shoots which could spark them into rhythm.

It's why I'd throw the kitchen sink at Jrue Holiday, he's an underrated driver of the ball and is physical and explosive enough to get defenses to collapse on him when he drives to the rim. Conley is more out of the Mitchell mold where he uses craftiness to get all the way to the rim, which is an upgrade on Rubio but an important reason why the Jazz would need to keep Exum in a Conley deal. Exum is expendable in a Jrue deal because Jrue does what Exum can do 10x better while also providing a ton of other things on both ends of the floor. But the Jazz desperately just need a guy who can get to the rim at will when the shots aren't falling, and Exum's injury was really felt during the Portland and Houston losses.

 

[elan_prodigy]

You only need 34% from the 3 (which is average) to match 50% from mid-range(that's elite). We need to continue to take a ton of 3s and dunks/layups. A mid-range shot is better than no shot, but that's about it.

A made shot is the best shot.

The 2v3 arguments is smokes and mirrors.

 

[JAZZGASM]

A made shot is the best shot.

The 2v3 arguments is smokes and mirrors.

Agreed. The Spurs don't take a ton of 3s, but they are efficient from everywhere, and shoot great percentages. They run their sets and get efficient shots. Best run offense in the league IMO.

 

[Sandman822]

A made shot is the best shot.

The 2v3 arguments is smokes and mirrors.

Bad take, it's a fact that shooting 34% on 3s > shooting 50% on 2s. The way to have 2 point attempts outweight 3 point attempts by PPS is to get high quality looks at the rim that you can convert at 65%+, which is why some of the most successful modern offenses like the Rockets live either in the paint or on the 3pt line.

Agreed. The Spurs don't take a ton of 3s, but they are efficient from everywhere, and shoot great percentages. They run their sets and get efficient shots. Best run offense in the league IMO.

Depends on what Spurs offense you're talking about. The offense they are able to run with their bench unit is very good, but the last time I checked the bench 3pt% attempt rate is up in the top 10 of NBA teams. Only reason they don't take a ton of threes is because of LMA and DeRozan, and according to the on/off bballreference stats the Spurs are better offensively as well as defensively with those guys off vs on (in DeRozan's case they're a crazy 5.8 points per 100 better with him off the floor offensively).

It's part of the reason why LMA getting in over Aldridge is so absurd, the team arguable does better when he's off the court compared to Gobert who's vital for the Jazz yet LMA got in over him. Pop had adjusted to having these two guys on his team by essentially going away from the successful Spurs offense they've ran for most of this decade to an old school style that statistics suggest isn't really producing better basketball than guys on their bench do when they run the Spurs offense we've been acustomed to.

 

[Alfalfa]

The value of the 3 over the 2 is obvious. Older people just have a really hard time accepting change

 

[elan_prodigy]

Bad take, it's a fact that shooting 34% on 3s > shooting 50% on 2s. The way to have 2 point attempts outweight 3 point attempts by PPS is to get high quality looks at the rim that you can convert at 65%+, which is why some of the most successful modern offenses like the Rockets live either in the paint or on the 3pt line.

Depends on what Spurs offense you're talking about. The offense they are able to run with their bench unit is very good, but the last time I checked the bench 3pt% attempt rate is up in the top 10 of NBA teams. Only reason they don't take a ton of threes is because of LMA and DeRozan, and according to the on/off bballreference stats the Spurs are better offensively as well as defensively with those guys off vs on (in DeRozan's case they're a crazy 5.8 points per 100 better with him off the floor offensively).

It's part of the reason why LMA getting in over Aldridge is so absurd, the team arguable does better when he's off the court compared to Gobert who's vital for the Jazz yet LMA got in over him. Pop had adjusted to having these two guys on his team by essentially going away from the successful Spurs offense they've ran for most of this decade to an old school style that statistics suggest isn't really producing better basketball than guys on their bench do when they run the Spurs offense we've been acustomed to.

I know the math. But what about all the nights teams shoot < 30% from 3?? Too frequently teams live and die by the 3.

Playoffs are different again, you need to score at all levels. Intangibles associated with making more baskets is another thing you are neglecting.

2v3 is for simulations and teams with Steph Curry.

 

[The Thriller]

I know the math. But what about all the nights teams shoot < 30% from 3?? Too frequently teams live and die by the 3.

Playoffs are different again, you need to score at all levels. Intangibles associated with making more baskets is another thing you are neglecting.

2v3 is for simulations and teams with Steph Curry.

Great post

Which is why I think we’ve seen so many unnecessary jazz blowouts. Feast or famine. When Jae/Jingles/Rubio are on we are tough. When they aren’t knocking down their 3s? We get blown out unless Mitchell goes nuclear or if the other team sucks just as bad (like minny a few weeks ago)

 

[jope]

The only counter argument to the “34 from 3 is better than 50 from 2” thing is —> you tend to draw a lot more fouls when really pushing for twos (driving). 3s rarely result in fta.

So if you’re 7/20 (35%, realistic) from seeking 3s with 5 fta that’s 26 pts. If you’re 9/20 (45%, realistic) from seeking 2s but with 10 fta that’s 28 pts.

I think the difference between traditional offense and seeking 3s offense are less black and white than people think. imo it’s just better to get the shots your players are most comfortable taking, and run your offense so that they get consistent looks that they can replicate in practice time. “Scrambling” also creates variability that is harder to practice for consistency. But our set plays that attempt to end in a corner 3 usually have great success.

 

[Alfalfa]

Great post

Which is why I think we’ve seen so many unnecessary jazz blowouts. Feast or famine. When Jae/Jingles/Rubio are on we are tough. When they aren’t knocking down their 3s? We get blown out unless Mitchell goes nuclear or if the other team sucks just as bad (like minny a few weeks ago)

It wasn't a great post, and it was already responded to. NBA teams are not stupid, and the simulations do not assume Curry. An average 3 point shooter is more efficient than the best mid-range shooter, and provides more spacing. The Spurs are forced into playing an inferior style that will get them nowhere because their main offensive options can't really shoot the 3.

 

[Alfalfa]

The only counter argument to the “34 from 3 is better than 50 from 2” thing is —> you tend to draw a lot more fouls when really pushing for twos (driving). 3s rarely result in fta.

So if you’re 7/20 (35%, realistic) from seeking 3s with 5 fta that’s 26 pts. If you’re 9/20 (45%, realistic) from seeking 2s but with 10 fta that’s 28 pts.

I think the difference between traditional offense and seeking 3s offense are less black and white than people think. imo it’s just better to get the shots your players are most comfortable taking, and run your offense so that they get consistent looks that they can replicate in practice time. “Scrambling” also creates variability that is harder to practice for consistency. But our set plays that attempt to end in a corner 3 usually have great success.

Driving (layups) is a high percentage shot, and can be used to create plays for others. You should either look for a 3 or an inside shot (which includes driving). Mid-range jumpers are only good as a last resort if you're driven off the 3 and have an open shot.

 

[Alfalfa]

Yeah, I've heard the arguments... Many times. I don't buy it.

What we never talk about?

The fastbreak opportunities the other team gets because of the long rebounds resulting in easy fastbreaks for them. The inability to stop the bleeding because we keep chucking 3s results in unnecessary blowouts.
The frustration our players and fans feel after we've clunked our last 500 3 point attempts.
The loss of "attack" mentality.

Sloan didn't have great post up players either in the post S2M era. I feel a more conventional offense would be better for us as I believe we would score more efficiently, build more momentum, and limit fastbreak points.

How about the inability to stop the bleeding because you're shooting a very normal 42% from the mid-range? How badly do you need to shoot the 3 for that to happen?

 

[Sandman822]

I know the math. But what about all the nights teams shoot < 30% from 3?? Too frequently teams live and die by the 3.

Playoffs are different again, you need to score at all levels. Intangibles associated with making more baskets is another thing you are neglecting.

2v3 is for simulations and teams with Steph Curry.

I don't think you do know the math though lol. You're talking about being able to score at all levels, yet you want the team to go away from probably the 2nd and 3rd most efficient shots in the game (Corner 3, then a 3 in general) to take one of the worst in mid range jumpers more often, when the entire problem that I've been preaching over the last few pages of this thread is that the Jazz don't have a single guy on their roster who is healthy right now who can get to the rim at will to get the single most efficient shot in basketball and that's what is costing the Jazz games when their 3pt shooting is off. If you removed all of those 3pt shots and tried to make them mid range 2s instead, you would need to shoot >45% on those midranges to get more points than you would have shooting 30% from 3 on the same volume. That's a mathematical fact and if they're having a poor shooting night from 3 and are only able to shoot 30% from there, then I would be willing to bet $50 that in most cases NBA teams aren't all of a sudden going to be shooting better than 45% from mid range on the same just because they took a few extra steps in.

The intangible part is a fine point but changing the 3pt shots to mid ranges isn't the solution, the 3pt shooting of the Jazz is fine. The problem is the inability to consistently get to the rim and get easy looks when the perimeter shooting isn't working. Rubio just can't get there 95% of the time and Mitchell needs a series of moves to get to the hoop usually, which takes longer than guys like LeBron/Harden or even Exum who can take one or two dribbles at the most and then be at the rim. If Exum could hit over 60% of his layups he's easily the best player on the roster to run PnRs with Gobert or Favors if the goal is to get shots at the rim, which is why the Exum/3 shooter/Favors lineup is so good offensively despite Exum's tendency to blow at least one or two gimme layups a game. Exum is able to use his speed to explode and generate easy looks at the rim for himself, able to generate easy looks or offensive put backs at the rim for the bigs to get them involved (remember they're the most efficient scoring options the Jazz have), and if they completely collapse the PnR he's then able to generate wide open looks for 3pt shooters.

Chucking some mid range 2s here and there is fine if you just want to get a basketball to stop a run or need a high quality 2 for 1 or end of quarter situations, but you don't want to get down to Spurs level of mid range 2s as the stats suggest they're worse off when they play that way vs when they get to run their traditional pace and space 3pt offense when LMA/DeRozan are sitting.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Yeah, I've heard the arguments... Many times. I don't buy it.

What we never talk about?

The fastbreak opportunities the other team gets because of the long rebounds resulting in easy fastbreaks for them.

That's garbage. A total myth. You know shooters (above the break) are also in better position to get back, right? I'd say guards crashing towards the hoop is several times the transition liability.

 

[Sandman822]

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612762/shooting/

The Jazz shoot on average 39.6% on mid range attempts this season, half assist half unassisted. That's an expected PPS of 0.792 which is frankly awful. In comparison the team shoots 34.3% from deep, which has an expected PPS of 1.038. It's simply a more efficient option for the Jazz to chuck threes than mid range shots, and making 5.3% more shots on a lower expected value is not worth it.

To support what I was saying about getting easy looks at the rim, the team shoots 63.7% on shots in the restricted area (rim). The expected PPS on that is 1.274. That's the option the Jazz need to generate as often as they can, but as I've detailed already the team right now with the injuries just don't have a guy who can consistently get to the rim at will outside of maybe Mitchell but even he needs a series of moves to get there and can't just bull rush the rim like some of the greatest players in the NBA can.

 

[Aneurism]

Does anyone else find Dante's running gait distractingly annoying and weird ? He seems to bend his wrists backwards close to 90 degrees as he runs and subliminally makes me think he or runs like a retarded person or a girl.

Given his glass like nature it wouldn't surprise me if someone collides into him as he is running with his wrists like that causing some kind of injury.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Was gonna make a new thread, but this is probably better.

So this is it right? After all star break Dante needs to put up or shut up, we’re all out of excuses. If he plays like crap the rest of the year no one is allowed to say “he was hurt, just wait until next season” agreed?

He was playing awesome before he went out, and I hope to god it continues right where he left off. But he needs to flip the switch on his career these last 30ish games + playoffs.

That’s fair in everyone’s opinion, right?

 

[fishonjazz]

That's garbage. A total myth. You know shooters (above the break) are also in better position to get back, right? I'd say guards crashing towards the hoop is several times the transition liability.

Also, long rebounds are more likely to result in offensive rebounds

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app