Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,426

    In today's Game, how many 3pt shooters do you need to win?

    I still remember growing up and watching the 90s Knicks. I remember when we had Hubert Davis as our "sniper" off the bench to go with Starks and Harper. But our big men? Forget it. Ewing and Oakley took mid range shots but not 3s. Charles Smith? Anthony Mason? No way. Bigs played the post and SFs weren't even necessarily great shooters. I mean hell the Bulls dominated that era and typically would only have 1 maybe 2 pure shooter on the floor at a time (Paxson or BJ).

    Clearly the game had changed drastically. Different rules and different style. The LeBron model of just put 4 shooters around a star and watch him win worked pretty well for Giannis last year.

    It makes me wonder if we have reached a point where shooters are more valuable role players than other players with better all around games.

    For example, there is one of those "build a team with $15" games on twitter. Here are two teams I thought were interesting.

    Team A:
    PG - LeBron ($5)
    SG - MJ ($5)
    SF - Kawhi ($1)
    PF - KD ($3)
    C - Bosh ($1)

    Team B:
    PG - Steph Curry $4
    SG - Reggie Miller $2
    SF - Ray Allen $1
    PF - Larry Bird $4
    C - Shaq $4

    Kawhi and KD are better than Miller and Allen. No debate. But in their roles doesn't it help the star players more to have Reggie and Ray just running around non-stop looking to get open for a 3? My brain says team A should smash team B but my gut likes the fit of Team B so much more.

    So in conclusion:
    How many shooters does a team need (out of 5) to win a title in the modern era?

    For fun:
    How do you think Team A vs Team B would unfold in a 7 game series?


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    17,380
    LeBron and especially Giannis didn't have "shooters" astound them though. They have extremely dynamic multi skilled players and excellent defenders.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    17,380
    But to answer, team A.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    118,897
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    I still remember growing up and watching the 90s Knicks. I remember when we had Hubert Davis as our "sniper" off the bench to go with Starks and Harper. But our big men? Forget it. Ewing and Oakley took mid range shots but not 3s. Charles Smith? Anthony Mason? No way. Bigs played the post and SFs weren't even necessarily great shooters. I mean hell the Bulls dominated that era and typically would only have 1 maybe 2 pure shooter on the floor at a time (Paxson or BJ).

    Clearly the game had changed drastically. Different rules and different style. The LeBron model of just put 4 shooters around a star and watch him win worked pretty well for Giannis last year.

    It makes me wonder if we have reached a point where shooters are more valuable role players than other players with better all around games.

    For example, there is one of those "build a team with $15" games on twitter. Here are two teams I thought were interesting.

    Team A:
    PG - LeBron ($5)
    SG - MJ ($5)
    SF - Kawhi ($1)
    PF - KD ($3)
    C - Bosh ($1)

    Team B:
    PG - Steph Curry $4
    SG - Reggie Miller $2
    SF - Ray Allen $1
    PF - Larry Bird $4
    C - Shaq $4

    Kawhi and KD are better than Miller and Allen. No debate. But in their roles doesn't it help the star players more to have Reggie and Ray just running around non-stop looking to get open for a 3? My brain says team A should smash team B but my gut likes the fit of Team B so much more.

    So in conclusion:
    How many shooters does a team need (out of 5) to win a title in the modern era?

    For fun:
    How do you think Team A vs Team B would unfold in a 7 game series?
    Team A. 325-395 pound Shaq would foul out in todays game or be dead by the 2nd half with how he would have to run up and down the floor with curry/reggie/miller taking such quick shots.

    I like the team B fit much better though but team A has to much star power... We are talking about the Goat in lebron and the 2nd goat in jordan and 2 other eventual top 10 players ever in durant and KL.... that is 2 goats and a 2 top 10 players ever.... its over

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    66,906
    I believe in asking it like this is a bit misleading.

    Are we talking pure shooters (Seth Curry, Reddick, Robinson) where they donít give you much else? Are we talking 3nD shooters (RoCo, Green, KCP)? Are we talking guys who can shoot but give much more (Harden, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard) offensively? What about a good defensive guy who does shoot but can do more (Klay, Lowry, Ball)? Oh how about the guys not known as shooters but do good enough back there (THarris, Tatum, McCollum)?

    Not trying to pick this apart but if I had to build my ďperfectĒ team that had shooting and kept it within salary cap consideration (3 max, 1 $10-20ímil, one $15-25mil):

    Lonzo Ball or Marcus Smart at the PG position. Both shoot well enough that I feel comfortable with spacing. Both bring defense to the spot as well. Can handle the rock and initiate offense but not their main focus. ($15-25mil player)

    Devin Booker at the 2 spot. As one of my max player spots Iím taking a guard who can initiate offense, get things going in the half court. I give up some defense here but heís a willing defender.

    Klay Thompson at the 3. Another max guy here. The ultimate 3nD guy who can give you something more offensively. If right he can make this team elite.

    Robert Covington at the 4. Combo forward on a good contract who can space, play great team defense, and content being a spacer on offense.

    Joel Embiid at the 5. Third max guy. But this lineup heís a better option at the 5 than someone else whoís a shooter at the 5 because heís a guy the plays post to the 3 rather than 3 to the post. When you have 4 shooters like I got, having the anchor who can shoot is incredibly valuable.

    So:
    Ball
    Booker
    Thompson
    Covington
    Embiid


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by beasted86 View Post
    LeBron and especially Giannis didn't have "shooters" astound them though. They have extremely dynamic multi skilled players and excellent defenders.
    I get your point but im looking more big picture. Everyone in the Lakers finals rotation (except for Dwight) could make a 3pt shot.

    Everyone in the Bucks rotation (literally everyone) could make a 3pt shot.

    If those players couldn't shoot they wouldn't have been in the rotation. In the last 2 championship teams you had 95% of the players who could shoot. That is insane. Centers are shooters now. I'm wondering where the threshold is that a team could still be successful. For example, can a team with Ben Simmons, Zion Williamson, and Rudy Gobert win a title? They have the talent but can a team win with 3 non-threats from the perimeter?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    Team A. 325-395 pound Shaq would foul out in todays game or be dead by the 2nd half with how he would have to run up and down the floor with curry/reggie/miller taking such quick shots.

    I like the team B fit much better though but team A has to much star power... We are talking about the Goat in lebron and the 2nd goat in jordan and 2 other eventual top 10 players ever in durant and KL.... that is 2 goats and a 2 top 10 players ever.... its over
    I agree that Team A would win but they would have a fit trying to stop Shaq and all those shooters.

    The question is more about how necessary are shooters to a championship rotation.

    Kawhi's talent is almost wasted on that team. I would argue Klay would probably be just a valuable.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I believe in asking it like this is a bit misleading.

    Are we talking pure shooters (Seth Curry, Reddick, Robinson) where they donít give you much else? Are we talking 3nD shooters (RoCo, Green, KCP)? Are we talking guys who can shoot but give much more (Harden, Steph Curry, Dame Lillard) offensively? What about a good defensive guy who does shoot but can do more (Klay, Lowry, Ball)? Oh how about the guys not known as shooters but do good enough back there (THarris, Tatum, McCollum)?

    Not trying to pick this apart but if I had to build my ďperfectĒ team that had shooting and kept it within salary cap consideration (3 max, 1 $10-20ímil, one $15-25mil):

    Lonzo Ball or Marcus Smart at the PG position. Both shoot well enough that I feel comfortable with spacing. Both bring defense to the spot as well. Can handle the rock and initiate offense but not their main focus. ($15-25mil player)

    Devin Booker at the 2 spot. As one of my max player spots Iím taking a guard who can initiate offense, get things going in the half court. I give up some defense here but heís a willing defender.

    Klay Thompson at the 3. Another max guy here. The ultimate 3nD guy who can give you something more offensively. If right he can make this team elite.

    Robert Covington at the 4. Combo forward on a good contract who can space, play great team defense, and content being a spacer on offense.

    Joel Embiid at the 5. Third max guy. But this lineup heís a better option at the 5 than someone else whoís a shooter at the 5 because heís a guy the plays post to the 3 rather than 3 to the post. When you have 4 shooters like I got, having the anchor who can shoot is incredibly valuable.

    So:
    Ball
    Booker
    Thompson
    Covington
    Embiid


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I think this post proves my point. In constructing his "perfect" team he felt the need to put 5 shooters on the floor.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    39,252
    Team A because defense.

    I think people are a bit obsessed with 3 point shooting now. The Warriors last year had 11 players who hit over 33% of their 3 point shots (the Mendoza line) and have Klay coming back and one of the most comment "needs" people said the Warriors had was shooting.

    The NBA is more about stars than any other sport, but even stars need a scheme and players that fit the scheme, and of course, defense is still too undervalued.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    66,906
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    I think this post proves my point. In constructing his "perfect" team he felt the need to put 5 shooters on the floor.

    No I didnít feel the need for 5 shooters. Was just showing what an ultimate shooters lineup looks like. This lineup doesnít really have slashers, creators, ball movers. Itís got spacing but it could easily bog down.

    To answer your question. Two. Two is proven what you need. The NBA doesnít really change in that sense. You need one reliable catch and shoot guy. You need a good enough they are still respected. You need a wing guy who can score one-on-one from all three levels, and you need the post type guy. You need a slasher with and without the ball.

    The Bucks were so well balanced with that:
    Catch and shoot - Tucker
    Reliable - Lopez/portis (at times)
    One on one from 3 levels - Middleton/Holiday
    Slasher/Post - Giannis.

    That other team I listed has no offense if the shots go cold. Klay isnít getting open, Ball doesnít hit, RoCo is off, Booker canít shake a defender, thatís becoming too reliant on Embiid from the post.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Team A because defense.

    I think people are a bit obsessed with 3 point shooting now. The Warriors last year had 11 players who hit over 33% of their 3 point shots (the Mendoza line) and have Klay coming back and one of the most comment "needs" people said the Warriors had was shooting.

    The NBA is more about stars than any other sport, but even stars need a scheme and players that fit the scheme, and of course, defense is still too undervalued.
    Do you think Team B has the better offense?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    9,556
    Can we see the original pool of players?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    23,567
    I have often wondered how shaq would do in today's game. on one hand he would have to do a lot more defensively, but on the other he could completely change the landscape of the NBA when he would be giving you 30 points on good efficiency. teams couldn't do all this 5 out stuff if Shaq was just getting a layup on the other end.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    66,906
    Quote Originally Posted by dhopisthename View Post
    I have often wondered how shaq would do in today's game. on one hand he would have to do a lot more defensively, but on the other he could completely change the landscape of the NBA when he would be giving you 30 points on good efficiency. teams couldn't do all this 5 out stuff if Shaq was just getting a layup on the other end.
    I think he would kill it to be honest because he was an underrated post passer.

    FWIW thereís a stat out there, but the Sixers are some absurd like .800 record with Embiid taking 1.2 or less 3ís and 12.5+ in the lane. If that gives you any idea of what Shaw could do.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,138
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    I still remember growing up and watching the 90s Knicks. I remember when we had Hubert Davis as our "sniper" off the bench to go with Starks and Harper. But our big men? Forget it. Ewing and Oakley took mid range shots but not 3s. Charles Smith? Anthony Mason? No way. Bigs played the post and SFs weren't even necessarily great shooters. I mean hell the Bulls dominated that era and typically would only have 1 maybe 2 pure shooter on the floor at a time (Paxson or BJ).

    Clearly the game had changed drastically. Different rules and different style. The LeBron model of just put 4 shooters around a star and watch him win worked pretty well for Giannis last year.

    It makes me wonder if we have reached a point where shooters are more valuable role players than other players with better all around games.

    For example, there is one of those "build a team with $15" games on twitter. Here are two teams I thought were interesting.

    Team A:
    PG - LeBron ($5)
    SG - MJ ($5)
    SF - Kawhi ($1)
    PF - KD ($3)
    C - Bosh ($1)

    Team B:
    PG - Steph Curry $4
    SG - Reggie Miller $2
    SF - Ray Allen $1
    PF - Larry Bird $4
    C - Shaq $4

    Kawhi and KD are better than Miller and Allen. No debate. But in their roles doesn't it help the star players more to have Reggie and Ray just running around non-stop looking to get open for a 3? My brain says team A should smash team B but my gut likes the fit of Team B so much more.

    So in conclusion:
    How many shooters does a team need (out of 5) to win a title in the modern era?

    For fun:
    How do you think Team A vs Team B would unfold in a 7 game series?

    It's less about making x number of threes and more about the meta implications. Being a good enough shooter to draw defenders and trigger hard closeouts opens up passing and driving lanes. The ripple effect perimeter shooting has effects every other facet of team offense. The other thing is that shooting scales infinitely. You can only have so many on ball guys on the floor at the same time before you start to get marginal returns. The same isn't true for off ball, catch and shoot players.

    That being said, give me team A for sure. Defense still matters, and Kawhi and KD are both lethal perimeter shooters to clear up driving lanes for LeBron to finish and playmake. Team B doesn't have as good of an on ball initiator, and the defense is less versatile than team A's.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •