Part of a bigger comment I made that got buried in a conversation -
Bottom line - you can’t afford to ignore or deprioritize defending the 3 in favor of 2s at the rim in today’s NBA UNLESS you ALSO SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. We currently shoot 35ish per game… same as last year. But we have better shooters. Should be taking 43-45 per game. We’d be fine.
We are the 5th best 3 pt shooting team in the and we rank 21st in 3pt shots taken per game. Boston, shooting a couple -% more poorly than us, take 49 3pt shots per game. They make about 5 more … if there’s anything that is stuck in the past about our team, it’s the reluctance to create and lean in to the shot we are among the best at making in the league.
It is the biggest achilles heel on the team on offense, imo, more than the issues vs switching teams (in part because firing away more freely will be the easiest way to beat those switching defenses)
I agree but a big difference between the Knicks and the Celtics is that they have multiple players in their starting lineup who can break down players off the dribble, which in turn leads to rotations and open 3’s. KAT has some strong moves to the basket but he’s not creative when he does so. So you’re really just talking about Brunson. That’s not OG, Bridges or Hart’s game.
We don’t have to shoot as many as the Celtics… they were just an example. And you’re right… I don’t think we have the “creation juice” to adopt their approach. So it has to be more deliberate, and we have to use screens to create the space needed to shoot. We can absolutely do that. Hart can screen for KAT before a PnR action begins w Brunson and then relocate to the corner, where he shoots 40%. KAT screens for Brunson. One of those 3 will be more open. If KAT doesn’t decide to dive in and go for a shot at the rim, which he tends to do a lot, the shot is there. He has to take them.
Bulls receive: Tim Hardaway Jr., Mitchell Robinson, Simone Fontecchio, a 2025 second-round pick from New York (via Detroit), a 2026 second-round pick from New York (via Detroit, Orlando or Milwaukee), a 2027 second-round pick from Detroit and a 2028 second-round pick from Detroit (via New York)
I would do this emotionally. Stewart and Craig are both players who have toasted us and high energy. I would be sorry to see Precious leave and Mitch but I am still missing JR and IQ too.
I agree, I think the price is too high. I'm not sure Stewart is all that much better than Precious (different game and a bit better) plus we lose a potential asset in Mitch plus two seconds. Not for me.
I like Stewart...a lot! But to give up 2 bigs for a PF & SF only weakens an already weak rebounding second unit. I posted on Saturday that I'd be okay with trading Mitch for Jonas V. He's not the defensive presence Mitch is (or could be if he plays!), but is solid in rebounding & an offensive threat that is missing off the bench. Would also let Thibs keep KAT from accruing 40+ minute games, since JV can score where Precious & certainly Mitch(or Sims) hurt us offensively (Anyone have a stat on Precious' layup percentage? I bet it's under 50%) and many times force Thibs to play KAT more minutes than he should (And with an injury that won't get better until the off season, it's a recipe for disaster!).
Without reading the newsletter I'd say it's bad defense. Thibs prioritizes stopping 2s over 3s. Something has to change. Now I'll read the newsletter to see if we agree.
We need to be flexible in our approach. It's not just about comparing two-point shots to three-point shots; we also have to consider the probability of making those shots per game. If a player has a three-point shooting percentage of 40% or higher, we must prioritize defending against three-pointers. Conversely, if a player shoots better than 60% from two-point range, we should focus on defending two-pointers. The breakeven point changes, so we must adapt based on players' hot hands, recent trends, and individual statistics.
Ok. After reading the newsletter, I'd have no hope of taking the 20-21 Bucks as a model. Three point shooting is getting better and better league wide. That's the eye test without looking at data. You can't get away with not defending the 3 like the Bucks did 4 years ago.
Part of what we are seeing is an uptick in variance - more shots from players who wouldn’t “in the olden days” shoot 3s. So overall the number of shots went up, the average reduced overall but the variance increased to the point where there are far too many games when a 29-30% 3pt shooter shoots 60% on 3s, or while teams that shoot in the mid 30s on average hitting 60%.
Bottom line - you can’t afford to ignore or deprioritize defending the 3 > 2s at the rim in today’s NBA UNLESS you ALSO SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. We currently shoot 35ish per game… same as last year. But we have better shooters. Should be taking 43-45 per game. We’d be fine.
Part of a bigger comment I made that got buried in a conversation -
Bottom line - you can’t afford to ignore or deprioritize defending the 3 in favor of 2s at the rim in today’s NBA UNLESS you ALSO SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. We currently shoot 35ish per game… same as last year. But we have better shooters. Should be taking 43-45 per game. We’d be fine.
We are the 5th best 3 pt shooting team in the and we rank 21st in 3pt shots taken per game. Boston, shooting a couple -% more poorly than us, take 49 3pt shots per game. They make about 5 more … if there’s anything that is stuck in the past about our team, it’s the reluctance to create and lean in to the shot we are among the best at making in the league.
It is the biggest achilles heel on the team on offense, imo, more than the issues vs switching teams (in part because firing away more freely will be the easiest way to beat those switching defenses)
I agree but a big difference between the Knicks and the Celtics is that they have multiple players in their starting lineup who can break down players off the dribble, which in turn leads to rotations and open 3’s. KAT has some strong moves to the basket but he’s not creative when he does so. So you’re really just talking about Brunson. That’s not OG, Bridges or Hart’s game.
We don’t have to shoot as many as the Celtics… they were just an example. And you’re right… I don’t think we have the “creation juice” to adopt their approach. So it has to be more deliberate, and we have to use screens to create the space needed to shoot. We can absolutely do that. Hart can screen for KAT before a PnR action begins w Brunson and then relocate to the corner, where he shoots 40%. KAT screens for Brunson. One of those 3 will be more open. If KAT doesn’t decide to dive in and go for a shot at the rim, which he tends to do a lot, the shot is there. He has to take them.
In the Athletic today, this trade was proposed:
Knicks receive: Isaiah Stewart and Torrey Craig
Pistons receive: Zach LaVine and Precious Achiuwa
Bulls receive: Tim Hardaway Jr., Mitchell Robinson, Simone Fontecchio, a 2025 second-round pick from New York (via Detroit), a 2026 second-round pick from New York (via Detroit, Orlando or Milwaukee), a 2027 second-round pick from Detroit and a 2028 second-round pick from Detroit (via New York)
I would do this emotionally. Stewart and Craig are both players who have toasted us and high energy. I would be sorry to see Precious leave and Mitch but I am still missing JR and IQ too.
We need more dogs
So we’re giving up 2 seconds here? That’s probably a no from me but I think it’s interesting.
I agree, I think the price is too high. I'm not sure Stewart is all that much better than Precious (different game and a bit better) plus we lose a potential asset in Mitch plus two seconds. Not for me.
I like Stewart...a lot! But to give up 2 bigs for a PF & SF only weakens an already weak rebounding second unit. I posted on Saturday that I'd be okay with trading Mitch for Jonas V. He's not the defensive presence Mitch is (or could be if he plays!), but is solid in rebounding & an offensive threat that is missing off the bench. Would also let Thibs keep KAT from accruing 40+ minute games, since JV can score where Precious & certainly Mitch(or Sims) hurt us offensively (Anyone have a stat on Precious' layup percentage? I bet it's under 50%) and many times force Thibs to play KAT more minutes than he should (And with an injury that won't get better until the off season, it's a recipe for disaster!).
Without reading the newsletter I'd say it's bad defense. Thibs prioritizes stopping 2s over 3s. Something has to change. Now I'll read the newsletter to see if we agree.
We need to be flexible in our approach. It's not just about comparing two-point shots to three-point shots; we also have to consider the probability of making those shots per game. If a player has a three-point shooting percentage of 40% or higher, we must prioritize defending against three-pointers. Conversely, if a player shoots better than 60% from two-point range, we should focus on defending two-pointers. The breakeven point changes, so we must adapt based on players' hot hands, recent trends, and individual statistics.
Ok. After reading the newsletter, I'd have no hope of taking the 20-21 Bucks as a model. Three point shooting is getting better and better league wide. That's the eye test without looking at data. You can't get away with not defending the 3 like the Bucks did 4 years ago.
What if I told you league average 3-point shooting is worse today than it was the year the Bucks won the title?
Part of what we are seeing is an uptick in variance - more shots from players who wouldn’t “in the olden days” shoot 3s. So overall the number of shots went up, the average reduced overall but the variance increased to the point where there are far too many games when a 29-30% 3pt shooter shoots 60% on 3s, or while teams that shoot in the mid 30s on average hitting 60%.
Bottom line - you can’t afford to ignore or deprioritize defending the 3 > 2s at the rim in today’s NBA UNLESS you ALSO SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. We currently shoot 35ish per game… same as last year. But we have better shooters. Should be taking 43-45 per game. We’d be fine.