Knicks · the long 2.... (page 1)

So I DVR the games. I rarely have the time to tune in live. Typically I will DVR the games, blow through the commercials, FTs, etc.. and it takes me about 50 minutes to watch the games. Lately I have been rewinding quite a bit and have been paying more attention to how the Knicks play.

I know last year the Knicks were among tops in long 2s.

I havent checked this year where we stand. However I have been watching for these. It seems we never take long twos from a set position. They are all a result of rather than taking a contested 3, our guys will take a dribble, let the defender fly by and pull up for the uncontested 16-18 footer.

I see Jose, Lance and AA do this the most, although others do as well. When they do Clyde talks about passing on the 3 to take the shot THEY want.

Agree? Good shots? Bad shots?

The thing is that because we don't completely ignore the mid range our players are more prepared to take those shots as a normal course of doing things. Other teams that get chased off the 3pt line are not used to taking those midrange shots and they will not be as successful in that area. It's not so much about prioritizing the mid range as some have wrongly accused the Knicks. It's about being more efficient from EVERYWHERE on the floor as opposed to just 3's and dunks. What that also does is make the team more prepared for the post season when you face the better defensive teams who will not just let you take open 3's. People have wrongly used last years team as some kind of example of what the Triangle is about when it was far from that. If we think about the teams Phil had over the decades they were usually pretty well rounded from all aspects of the game. Inside, outside and midrange.

We lead the league this year in 10-16 footers. We are bout 5th in 16-23's. Both are too high.

On most teams, players take or fake the 3 and drive it much deeper and hope to either hit a close shot, get fouled, or draw the defenders so that you can rekick it out for a 3.

Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

fishmike wrote:So I DVR the games. I rarely have the time to tune in live. Typically I will DVR the games, blow through the commercials, FTs, etc.. and it takes me about 50 minutes to watch the games. Lately I have been rewinding quite a bit and have been paying more attention to how the Knicks play.

I know last year the Knicks were among tops in long 2s.

I havent checked this year where we stand. However I have been watching for these. It seems we never take long twos from a set position. They are all a result of rather than taking a contested 3, our guys will take a dribble, let the defender fly by and pull up for the uncontested 16-18 footer.

I see Jose, Lance and AA do this the most, although others do as well. When they do Clyde talks about passing on the 3 to take the shot THEY want.

Agree? Good shots? Bad shots?

I don't mind the wide-open mid-range or long 2. I don't love them and I'd much rather drive to the basket or get a good look at a 3, but sometimes those long 2s create space for the other stuff and keep the defense honest.

Sometimes we're getting good long 2s - Melo and KP take a bunch. Calderon and Afflalo, too. Fine with most of their shots.

But the kind of contested long 2s that Lance Thomas take because it seems like he's overconfident in his shot or has nowhere else to go... those feel like they happen too often.

I've noticed the trend particularly when we play a good defensive team like Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Miami - those are five of the seven losses right there. And they were good defensive teams forcing us into contested long twos - they shut down our ball movement, shut down a lot of the moving off the ball, shut down the paint - and we're left with mid-range Js or 3s that are usually pretty well covered.

Again, I think this is partly the good defensive teams forcing us into these shots - the shots are options in the Triangle, but they're like the "C" or "D" option, not the "A" or "B" options.

Anyhow, hopefully we can improve this, because being able to run your offense against good teams means being able to get the shots you want against them - not settle for what they give you.

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:So I DVR the games. I rarely have the time to tune in live. Typically I will DVR the games, blow through the commercials, FTs, etc.. and it takes me about 50 minutes to watch the games. Lately I have been rewinding quite a bit and have been paying more attention to how the Knicks play.

I know last year the Knicks were among tops in long 2s.

I havent checked this year where we stand. However I have been watching for these. It seems we never take long twos from a set position. They are all a result of rather than taking a contested 3, our guys will take a dribble, let the defender fly by and pull up for the uncontested 16-18 footer.

I see Jose, Lance and AA do this the most, although others do as well. When they do Clyde talks about passing on the 3 to take the shot THEY want.

Agree? Good shots? Bad shots?

I don't mind the wide-open mid-range or long 2. I don't love them and I'd much rather drive to the basket or get a good look at a 3, but sometimes those long 2s create space for the other stuff and keep the defense honest.

Sometimes we're getting good long 2s - Melo and KP take a bunch. Calderon and Afflalo, too. Fine with most of their shots.

But the kind of contested long 2s that Lance Thomas take because it seems like he's overconfident in his shot or has nowhere else to go... those feel like they happen too often.

I've noticed the trend particularly when we play a good defensive team like Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Miami - those are five of the seven losses right there. And they were good defensive teams forcing us into contested long twos - they shut down our ball movement, shut down a lot of the moving off the ball, shut down the paint - and we're left with mid-range Js or 3s that are usually pretty well covered.

Again, I think this is partly the good defensive teams forcing us into these shots - the shots are options in the Triangle, but they're like the "C" or "D" option, not the "A" or "B" options.

Anyhow, hopefully we can improve this, because being able to run your offense against good teams means being able to get the shots you want against them - not settle for what they give you.

good post you hit it on the head. Defenses are forcing us into these and the triangle seems to say that it is ok to take them. They should not be this ok.

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

Yes, that's great. We're actually shooting only .318 from 3 unless of course you count Cleanthony Early and his 1 of 2 for .500. You didn't actually do that, did you?
You know I love this whole remedial math discussion, but I'm tired and I will feel better just leaving you with your "they should not be ok" point of view.

Peace.

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

mreinman wrote:We lead the league this year in 10-16 footers. We are bout 5th in 16-23's. Both are too high.

On most teams, players take or fake the 3 and drive it much deeper and hope to either hit a close shot, get fouled, or draw the defenders so that you can rekick it out for a 3.

Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

this didnt answer my question at all. Check the original post.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:We lead the league this year in 10-16 footers. We are bout 5th in 16-23's. Both are too high.

On most teams, players take or fake the 3 and drive it much deeper and hope to either hit a close shot, get fouled, or draw the defenders so that you can rekick it out for a 3.

Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

this didnt answer my question at all. Check the original post.

I think that it may be better than a contested 3 but not necessarily a good shot. They are not taking the shot that they want but the shot that the defense wants them to take.

We have actually been doing a great job of running teams off the 3 ball this year (kudos to fish for that). The problem is that when we run them off they are getting penetration. We would/should be thrilled that instead of penetrating, they would pull up for long 2's. Unfortunately, they don't care what we want.

long 2's have a place but those are situational (e.g. end of the shot clock, end of quarters, where nothing else is working, if you have guards who are too slow to penetrate, ...)

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:We lead the league this year in 10-16 footers. We are bout 5th in 16-23's. Both are too high.

On most teams, players take or fake the 3 and drive it much deeper and hope to either hit a close shot, get fouled, or draw the defenders so that you can rekick it out for a 3.

Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

this didnt answer my question at all. Check the original post.

I think that it may be better than a contested 3 but not necessarily a good shot. They are not taking the shot that they want but the shot that the defense wants them to take.

We have actually been doing a great job of running teams off the 3 ball this year (kudos to fish for that). The problem is that when we run them off they are getting penetration. We would/should be thrilled that instead of penetrating, they would pull up for long 2's. Unfortunately, they don't care what we want.

long 2's have a place but those are situational (e.g. end of the shot clock, end of quarters, where nothing else is working, if you have guards who are too slow to penetrate, ...)

I don't agree with the firs statement (it's just too generic and without base) and think you are taking the stat argument regarding long 2's to a place where it doesn't have meaning.

This is basketball not statball. Stats can help inform and can certainly be used to compare and sway teams towards an overall course of action but it's not as precise as you have made it out to be.

I mean, no player is thinking to themselves, "long 2, probably shouldn't shoot unless it's shot clock time", and that's where you just took your argument.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:We lead the league this year in 10-16 footers. We are bout 5th in 16-23's. Both are too high.

On most teams, players take or fake the 3 and drive it much deeper and hope to either hit a close shot, get fouled, or draw the defenders so that you can rekick it out for a 3.

Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

this didnt answer my question at all. Check the original post.

I think that it may be better than a contested 3 but not necessarily a good shot. They are not taking the shot that they want but the shot that the defense wants them to take.

We have actually been doing a great job of running teams off the 3 ball this year (kudos to fish for that). The problem is that when we run them off they are getting penetration. We would/should be thrilled that instead of penetrating, they would pull up for long 2's. Unfortunately, they don't care what we want.

long 2's have a place but those are situational (e.g. end of the shot clock, end of quarters, where nothing else is working, if you have guards who are too slow to penetrate, ...)

I don't agree with the firs statement (it's just too generic and without base) and think you are taking the stat argument regarding long 2's to a place where it doesn't have meaning.

This is basketball not statball. Stats can help inform and can certainly be used to compare and sway teams towards an overall course of action but it's not as precise as you have made it out to be.

I mean, no player is thinking to themselves, "long 2, probably shouldn't shoot unless it's shot clock time", and that's where you just took your argument.

I completely disagree with that statement. Players in certain systems are told what is acceptable and what is not. Statball has become a big part of basketball.

Sort the midrange shots by team on BRef and you can see that some teams just avoid them.

Take the 10-16 footer. The knicks take 15% of their shots from there which of course is leading the league. Do you think that is a fluke? Houston (the other extreme) takes 5% of their shots from there and have been consistently doing this every season), that is not a fluke.

Some teams stress that it is not ok to settle for these so called sh1t shots and some teams are more relaxed with this. The league is trending more and more away from them.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:We lead the league this year in 10-16 footers. We are bout 5th in 16-23's. Both are too high.

On most teams, players take or fake the 3 and drive it much deeper and hope to either hit a close shot, get fouled, or draw the defenders so that you can rekick it out for a 3.

Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

this didnt answer my question at all. Check the original post.

I think that it may be better than a contested 3 but not necessarily a good shot. They are not taking the shot that they want but the shot that the defense wants them to take.

We have actually been doing a great job of running teams off the 3 ball this year (kudos to fish for that). The problem is that when we run them off they are getting penetration. We would/should be thrilled that instead of penetrating, they would pull up for long 2's. Unfortunately, they don't care what we want.

long 2's have a place but those are situational (e.g. end of the shot clock, end of quarters, where nothing else is working, if you have guards who are too slow to penetrate, ...)

I don't agree with the firs statement (it's just too generic and without base) and think you are taking the stat argument regarding long 2's to a place where it doesn't have meaning.

This is basketball not statball. Stats can help inform and can certainly be used to compare and sway teams towards an overall course of action but it's not as precise as you have made it out to be.

I mean, no player is thinking to themselves, "long 2, probably shouldn't shoot unless it's shot clock time", and that's where you just took your argument.

So that is pretty much where I was going with this.

You can look at the #s and stats and make generalizations, and they may be accurate. However the usefullness ends when it comes to translating that to players in the heat of the moment. Its why I made the specific examples of the long 2's I see us take, and asked the specific question regarding those shots (which I have not gotten an answer on).

I see most of the long 2s we are taking as good open looks, usually because we pass on a contested 3.