1996 Seattle Supersonics vs. 2021 Utah Jazz

[Xiao Yao You]

Seattle shot .364% in 1996. The league average today is .367%. How is that "inefficient"? Furthermore, they shot 40% in 1998, which led the league, with no shortened line. Utah is 2nd in the league this year in three point shooting, but they were 2nd in the league last year, too. How did that fair them in the playoffs?

To make it seem like they would beat the Sonics off of the strength of that alone is quite odd, especially when Seattle has their own share of shooters.

As far as volume is concerned, History has shown us otherwise. Players shoot more threes as seasons went on and their three point percentages actually improved. It happened with Bird, MJ, Magic, etc. Why wouldn't it happen with the Sonics?

It happened with LeBron, Embiid, and even guys like Rondo. Rondo's first 9 seasons in the league, he averaged 0.8 attempts and shot 26%. The last 6 seasons, he's averaging 2.3 attempts and shooting 35%. Coincidence?

The top teams are near 40% including Utah. Seattle vs Utah remember?

Jazz lost in the playoffs because of defense. They are top 3 at defense this year. It's not the only reason they would beat them. The Jazz team is designed for today's game. Seattle was designed for their time. It the Jazz go back to '96 they probably lose though their best player Gobert would be even more equipped for that time. Seattle starts hunting 3's I can't imagine their % going up. I'd guess most of their 3's were wide open at that time

[HoopsNY]

The top teams are near 40% including Utah. Seattle vs Utah remember?

Jazz lost in the playoffs because of defense. They are top 3 at defense this year. It's not the only reason they would beat them. The Jazz team is designed for today's game. Seattle was designed for their time. It the Jazz go back to '96 they probably lose though their best player Gobert would be even more equipped for that time. Seattle starts hunting 3's I can't imagine their % going up.

But why wouldn't Seattle's 3's go up when that appears to be the general trend across time? Just look at three point shooting historically. It has improved over time as volume as gone up.

I'd guess most of their 3's were wide open at that time

And Utah's percentages aren't reflective of similar? Look at the contested shot breakdown for some of their shooters

0-2 Feet (Very Tight)

O'Neale: 0%
Conley: 0%
Mitchell: 0%
Ingles: 100%
Clarkson: 33%

2-4 Feet (Tight)

O'Neale: 33%
Conley: 29%
Ingles: 25%
Mitchell: 32%
Clarkson: 33%

4-6 Feet (Open)

O'Neal: 36%
Conley: 34%
Ingles: 53%
Mitchell: 36%
Clarkson: 36%

6+ Feet (Wide Open)

O'Neale: 42%
Conley: 50%
Ingles: 50%
Mitchell: 49%
Clarkson: 37%

Now look at the frequency of attempts from each category (Very Tight, Tight, Open, Wide Open)

O'Neal: 0.4%, 1.2%, 4.3%, 67%
Conley: 0.4%, 3.1%, 21.7%, 27.2%
Ingles: 0.3%, 6.2%, 28.0%, 37.1%
Mitchell: 0.6%, 6.5%, 18.7%, 17.0%
Clarkson: 1.3%, 15.6%, 23.1% 17.8%

Look at the data. What does this tell you? These guys are shooting the majority of their shots wide open+ and their best percentages, by far, come in those situations. In fact, their shots being contested at a very tight level is almost non-existent.

[Xiao Yao You]

But why wouldn't Seattle's 3's go up when that appears to be the general trend across time? Just look at three point shooting historically. It has improved over time as volume as gone up.



And Utah's percentages aren't reflective of similar? Look at the contested shot breakdown for some of their shooters

0-2 Feet (Very Tight)

O'Neale: 0%
Conley: 0%
Mitchell: 0%
Ingles: 100%
Clarkson: 33%

2-4 Feet (Tight)

O'Neale: 33%
Conley: 29%
Ingles: 25%
Mitchell: 32%
Clarkson: 33%

4-6 Feet (Open)

O'Neal: 36%
Conley: 34%
Ingles: 53%
Mitchell: 36%
Clarkson: 36%

6+ Feet (Wide Open)

O'Neale: 42%
Conley: 50%
Ingles: 50%
Mitchell: 49%
Clarkson: 37%

Now look at the frequency of attempts from each category (Very Tight, Tight, Open, Wide Open)

O'Neal: 0.4%, 1.2%, 4.3%, 67%
Conley: 0.4%, 3.1%, 21.7%, 27.2%
Ingles: 0.3%, 6.2%, 28.0%, 37.1%
Mitchell: 0.6%, 6.5%, 18.7%, 17.0%
Clarkson: 1.3%, 15.6%, 23.1% 17.8%

Look at the data. What does this tell you? These guys are shooting the majority of their shots wide open+ and their best percentages, by far, comes in those situations. In fact, their shots being contested at a very tight level is almost non-existent.

Yes they are wide open thanks to their big man that supposedly sucks! Seattle has 3 good shooters. Even if they do shoot them at the same % on higher volume they will be easier to guard than 4 out. Their best players Payton and Kemp will be left to shoot or challenge Gobert.

[HoopsNY]

Looking at their attempts by category, the following spread is a percentage of either Wide Open or Very Wide Open three point attempts.

O'Neale: 98%
Conley: 92%
Ingles: 91%
Mitchell: 84%
Clarkson: 71%

Yet Utah isn't shooting wide open threes?

[Xiao Yao You]

Looking at their attempts by category, the following spread is a percentage of either Wide Open or Very Wide Open three point attempts.

O'Neale: 98%
Conley: 92%
Ingles: 91%
Mitchell: 84%
Clarkson: 71%

Yet Utah isn't shooting wide open threes?

yes they are because of their elite big. Seattle with only 3 good 3 point shooters wouldn't have that spacing. Everyone else would be left open

[HoopsNY]

yes they are because of their elite big. Seattle with only 3 good 3 point shooters wouldn't have that spacing. Everyone else would be left open

Wait, what? So Gobert's massive post dominance (sarcasm) is the catalyst for their wide open threes? He's kicking out the ball to so many open teammates who are draining threes, yet he's averaging 1.2 assists?

Yet Shawn Kemp, who was a superior post player and passer, wouldn't get the ball out to his shooters?

I've seen you debate in several threads, and I think you're highly intelligent. But this topic has declined on your end. None of what you're saying is adding up, or maybe I'm just completely misinterpreting you?

[Xiao Yao You]

Wait, what? So Gobert's massive post dominance (sarcasm) is the catalyst for their wide open threes? He's kicking out the ball to so many open teammates who are draining threes, yet he's averaging 1.2 assists?

Yet Shawn Kemp, who was a superior post player and passer, wouldn't get the ball out to his shooters?

I've seen you debate in several threads, and I think you're highly intelligent. But this topic has declined on your end. None of what you're saying is adding up, or maybe I'm just completely misinterpreting you?

Gobert is a top roll threat and the best screener in the game. You can stop him from dunking or you can stop them from shooting 3's. Hard to stop both. So yes he's a big reason they get a lot of open 3's between his screens and his rim running. Sure Kemp could try to get it to the 3 shooters that the Jazz would consider a threat but more likely it's going to someone open that isn't a great threat from 3. I saw this plenty when Rubio and Favors were spotting up in the corner instead of someone that could shoot.

[HoopsNY]

Gobert is a top roll threat and the best screener in the game. You can stop him from dunking or you can stop them from shooting 3's. Hard to stop both. So yes he's a big reason they get a lot of open 3's between his screens and his rim running. Sure Kemp could try to get it to the 3 shooters that the Jazz would consider a threat but more likely it's going to someone open that isn't a great threat from 3. I saw this plenty when Rubio and Favors were spotting up in the corner instead of someone that could shoot.

Your arguments are descending from bad to worse. How do you draw comparisons with Seattle's top shooters like Hawkins, Schrempf, or McMillan, with guys like Rubio or Favors?

Favors isn't a three point shooter and barely has any volume, shooting 21% with Utah from the distance career-wise. Rubio with Utah in his career shot 32%.

You're gonna compare those guys to someone like Hersey Hawkins who shot the three at an almost 40% mark for his career? Heck, in 1998 when Seattle led the league in three point shooting, GP shot 34%.

You don't see the flaws in your arguments? We've heard so far in this thread, from numerous posters, that:

1) Seattle can't shoot threes (evidence suggested otherwise)
2) Seattle only shot wide open threes (evidence shows that's exactly what Utah does)
3) Gobert is an elite big man (but Kemp wasn't?)
4) Seattle couldn't guard them on the perimeter (despite explaining how GP was a great defender regardless of hand checking)
5) Seattle's shooters compare to Rubio and Favors (evidence clearly showed otherwise)

All are debunked, yet you're still holding onto this weak premise. I don't understand why.

[Manny98]

Xiao at it again

[Xiao Yao You]

Your arguments are descending from bad to worse. How do you draw comparisons with Seattle's top shooters like Hawkins, Schrempf, or McMillan, with guys like Rubio or Favors?

Favors isn't a three point shooter and barely has any volume, shooting 21% with Utah from the distance career-wise. Rubio with Utah in his career shot 32%.

You're gonna compare those guys to someone like Hersey Hawkins who shot the three at an almost 40% mark for his career? Heck, in 1998 when Seattle led the league in three point shooting, GP shot 34%.

You don't see the flaws in your arguments? We've heard so far in this thread, from numerous posters, that:

1) Seattle can't shoot threes (evidence suggested otherwise)
2) Seattle only shot wide open threes (evidence shows that's exactly what Utah does)
3) Gobert is an elite big man (but Kemp wasn't?)
4) Seattle couldn't guard them on the perimeter (despite explaining how GP was a great defender regardless of hand checking)
5) Seattle's shooters compare to Rubio and Favors (evidence clearly showed otherwise)

All are debunked, yet you're still holding onto this weak premise. I don't understand why.

The Jazz run shooters off the 3 point line and funnel them to Gobert. If you can't shoot they will gladly let you fire away all day or if you can they'll let you shoot long two's all day. With only 3 shooters Seattle becomes much easier to defend. Rubio and Favors weren't guarded because they couldn't shoot. The Jazz were much easier to guard. The reason the Jazz offense is great the past two years is because everyone but their centers can shoot and they screen and put pressure on the rim if you guard the 3 point line hard.

34% is horrible. Jazz would take that all day. Fire away! 3 guys can shoot. I've said that several times. The 3 guys that can shoot would be guarded tightly and that would be easier to do because only 3 of them could shoot. I said Kemp might be a good matchup with Gobert. Seattle could try to guard them on the perimeter but since they never guarded a team like that good luck! All but 3 of their shooters compare favorably with Rubio and Favors. McMillan, Hawkins and Detlef. Their two best players would be left open to shoot. I hope I don't have to repeat this yet again!

[dankok8]

It's pretty difficult not to go with Sonics who are a proven team. The Jazz haven't done anything in the playoffs yet. In about 4 months we should have a better answer to this question. People sometimes also forget that the Sonics were absolutely elite from 1994-1998. It wasn't just one season.

[Xiao Yao You]

It's pretty difficult not to go with Sonics who are a proven team. The Jazz haven't done anything in the playoffs yet. In about 4 months we should have a better answer to this question. People sometimes also forget that the Sonics were absolutely elite from 1994-1998. It wasn't just one season.

the problem with that thinking is the Jazz are #1 against teams built for today's game. Why would a team built for a different era be able to do what teams today can't?

[Bronbron23]

Who wins in a best of 7 series?

The one that made it to the finals. Jazz will be lucky to get out of the first or second round