Why the Nuggets don't need to shoot a ton of 3s to have an elite offense

The Denver Nuggets lost in Chicago on Monday night in a game that was notable not only for the result (a surprising one, considering the two teams have been moving in opposite directions for the past few weeks), but for how it happened: the Bulls drained 24 threes in the win, while the Nuggets knocked down only six.

The 54-point disparity from beyond the arc was tied for the second-largest such gap in a game this season, matching what the Celtics did to the Knicks on opening night and coming in just behind Miami's 57-point long-range drubbing of the Lakers on Dec. 4.

For all that, the Nuggets lost the game by only eight points, thanks to an 84-38 edge in paint scoring. They scored 121 in all and put up a 114.2 offensive rating, numbers good enough to win on most nights. It was what Chicago's offense did, far more than Denver's lack of 3-point shooting, that cost the Nuggets the game. If the Bulls' long-range shooting had simply been in line with their season average, it would've been a seven-point Denver win. That was kind of a microcosm of the Nuggets' season so far. They haven't exactly looked like world-beaters, but their offense isn't the reason for that, despite the consternation over their lack of treys.

Since the start of December, they rank second in the NBA in offensive rating (120.9) behind only the Cleveland Cavaliers. They've scored seven more points per 100 possessions than the average team during that span, which means they've been scoring at the level of a top-20 all-time offense for the last two months. In fact, when taking the whole season into account and adjusting for league average, this year's Nuggets are more potent offensively than any of their teams in the Nikola Jokic era. All the while, they've continued to rank dead last in the league in 3-point frequency. Their 30.9% attempt rate is down from their league-low 32.3% last season, and would've been a bottom-10 mark as far back as six years ago.

Anyone who understands modern basketball knows that shooting a lot of threes isn't just about the threes themselves; it's about forcing the defense to account for as many players as possible on the perimeter, thus opening up the middle of the floor for drives, cuts, and easy 2-point scores. That's reflected in the fact the league's risen from 48% to 54% on twos and from 60% to 66% at the rim in the last 10 years.

But what if you don't need to shoot a ton of threes or command a lot of perimeter attention to feast around the basket? What if you employ a magician who can not only create space inside the arc with his unique gravity, but also thread the ball through the eye of a needle, or feather it over the defense to a precise location of his choosing, and conjure a close-range shot for himself or a teammate out of thin air?

Denver leads the league in rim frequency and, contrary to most other teams that shoot there a lot (often out of necessity because they can't score effectively from further away), is also a great interior finishing team. The Nuggets rank 10th in field-goal percentage within four feet of the basket (67.3%), per Cleaning the Glass. The other top-five teams in rim frequency rank 23rd, 24th, 27th, and 29th.

The obvious difference is that those teams don't have Jokic. But you don't need me to tell you why the best player in the world allows his team to score in ways other teams can't. What I'm here to say is that surrounding Jokic with great slashers and interior finishers can be just as effective as surrounding him with great shooters. Ideally, Denver would have a bunch of guys who could do both. But those players aren't easy to find, and there's no disputing the pieces currently orbiting Jokic are complementing his singular skills in their own fashion.

It's worth noting that there are a handful of good to great shooters on the team, Jokic among them. The Nuggets rank fourth in the league in 3-point accuracy, in part because of how selective they are about who takes them. Apart from sophomore reserve Julian Strawther, none are high-volume long-range gunners.

Jamal Murray's 3-point rate ranks in the 19th percentile among guards, per Cleaning the Glass. Michael Porter Jr. leads the team's regulars by far in that respect, and he's still only in the 57th percentile among forwards. Jokic leads the league in 3-point success percentage and has nudged his frequency up slightly to compensate for his teammates, but threes still only account for 19% of his shots.

What the Nuggets do a lot is cut. They have an abundance of athletes with noses for the rim and strong finishing capabilities, whether dashing at full speed or prowling furtively in the dunker spot. Between Russell Westbrook, Christian Braun, Aaron Gordon, Peyton Watson, and Porter (underrated in this department), Jokic has plenty of targets to reward.

The Nuggets lead the league in cutting frequency and rank third in cutting efficiency, a combination that has them scoring 16.2 points per game directly from cuts. That's nearly three more than any other team this season, and the most for any team apart from the Kevin Durant-era Warriors since NBA.com began tracking the stat 10 years ago.

That doesn't even account for all the cuts that don't lead directly to scores, but instead lead to kickouts or laydowns or skip passes that burn defensive reactions. Another reason the Nuggets rank so highly in 3-point success percentage is that in their system, cuts create open threes more than the other way around.

Westbrook in particular deserves praise for reinventing himself to best complement Jokic and the Nuggets. He's always been a naturally gifted cutter, but he's tapped into those skills too infrequently until recently. "If only Russ could activate his dormant off-ball ability," we said, season after season, as he continued to either stand idly cramping his team's spacing or leech on-ball possessions from co-star creators ranging from Durant to Paul George to James Harden to LeBron James. Jokic reportedly pushed hard for Denver to add Westbrook, in what felt like an "I can fix him" project. This has turned out to be the rare instance where that worked.

Westbrook's cutting like never before, resulting in a devastating two-man game with Jokic. Denver has a 128 offensive rating with both of them on the floor. More predictably, Westbrook's also juiced the pace for what was previously one of the slowest teams in the league, creating more rim shots in the process. The Nuggets have jumped from 29th to seventh in points added via transition, per Cleaning the Glass. Westbrook's own passing ability has also been a big asset for Denver's interior attack; he ranks seventh in the league in rim assists, five spots behind Jokic.

One of the important ways he accesses that ability in the half court is by setting ball screens for Jokic. When the defense inevitably puts two on the ball to avoid either switching or getting burned by Jokic's jump shot, Westbrook can roll into a 4-on-3.

Slot cuts are a big part of Denver's offensive design, putting the weak-side zone defender in an impossible situation after a helper shades toward Jokic on the strong side. Braun is particularly on point with his timing on those cuts, and the team will sometimes have both weak-side guys cut at the same time to avoid having a non-spacer like Watson go ignored in the corner:

All told, the Nuggets' 2-point and 3-point attempts both average roughly 1.14 points per shot. So, it's fair to wonder whether shooting more threes would really improve their offense, at least in its current iteration. Especially considering how much more likely interior attempts are to induce shooting fouls, and the fact the Nuggets also thrive on the strength of their fifth-ranked free-throw attempt rate.

Would it be better if more of Denver's players were shooting threats? Of course. Having more ways to stress opposing defenses is always preferable. It would help avoid a situation where, say, Braun sets a flare screen for Gordon (career 32% 3-point shooter on low volume) to try a movement triple. But while a certain quantity of outside shooting is clearly imperative for keeping pace in this day and age, everything is about balance.

For all the hullabaloo over league-wide 3-point volume spiking this season after five years of stability, offensive rating is down from 115.6 to 113.9, per Cleaning the Glass. (Though offense usually ticks up as the season goes along, the average was actually 116.3 at this time last year.) Much has been made of the Celtics cranking their 3-point volume even higher than it was when they led the league en route to the title last year. Less has been made of the fact they're scoring 3.1 fewer points per 100 possessions than they did a season ago.

The rest of the league seemingly started jacking up more threes to "catch up" to Boston, but there's zero correlation between where teams rank in 3-point attempt rate and where they rank in offensive efficiency this season:

This isn't to say shooting a lot of threes is bad, but it would appear that past a certain point, the returns start to diminish.

All teams have to play in a way that optimizes their personnel, and for some that means shooting more threes than others. No other team could do what Denver currently does with so little shooting on the roster, but many can thrive on the lower end of the volume spectrum. The Knicks, for example, have an offense that ranks as the 10th-best all time relative to league average, despite sitting 23rd in 3-point attempt rate.

So, while there are reasons to doubt the Nuggets' championship prospects, those reasons should largely be confined to the defensive side of the ball. At the offensive end, they're rolling, and they're doing so in a way that feels more stable than most because they're less vulnerable to the whims of jump-shooting variance. It's possible this limitation will ultimately contribute to their undoing in the playoffs. For now, it's more fun to indulge the idea that maybe, just maybe, we're seeing a team score efficiently because of - not in spite of - its resistance to 3-point proliferation.

Joe Wolfond covers the NBA for theScore.