Obviously not. But I'm starting to wonder what the situation is. Zach Harper at AWOW is imploring them to stop shooting them (with Eric in Madison voicing his dissent). They're currently 24th in the league in 3PT%. It's debatable how much that's affected their record, though the eye test seems to indicate that better outside shooting in more than a few games could've made a difference. It's also not necessary to be a great outside shooting team and win, as the Lakers, Knicks, and Jazz are showing.
It is strange, however, considering that most of these guys are below their career averages, even when factoring in some growing pains (Love's first 2 seasons):
Beasley: '11-12 42.6, career 35.8
Love: '11-12 35.3, career 36.6
Ridnour: '11-12 33.0, career 35.9
Ellington: '11-12 35.6, career 39.0
Tolliver: '11-12 27.6, career 33.4
Barea: '11-12 30.8, career 35.1
Webster: '11-12 27.6, career 37.5
This doesn't even factor in Johnson (21.3) and Williams (23.9), neither of whom have enough experience to indicate whether these are part of larger trends.
Is there an Adelman effect? Unlikely. Peja Stojakovic's % beyond the arc was lower with other teams than Sacto when in his prime; Mike Bibby's were better near the tail end of his usefulness in Atlanta, but he was mainly a spot-up shooter at that point; Terry Porter's best came ages 36-38 with the Spurs, but that's more due to his role; Clyde Drexler was better in Houston but had Hakeem; Doug Christie was better in Sacto than Toronto but was also on a better squad; Bobby Jackson was roughly the same there as his other stops; T-Mac was slightly worse in Houston; Shane Battier was slightly worse. Without digging into this deeper, my guess is that the effect isn't dramatic.
With all of that said, what say you? Has the inside game and creating more FT attempts made it less necessary to shoot outside? Should these players keep shooting because they're in slumps? Is there some sort of middle ground?