Jam, you've known me long enough on here that you should know I fully understand the analytics behind this evolution. 3 point shot is worth 50% than a 2 and isn't 50% harder to make, so it has a net expected value over all shots on the court aside from point blank layups. And again, the way the Spurs created those looks was markedly different from the way the Rockets and Warriors "create" them.
Because it illustrates that NBA basketball is a broken sport. It's a pretty bad design flaw when the shot that is worth 50% more isn't 50% more difficult to make than shots closer to the basket. What other major sport is "glitched" like that? All the other sports with basketball's essential design (i.e. goal sports) revolve around the creating of a high-percentage shot close to the goal, and to do that, it usually involves a total team effort of passing and coordinating or a highly skilled player being able to break down the defense and generate that high percentage shot himself. Now you'll say "Well, Curry is creating those high percentage/value shots from 3 because of his skill." Fair enough, but shooting a 3 has "less moving parts" so to speak than dribble-drive penetration or low post play. The more one-dimensional action is getting rewarded over the more multidimensional action. There's also little-to-no-defense for Curry and Moreyball. At least with low-post play or dribble-drive penetration, teams could double/triple team or collapse and force the offense into a decision of, "Do I kick out or continue?" You really can't do much when Curry has the ball at the 3 point line. Go under the screen, open 3. Go over, he's probably still hitting the contested 3 at the same rate (or will simply walk a layup in due to the spacing or side pass to another open shooter). 3 or nothing basketball is robbing the sport of a lot of offensive and defensive nuance.Who cares if Steph Curry frequently pulls up from 40 feet if he's hitting a high percentage of those shots?I remember a couple seasons ago, they tracked Curry's three point attempts from something like 30 feet and further and it was no small sample and he was shooting like 70% from those distances. Aesthetically do you care that he's making 70% of what you consider bad basketball shots and would rather take 35% from kickout threes from the post because it looks like better basketball to you? If you do... uhhh okay.
A 3 pointer should be an "event," like a 40 yard pass or a long slapshot, it shouldn't be the primary or even secondary offensive option. And I've always been a believer that when athletes catch up to a design element of a sport and are able to exploit it, a change should be made to better balance the game. Basketball has done this throughout its history. When Mikan dominated the inside to an absurd degree, they widened the lane. When defenses supposedly became too dominant (I don't think they were) in the 00s/mid-00s, they ins uted rule changes to facilitate more open perimeter play and make the sport more "fast paced." Nothing will change, though. The NBA found its formula that appeals to the broad majority of fans and is more salable on social media (easier to share a vine or gif of a Curry stepback 30 footer than it is to share a postup play. One is instant gratification, the other isn't).
I get you might be irritated with criticism and the constant "Today's NBA," and it comes off as whining, but this is a basketball forum, right? Criticism of where the league is headed is still discussion about the sport.
conspiracy theorists rejoice lol
not surprised since analytics in the nba and sports media are dominated by white folks. white guys key attribute (shooting) is being pushed back into the game. up next, advance stat that values intangibles (hustle)
not a coincidence the warriors, built by a white man, was founded under the same principles...
they really are light years away from everybody
You said...
It's not surprising at all. Sure, the Spurs way is/was also data-driven, but in the opposite direction. We adapted to watching a pound-the-paint, defensive style. Obviously we're going to find this outside-in style unpleasing, even if it is also data-driven, simply because it contrasts sharply with what we have adapted to watching.And it's a bit surprising to see Spurs fans be so critical of it
As far as subjectivity, here's why I prefer 00s ball over 10s ball. The 00s were mostly dominated by versatile players who did their damage from all over the court, including the post and the midrange. The midrange game is very aesthetically pleasing because it requires methodical footwork, drop steps, spin moves, up and unders, pivots, turnarounds, etc. You know, all the stuff that defined basketball as a sport in the first place.
Last edited by Arcadian; 11-01-2017 at 04:31 PM.
[QUOTE=Arcadian;9176756]You said...
It's not surprising at all. Sure, the Spurs way is/was also data-driven, but in the opposite direction. We adapted to watching a pound-the-paint, defensive style. Obviously we're going to find this outside-in style unpleasing, even if it is also data-driven, simply because it contrasts sharply with what we have adapted to watching.
As far as subjectivity, here's why I prefer 00s ball over 10s ball. The 00s were mostly dominated by versatile players who did their damage from all over the court, including the post and the midrange. The midrange game is very aesthetically pleasing because it requires methodical footwork, drop steps, spin moves, up and unders, pivots, turnarounds, etc. You know, all the stuff that defined basketball as a sport in the first place.[/QUOTE]
In additional the low-post game. Hit the nail on the head. Chucking a 3 off of a pick has "less moving parts" and is therefore less nuanced and less impressive. But analytics and strategy in general will always favor the more parsimonious tactic since it's easier and more efficient to execute reliably. Scoring from the post requires more of those moving parts working together than scoring from 3.
You are kidding right? All these rule changes to favour perimeter play and 3 pt chucking has its exact replica in the NFL, with the rule changes to favour the passing game.Jam, you've known me long enough on here that you should know I fully understand the analytics behind this evolution. 3 point shot is worth 50% than a 2 and isn't 50% harder to make, so it has a net expected value over all shots on the court aside from point blank layups. And again, the way the Spurs created those looks was markedly different from the way the Rockets and Warriors "create" them.
Because it illustrates that NBA basketball is a broken sport. It's a pretty bad design flaw when the shot that is worth 50% more isn't 50% more difficult to make than shots closer to the basket. What other major sport is "glitched" like that? all the other sports with basketball's essential design (i.e. goal sports) revolve around the creating of a high-percentage shot close to the goal, and to do that, it usually involves a total team effort of passing and coordinating or a highly skilled player being able to break down the defense and generate that high percentage shot himself. Now you'll say "Well, Curry is creating those high percentage/value shots from 3 because of his skill." Fair enough, but shooting a 3 has "less moving parts" so to speak than dribble-drive penetration or low post play. The more one-dimensional action is getting rewarded over the more multidimensional action. There's also little-to-no-defense for Curry and Moreyball. At least with low-post play or dribble-drive penetration, teams could double/triple team or collapse and force the offense into a decision of, "Do I kick out or continue?" You really can't do much when Curry has the ball at the 3 point line. Go under the screen, open 3. Go over, he's probably still hitting the contested 3 at the same rate (or will simply walk a layup in due to the spacing or side pass to another open shooter). 3 or nothing basketball is robbing the sport of a lot of offensive and defensive nuance.
A 3 pointer should be an "event," like a 40 yard pass or a long slapshot, it shouldn't be the primary or even secondary offensive option. And I've always been a believer that when athletes catch up to a design element of a sport and are able to exploit it, a change should be made to better balance the game. Basketball has done this throughout its history. When Mikan dominated the inside to an absurd degree, they widened the lane. When defenses supposedly became too dominant (I don't think they were) in the 00s/mid-00s, they ins uted rule changes to facilitate more open perimeter play and make the sport more "fast paced." Nothing will change, though. The NBA found its formula that appeals to the broad majority of fans and is more salable on social media (easier to share a vine or gif of a Curry stepback 30 footer than it is to share a postup play. One is instant gratification, the other isn't).
I get you might be irritated with criticism and the constant "
To a lesser extent the "HR or strikeout" approach that is evolving on Baseball is pretty similar, tbh.
I don't like that either, but you don't get more points for a 20 yard TD pass as opposed to a one yard run.
Homer or strikeout philosophy still punishes you. Strikeouts are still terrible, and hitters like Joey Gallo and Chris Carter are barely above league average to well below league average (Carter was sent to the minors) despite hitting over 40 homeruns. And time and time again in the playoffs, strikeout heavy teams lose or fail to make the playoffs. There's also an easy defense for homer/strikeout players. Good pitching. Judge, Bellinger, etc have been totally shutdown in this post-season. There's no defense for Curry, Harden, etc. You just have to hope they miss.
It's funny you say that 'cause Harden and Curry are two players known for being shut down (or being greatly disminished compared to their reg season selves) on the playoffs.
Harden and the Rockets always fail when good defensive teams adjust to them on the playoffs, and Curry only wins because the Warriors are an all-time great team that does a lot more than chuck threes.
Guys that do well on the playoffs are still the guys that do a bit of everything and rely on the midrange to get tough buckets. Guys like Lebron, Kawhi and Durant.
Curry shoots 41% in the post-season from 3 (from .435). Harden shoots .335 in the post-season (from .365). Sure, their regular season percentages are higher, but their drop off is pretty much par for the course from regular season-to-post season decline that pretty much every player experiences aside from the greats of the great. I'm also talking about total offenses as well. Warriors, Cavs have owned the Finals last 3 years and were both top 3 in 3PA. Kawhi really hasn't had a dominant post-season run as the Spurs best player. He might've been on his way last season, but we'll never know. Midrange games are too easy to shut down for the most part, unless you're surrounded by a metric ton of shooters. Durant's midrange percentages skyrocketed when he went to the Warriors.
Midrange is a must on the playoffs in tight, tense games to get tough buckets. Look at the Spurs Rockets series last season. The Spurs shut them down basically with the on-ball defender going over the screen to prevent the three and the screener's defender waiting under the basket playing center field. The Rockets had all the space in the World to shoot their midrange shots but they refused it. Good teams take what the defense gives them and make them pay. Guys like Lebron, Durant and Kawhi will pull up from that 17 foot range all series long and send you fishing.
This idea that teams can win championships just dribling up the court and chucking threes is a lie. You need to shoot threes, obviously. But those threes have to be of the "open look after good ball movement" variety to win on the playoffs against elite teams. You aren't going to beat teams like the Spurs, Warriors or Cavs by just mindlessly chucking 3's.
Midrange might be a must, but midrange (nor post-game) is no longer a central strategy or even that widely used of a strategy compared to 3 point shooting and penetration. The analytics are pretty clear here. Every shot on a basketball court is net EV aside from 3s and layups. To compare it to the NFL, the 3/layup is your passing game and the mid-range/post game is your power running game that's only useful for small yardage situations. If any team tried to balance their passing attack with a running game in the modern NFL, they aren't going very far. Same thing in the modern NBA. I also disagree that the 3s in the playoffs need to be "off of good passing variety." The Warriors generate so many of their looks through simple pick-and-rolls that free up their shooters.
And even when those 3s are created from passing, I still don't like it overall because the 3, being the longest shot on the court, should be the least valuable (EV wise) and most risky, forcing teams to think if the high reward is worth the high risk. As it stands, it's the 2nd most valuable shot in the game while only being slightly more difficult to make as any shot from 3-21 feet. Teams aren't punished at all for centering their offense around the shot. You can bring up the Rockets failure in the playoffs, but the Rockets are decidedly less talented on paper (prior to Paul trade) than many teams and actually overperform because of their strategy, which is will be common league wide over the next 3 years.
conspiracy theorists rejoice lol
not surprised since analytics in the nba and sports media are dominated by white folks. white guys key attribute (shooting) is being pushed back into the game. up next, advance stat that values intangibles (hustle)
not a coincidence the warriors, built by a white man, was founded under the same principles...
they really are light years away from everybody
They shot 52 tonight
This is a great post.Jam, you've known me long enough on here that you should know I fully understand the analytics behind this evolution. 3 point shot is worth 50% than a 2 and isn't 50% harder to make, so it has a net expected value over all shots on the court aside from point blank layups. And again, the way the Spurs created those looks was markedly different from the way the Rockets and Warriors "create" them.
Because it illustrates that NBA basketball is a broken sport. It's a pretty bad design flaw when the shot that is worth 50% more isn't 50% more difficult to make than shots closer to the basket. What other major sport is "glitched" like that? All the other sports with basketball's essential design (i.e. goal sports) revolve around the creating of a high-percentage shot close to the goal, and to do that, it usually involves a total team effort of passing and coordinating or a highly skilled player being able to break down the defense and generate that high percentage shot himself. Now you'll say "Well, Curry is creating those high percentage/value shots from 3 because of his skill." Fair enough, but shooting a 3 has "less moving parts" so to speak than dribble-drive penetration or low post play. The more one-dimensional action is getting rewarded over the more multidimensional action. There's also little-to-no-defense for Curry and Moreyball. At least with low-post play or dribble-drive penetration, teams could double/triple team or collapse and force the offense into a decision of, "Do I kick out or continue?" You really can't do much when Curry has the ball at the 3 point line. Go under the screen, open 3. Go over, he's probably still hitting the contested 3 at the same rate (or will simply walk a layup in due to the spacing or side pass to another open shooter). 3 or nothing basketball is robbing the sport of a lot of offensive and defensive nuance.
A 3 pointer should be an "event," like a 40 yard pass or a long slapshot, it shouldn't be the primary or even secondary offensive option. And I've always been a believer that when athletes catch up to a design element of a sport and are able to exploit it, a change should be made to better balance the game. Basketball has done this throughout its history. When Mikan dominated the inside to an absurd degree, they widened the lane. When defenses supposedly became too dominant (I don't think they were) in the 00s/mid-00s, they ins uted rule changes to facilitate more open perimeter play and make the sport more "fast paced." Nothing will change, though. The NBA found its formula that appeals to the broad majority of fans and is more salable on social media (easier to share a vine or gif of a Curry stepback 30 footer than it is to share a postup play. One is instant gratification, the other isn't).
I get you might be irritated with criticism and the constant "
I may not agree with everything you think or believe, but I don't think we're at polar opposites. And I do think there has been a little misunderstanding between us. First off, I haven't been championing this three point evolution of the game all this time. My comments that this is just how the game has evolved and it's here to stay is just objective commentary, not good or bad. And I don't mean to say or suggest you have to like it. I didn't even say I like it. It's just a statement of what I think is happened. There are certainly some negatives to this type of game, strategically and as you suggest aesthetically. I just think it is what it is, like with a lot of evolutionary things in sports.
I do have several disagreements about the nuances and moving parts being disregarded. I think when sports change, we tend to be resistant and in some ways discredit the new in favor of the old. It's why old ass NBA players hate to give credit to current players, and we hear stupid like "Oh Ronnie Seikaly would average 40 and 20 in today's game."
The nuances and moving parts of offense have changed, not been minimized or disregarded. Just because offense doesn't involve for example as many double teams by defenses, it doesn't mean there aren't multi-dimensional aspects to a three point driven offense. And the example of Steph Curry walk up 30 foot+ three point shots certainly does not apply. Because that's not the evolution of the game. That's a small perhaps even infinitesimal fraction of the three point shots being taken. It's like saying give Shaq ball in post, Shaq spin, Shaq dunk and use that as an example of the nuances and moving parts of low post offense.
The evolution of three point shot carries with it the emphasis of spacing in offense, of all players, not just the guy who ends up shooting the ball. Ball and player movement has become more specific and precise. It's not just swing the ball side to side until someone thinks their open enough. There are still nuances of footwork, pump fakes, mechanics of shooting form. Shooters must work on the quickness of their release, be able to square up and shoot quickly off a curl or off a pick. The high pick in the PNR, how it's set, how firm and how long it's kept, and the pace as to how it's set as now the pick setter is just as likely to "pop" or sit or flare to shoot a jumper as he is likely to roll to the basket. Those are all nuances, all moving parts for offense and defenses alike. Rotate and recovery for defenses have changed. Where you pick up your man once he crosses halfcourt, which affects defensive spacing and the ability to help defend. Even the physical make-up of players are changing, 6-8 to 6-10, 215 pound small forwards playing at the PF spot defensively, the value of 6-6 to 6-8 athletic and versatile defenders who can play multiple positions, get up and down the court, switch pretty much everything in PNR. So you say the nuances and moving parts and multi-dimensional parts of offense are gone. I don't really agree. They've just changed.
Sports change. We see it football where 240 pound linebackers would have been linemen 30 years ago. We see it in baseball with the HR/K all or nothing approach to hitting, and the recent evolutions in bullpen relievers, from shortening the game to 6 innings with three dominant back end guys to the use of a super reliever for high leverage situations regardless of inning like Andrew Miller, to now the importance of multiple inning backend relievers, especially in post season play. I get your criticism that the three point shot is flawed in its value, a glitch if you will. I don't peg it as good or bad or ugly. I just see it as the way it is. And simply part of the sport's evolution.
Last edited by JamStone; 11-02-2017 at 08:47 AM.
I'm aware of how those moving parts have changed and I'm sure we both agree on how we "value" these changes (tactically and aesthetically) is highly subjective. One of the reasons I find the modern game centered around shooter centric offenses less compelling is because shooting is a fundamentally simpler action than post-play. Post-play's footwork is more complicated, it involves a more complicated mastery of a variety of hook shots, layups, jumpshots, use of both hands, counter-moves, and passing (post-players typically have less space to work with when passing because of double teams and collapses). Boiled down, I think post-play is basketball's most difficult skill and to see the minimizing of it makes basketball a less varied game as a whole.
I also find the huge spacing modern offenses create through dangerous shooting attacks also makes the dribble-drive game less interesting. Whereas driving to the rim used to have an attritional and physical element to it, driving to the rim today is markedly easier, especially with the gradual phasing out of 7 footers. I also worry that eventually the 7 footer will be phased out complete since having bigs who can switch is so vitally important in today's game. Basketball's primary uniqueness is its about the only sport athletes 6'10" and above can play (aside from the occasional Randy Johnsons and John Isners). Having a frontline of Draymond Green clones isn't all that interesting.
As for baseball, I have the same worries about the obsession with power. If the homer is the 3 pointer, offenses built around the homer will also rob the game of more diverse contact hitters and speed merchants (baseball's "post players" if you will) and well-rounded offenses (like that of the 2015 KC Royals). Swinging for more homers also leads to more of baseball's "most boring" event: The strikeout. I'm not sounding the alarm on baseball yet, since strikeouts are still death (like Chris Carter being sent to the minors despite leading the league in homeruns) and homeruns are still relatively rare events (they occur 3.3% of the time as opposed to the historical rate of 2.5% of the time), and thankfully, the groundball/flyball rate is just about the same as in 1985, when contact and speed ruled the game, so we're still getting a balanced level of balls-in-play for infielders and outfielders. The only event up egregiously is the strikeout, about 6 more per game from the speed/contact era.
Analytics will always favor the more efficient strategy, the one with less moving parts, since it's more reliable to execute, so I understand why more one-dimensional tactics are beginning to rule in pretty much every sport, but I think the head honchos of these leagues should always look for ways to balance their respective sports. I'd like to see fields moved back in baseball and a limitations put on bullpenning (one of the huge causes for all these strikeouts). Move the 3 back in the NBA. Make it an "event," not the default outcome of any one possession.
Totally agree! I also think it's the most fun. I wish youth basketball leagues/camps would teach post play more. When I was 8-12 years old learning to shoot and dribble, I actually didn't enjoy basketball very much. Then when I was a teenager I started learning post play (mainly by studying Tim Duncan), and it allowed me to "rediscover basketball" and really start enjoying it. Thanks, Timmy
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
