Most common shot locations in the NBA...Then & Now

[Dex]

T:lolday's NBA

https://i.imgur.com/nsyICXU.jpg

[140]

That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. Faggots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh

:lol today's NBA

[lefty]

That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. Faggots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh

:lol today's NBA

[phxspurfan]

No more Duncans and Chris Webber’s... only Towns’s and Nowitzkis

[Millennial_Messiah]

so nowadays anything that's not a dunk or a 3 is a bad shot?

[ambchang]

That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. Faggots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh

:lol today's NBA

It's more with the rule changes to be honest. The league no longer allows defense on the perimeter nor centers manning the paint in order to manufacture the next Jordan, so players can penetrate the paint at will. Once that is in place, defense has to back way off to defend against the drive which opens up all kinds of room for 3s.

[midnightpulp]

Disgusting. As I've said before, the efficiency of layups/3 pointers is too great to really attempt any other shot, making 60-70% of the court useless. Broken sport right now.

[midnightpulp]

That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. Faggots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh

:lol today's NBA

:lol Not really. Twitter and the core NBA market (which is star following casuals) love this shit. We're the "old men yelling at cloud" here. It's not about being old nor pining for "nostalgia." A fan of the modern NBA needs to explain how the sport turning one-dimensional is a good thing (post-game dead, midrange dead, traditional bigs dead)?

[FrostKing]

so nowadays anything that's not a dunk or a 3 is a bad shot?
If you take out the unknown variable of defender - yes.

It's kinda how in those All Star competitions where you try scoring as many points as possible in 25 seconds. You shoot 3's and layup your bricks. It is dumb to take mid range jumpers

I don't think their data goes deep enough into calculating defense ie steals, blocks, forcing passes to congested areas. I imagine it is all shooting percentage based and from the looks of say free throw shooting - players aren't shooting mid range jumpers well enough.

This is all based on 100s, 1000s, 100,000 shots. It is not at all situational - ie your legs are tired late in games or defense collapses the box and crashes the 3point line leaving mid range shots open

[midnightpulp]

If you take out the unknown variable of defender - yes.

It's kinda how in those All Star competitions where you try scoring as many points as possible in 25 seconds. You shoot 3's and layup your bricks. It is dumb to take mid range jumpers

I don't think their data goes deep enough into calculating defense ie steals, blocks, forcing passes to congested areas. I imagine it is all shooting percentage based and from the looks of say free throw shooting - players aren't shooting mid range jumpers well enough.

This is all based on 100s, 1000s, 100,000 shots. It is not at all situational - ie your legs are tired late in games or defense collapses the box and crashes the 3point line leaving mid range shots open

Also, a 23 foot 3 pointer isn't significantly more difficult to make than a 15-20 footer. Just makes no logical sense to shoot from that range unless it's like the only shot available. League average on 15-21 footers is about 40%. League average on 3s is 36%. So 50% more points for a shot roughly 11% harder to make.

[R. DeMurre]

I'll always remember that it was the Suns from around 2004-2008 with Steve Nash that first made me think a team wasn't taking advantage of the three point shot correctly. Nash was a 50/40/90 threat every year for that period but was overly generous when it came to passing the ball. He led the league in assists a few years in a row, but I remember watching games versus the Spurs and thinking I was glad he didn't shoot more threes, which would've produced more points than passes to Amare and Shawn Marion did. Nash was the Curry of his era, but shot half the 3 pt attempts that Curry does.

[Chris]

Billups had a nice pull-up 3 and Arenas was the original Curry imo

[lefty]

Billups had a nice pull-up 3 and Arenas was the original Curry imo

The original Curry was Abdul Rauf

[Will Hunting]

Also, a 23 foot 3 pointer isn't significantly more difficult to make than a 15-20 footer. Just makes no logical sense to shoot from that range unless it's like the only shot available. League average on 15-21 footers is about 40%. League average on 3s is 36%. So 50% more points for a shot roughly 11% harder to make.
Exactly, the problem is that 23 feet is too short. It shouldn’t be worth 50% more than a 15-20 footer is. That’s the heart of the problem.

[spurraider21]

spurfan used to call pop ahead of his time for abandoning the midrange, but now that the spurs have a midrange team, suddenly the NBA is poopy because everybody else is doing it :lmao

[SpursforSix]

Also, a 23 foot 3 pointer isn't significantly more difficult to make than a 15-20 footer. Just makes no logical sense to shoot from that range unless it's like the only shot available. League average on 15-21 footers is about 40%. League average on 3s is 36%. So 50% more points for a shot roughly 11% harder to make.

I'd even argue that the 3 point shot is an even easier shot for many players in that you don't have to try to adjust and hold back the strength of your shot to the same degree as the in-between areas.

[spurraider21]

I'd even argue that the 3 point shot is an even easier shot for many players in that you don't have to try to adjust and hold back the strength of your shot to the same degree as the in-between areas.
this is an interesting point. unless you are steph or a wannabe like jimmer, your 3pt shots are basically from a uniform distance, about 6 inches behind the line. so from each spot, your distance is fairly constant with every shot. when you have a midrange game you might get your shot off from 14 feet or 19 feet. a lot more adjustment needed. but 2 point shots are also more difficult since they're usually contested or off the dribble. you dont see a lot of guys catch and shoot from 19 feet unless its a big man off a pick and pop. but most 3 point shooters are able to catch, set their feet, and get a clean shot off

[DMC]

It's just advanced stats showing the most efficient shooting spots for maximum point per possession. It's the Billy Beane method employed in the NBA.

[SpursforSix]

this is an interesting point. unless you are steph or a wannabe like jimmer, your 3pt shots are basically from a uniform distance, about 6 inches behind the line. so from each spot, your distance is fairly constant with every shot. when you have a midrange game you might get your shot off from 14 feet or 19 feet. a lot more adjustment needed. but 2 point shots are also more difficult since they're usually contested or off the dribble. you dont see a lot of guys catch and shoot from 19 feet unless its a big man off a pick and pop. but most 3 point shooters are able to catch, set their feet, and get a clean shot off

Exactly. I also think it's easier (less adjustment) when you're shooting close to full power. If you're at 3 or behind, you're shooting from full power to something just under. But on a short jumper, you're trying adjust to something in the middle. Not sure if I explained that very well.

[spurraider21]

Exactly. I also think it's easier (less adjustment) when you're shooting close to full power. If you're at 3 or behind, you're shooting from full power to something just under. But on a short jumper, you're trying adjust to something in the middle. Not sure if I explained that very well.
yep. that's why only retards aimed for the middle row

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WYVnwu-wVQQ/hqdefault.jpg

[SpursforSix]

yep. that's why only retards aimed for the middle row

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WYVnwu-wVQQ/hqdefault.jpg

perfect

[spurraider21]

perfect
its hilarious to think that basketball would have advanced so much quicker if more NBA coaches had just played pokemon stadium in the 90s :lmao

[midnightpulp]

spurfan used to call pop ahead of his time for abandoning the midrange, but now that the spurs have a midrange team, suddenly the NBA is poopy because everybody else is doing it :lmao

Pop was smart to do that out of necessity, and being fans of the team, of course we're to going to celebrate it. Doesn't mean it does not illustrate how basketball is a broken sport.

But Pop's offenses were also heavily post-centric for obvious reasons. Post-game is just about dead. Those Spurs offenses still had more balance than today's general game, because the post-game was still perceived as the greatest offense weapon in the sport.

[midnightpulp]

It's just advanced stats showing the most efficient shooting spots for maximum point per possession. It's the Billy Beane method employed in the NBA.

Luckily for baseball that philosophy (Three-True-Outcomes) flames out in the post-season. All around teams that can hit for both average and power, run, play defense, and have a balanced starting staff and bullpen still win out.

[DMC]

Luckily for baseball that philosophy (Three-True-Outcomes) flames out in the post-season. All around teams that can hit for both average and power, run, play defense, and have a balanced starting staff and bullpen still win out.

Same is true for the NBA. The gimmick of advanced stats sans talent is a smoke and mirrors design in the name of coach Pop's system that pretended to have no talent. It fails in the post season.

[midnightpulp]

Same is true for the NBA. The gimmick of advanced stats sans talent is a smoke and mirrors design in the name of coach Pop's system that pretended to have no talent. It fails in the post season.

I have to disagree here. If a 3rd of a team's shot attempts are not 3s, they're at a big mathematical disadvantage. Primary point is that you won't really get a clash of styles that can both be equally effective in the modern NBA. Like say if I wanted to build a squad resembling the 99 Spurs. Probably be a 40ish win team today. If you can't shoot the 3, you're not winning. The 3 is just too mathematically powerful. A sport should seek to find a balance where a handful of offensive/defensive philosophies all have a legit chance at success.

[apalisoc_9]

Old men yelling at cloud. Yawn.

The midrange is still utlized today by some elite teams.

Raps, Nuggets etc stil use it


Only dumb teams dont.

[midnightpulp]

Old men yelling at cloud. Yawn.

The midrange is still utlized today by some elite teams.

Raps, Nuggets etc stil use it


Only dumb teams dont.

The Denver Nuggets rank 17th in 10-16 feet attempts and 22nd in 16-22 footers. The Raps rank 20th and 18th respectively. This is another example of you defending something shitty because it's current. No properly designed sport should have a shot worth 50% more that is only 10% harder to make.

[Chris]

The original Curry was Abdul Rauf

Abdul reminds me more of AI tbh

I can see Curry though too looking at his highlights.

[ambchang]

spurfan used to call pop ahead of his time for abandoning the midrange, but now that the spurs have a midrange team, suddenly the NBA is poopy because everybody else is doing it :lmao

Not even remotely true. Once again showing you have no concept of how the game is played now and how it was played by the spurs.

[spurraider21]

Not even remotely true. Once again showing you have no concept of how the game is played now and how it was played by the spurs.
why dont you get into a month long discussion with othyus lalanne about it

[ambchang]

Showing another topic you don’t understand. Even though to be fair I don’t think anybody to understand my motivations in that thread. That guy is just too stupid to even understand what’s going on.


why dont you get into a month long discussion with othyus lalanne about it

[Dex]

spurfan used to call pop ahead of his time for abandoning the midrange, but now that the spurs have a midrange team, suddenly the NBA is poopy because everybody else is doing it :lmao

I don't think anyone around here is happy to have gone from the Beautiful Game days to Midrange Mania.

Unfortunately, it's more about personnel than anything else. When your two best players are Aldridge and DeRozan (and used to be Aldridge and Kawhi), you have to feed them shots and you want those shots to be in their comfort zone.

The Spurs would be far worse off if LMA and DDR were chucking away from three, just like they would be worse off if they tried to just force feed shots to Forbes, Mills, Beli, and Bertans instead of utilizing their own offense.

It's fair to argue that the Spurs are behind the times in their strategy, but it doesn't change the fact that the modern shot chart looks like something out of the All-Star game, not an aggregate for an entire league over the course of a season.

[R. DeMurre]

The thing that's really interesting to me is how long it took coaches to catch on to the effectiveness of the three point shot. I saw an interview recently with Steve Kerr where he said he didn't shoot more threes during his days with the Bulls because it wasn't considered a "good" shot. It was seen by many as more or less a bailout shot when penetration or post plays didn't pan out in a possession. It took quite a while for many basketball "experts" to stop viewing it as a novelty. I think there's no question that if guys like Bird, Nash, Peja, Dale Ellis, Mark Price, Terry Porter, Chris Mullin, etc., etc. played today, their 3pt attempts per game would go up significantly. But I do agree that it's an over-rewarded shot. The perfect solution would be reassigning its value as 2.5 points, which would keep it relevant but bring back the value of post play and the mid-range-- but, of course, that's not going to happen. But I do see people starting to find good strategies for attacking the three point revolution: Giannis is probably the best example in the current NBA, as a guy who has the height of a center and the handles of a PG, but who has no 3 point game and very little midrange game. Milwaukee essentially clears out the post for him to operate, leaving him the option of scoring one-on-one while the other four defenders have to worry about the three point shot. I think more and more guys who would've been mainly post up players in the past will follow this format, while at the same time also trying to be better outside shooters than Giannis.

[HarlemHeat37]

:lol Not really. Twitter and the core NBA market (which is star following casuals) love this shit. We're the "old men yelling at cloud" here. It's not about being old nor pining for "nostalgia." A fan of the modern NBA needs to explain how the sport turning one-dimensional is a good thing (post-game dead, midrange dead, traditional bigs dead)?

It's not about whether it's good or not, it's simply something that was inevitable, it was only a matter of time before teams exploited the inefficiencies of the game..

The Spurs did it with the corner 3 in the 2000s when no other teams realized that a shorter shot with a higher point value was a huge advantage:lol same with international scouting..

Basketball is a simple game, it was just a matter of time..the rule changes help, but not nearly as much as people think..eventually, an innovative mind will figure out how to combat it..from the NBA's standpoint, they should crack down on illegal screens and calling fouls, that's the best they can do IMO..

Contrary to the belief of fans of the old game, most people don't care about the style of play..ratings are down because LeBron plays on the West Coast now and the playoffs ratings will take a significant hit due to his absence, as well..

When he retires, the league will see an even bigger decline, as it did when Dad Killer retired..it's a name-driven league, always has been..

Silver has chosen his path, though..just like baseball chose to focus more on local markets and ratings, the NBA has chosen to appeal to social media and the short attention span of young fans in the form of highlight videos, off-court drama, etc..

[midnightpulp]

It's not about whether it's good or not, it's simply something that was inevitable, it was only a matter of time before teams exploited the inefficiencies of the game..

The Spurs did it with the corner 3 in the 2000s when no other teams realized that a shorter shot with a higher point value was a huge advantage:lol same with international scouting..

Basketball is a simple game, it was just a matter of time..the rule changes help, but not nearly as much as people think..eventually, an innovative mind will figure out how to combat it..from the NBA's standpoint, they should crack down on illegal screens and calling fouls, that's the best they can do IMO..

Contrary to the belief of fans of the old game, most people don't care about the style of play..ratings are down because LeBron plays on the West Coast now and the playoffs ratings will take a significant hit due to his absence, as well..

When he retires, the league will see an even bigger decline, as it did when Dad Killer retired..it's a name-driven league, always has been..

Silver has chosen his path, though..just like baseball chose to focus more on local markets and ratings, the NBA has chosen to appeal to social media and the short attention span of young fans in the form of highlight videos, off-court drama, etc..

Indeed, and this happens in all sports. When a sport first develops its rule set/field-court dimensions, it's obviously done so with consideration of the athleticism and skillsets of the players of the day, then as players and tactics evolve, those parameters become too exploitable (in baseball, for instance, pitchers have totally caught up to 60'6", which has titled the game much more in favor of pitching over the years, leading to excessive strikeouts and less balls-in-play. NBA players have caught up to the 3 point distance similarly).

I'm sure when the ABA and then the NBA installed the 3 pointer, they intended it to be kind of like basketball's Hail Mary. League wide shooting percentage from 3 in its first year was .280 on only 2.8 attempts per game :lol. I actually like those numbers. Made 3s are a cheap commodity now and not particularly exciting. If you reduce their frequency and increase their difficulty, it becomes a much more exciting and impactful play (like a home run, soccer goal, 60 yard TD pass, etc).

But yes, as we've discussed before, this is the NBA's marketing strategy, and more offense that's centered around guards and wings (bigs have never been particularly marketable outside of Shaq) via 3s and layups/dunks increases the chances of making a perimeter star. I'm not sure the regional approach will ever work for them since NBA teams lacking big stars get killed regionally.

Other concerns is that this hyper style of play is going to kill the longevity of bigs (real 6'10"+ players). I don't see Embiid, the Nikolas, and even Davis being star level past 32ish. The defensive demands especially (switching) are just going to eat up their legs over the years. Like we wouldn't see a 38 year old Tim Duncan being the best player on a title team today.

[midnightpulp]

The thing that's really interesting to me is how long it took coaches to catch on to the effectiveness of the three point shot. I saw an interview recently with Steve Kerr where he said he didn't shoot more threes during his days with the Bulls because it wasn't considered a "good" shot. It was seen by many as more or less a bailout shot when penetration or post plays didn't pan out in a possession. It took quite a while for many basketball "experts" to stop viewing it as a novelty. I think there's no question that if guys like Bird, Nash, Peja, Dale Ellis, Mark Price, Terry Porter, Chris Mullin, etc., etc. played today, their 3pt attempts per game would go up significantly. But I do agree that it's an over-rewarded shot. The perfect solution would be reassigning its value as 2.5 points, which would keep it relevant but bring back the value of post play and the mid-range-- but, of course, that's not going to happen. But I do see people starting to find good strategies for attacking the three point revolution: Giannis is probably the best example in the current NBA, as a guy who has the height of a center and the handles of a PG, but who has no 3 point game and very little midrange game. Milwaukee essentially clears out the post for him to operate, leaving him the option of scoring one-on-one while the other four defenders have to worry about the three point shot. I think more and more guys who would've been mainly post up players in the past will follow this format, while at the same time also trying to be better outside shooters than Giannis.

Rules were also bit different in those days. You could literally drape yourself over a player on the perimeter, so getting an open look wasn't always so easy. League wide shooting percentage on 3s in 1991 was .320 but on only 7 attempts, which were probably a combination of desperation heaves and wide open shots.