"There's no basketball anymore. There's no beauty in it...

[midnightpulp]

...Now you look at a stat sheet after a game and the first thing you look at is the 3s. If you made 3s and the other team didn't, you win. You don't even look at the rebounds or the turnovers or how much transition D was involved. You don't even care."

- Gregg Popovich

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26633540/the-nba-obsessed-3s-let-fix-thing

Now, modern NBA fans will definitely label Pop having an old man at cloud moment, but he's right. The author of the article (Goldsberry) has long been a critic of the modern NBA, as well.


Pop is right. Not only has the analytics era of the NBA dramatically reshaped shot selection across the league, but shooting is by far the most important component of winning games. Teams with a higher effective field goal percentage (eFG%) than their opponents won 81 percent of their games during the regular season, and they're winning 90 percent of them in the playoffs.

There's no disputing the fact NBA basketball (and basketball in general) has been essentially "solved," resulting in a very one dimensional sport. Now, as we've said, this style is very popular with fans and perfect for social media.

Will Goldsberry's "let's fix it" fall on deaf ears? League brass (in any sport) doesn't care about game balance, aesthetics, etc, only fan support, so as long as the millions of retweets of a Curry stepback 34 footer keep clicking in, I don't foresee the NBA doing anything in the near future.

[RC_Drunkford]

sadly shooting a bunch of midranges won't prove anybody wrong though

[LkrFan]

Pop is full of shit. Why don't he just run his 1999 Avery Johnson offense? Let's see how that will work in today's NBA :lol

[midnightpulp]

Pop is full of shit. Why don't he just run his 1999 Avery Johnson offense? Let's see how that will work in today's NBA :lol

:lol you only like chuckhoop because Lakers North do it.

[Play Boban]

The team who make the most shots wins most often in a game where a team scores by making the most shots. Who knew? :lol

[midnightpulp]

The team who make the most shots wins most often in a game where a team scores by making the most shots. Who knew? :lol

Not really what the argument is saying. eFG% considers points per shot, so 4-10 from 3 is "effectively" 60 percent shooting. So actually, a team can make less shots, shoot worse, and still win. Thus Pop's complaint. Nothing else matters but who wins the eFG% battle. Winning that battle translates into an 81 percent winning regular season win percentage, and a 90 percent win percentage in this year's playoffs.

I said as much in the series against Denver. Everyone was hand-wringing about "adjustments" and Pop's rotation, but the core issue was making less 3s than Denver in losses. That's what it ultimately came down to.

[Play Boban]

Not really what the argument is saying. eFG% considers points per shot, so 4-10 from 3 is "effectively" 60 percent shooting. So actually, a team can make less shots, shoot worse, and still win. Thus Pop's complaint. Nothing else matters but who wins the eFG% battle. Winning that battle translates into an 81 percent winning regular season win percentage, and a 90 percent win percentage in this year's playoffs.

I said as much in the series against Denver. Everyone was hand-wringing about "adjustments" and Pop's rotation, but the core issue was making less 3s than Denver in losses. That's what it ultimately came down to.

Was it ever really any different though tbh? The team who wins eFG has almost always won. And before the advent of the 3 point shot it was the same way tbh. In a game where the objective is to score points, the team who gets the most points per shot is usually going to win.

[DAF86]

Teams with a higher effective field goal percentage (eFG%) than their opponents won 81 percent of their games during the regular season, and they're winning 90 percent of them in the playoffs.

So, you are telling me that teams that tend to get more points per every shot they take are most likely to win? Well, no shit Sherlock. :lol

I really don't see how that number could be much lower on previous eras, tbh.

[midnightpulp]

Was it ever really any different though tbh? The team who wins eFG has almost always won. And before the advent of the 3 point shot it was the same way tbh. In a game where the objective is to score points, the team who gets the most points per shot is usually going to win.

Yes, but they won by making more shots. Today, a team can make many more shots and still lose (say Team A goes 50-90, all 2s, for a 100 points, while Team B goes 40-90, but 21 of their shots were made 3s, for a 101 points). Why are there complaints? Because only one offensive style really works now. If I wanted to build a team like the 3 peat Lakers or 99 Spurs, no chance they win. And as Pop mentioned, being concerned about other facets of the game has taken a backseat to how many 3s you make.

[DAF86]

Yes, but they won by making more shots. Today, a team can make many more shots and still lose (say Team A goes 50-90, all 2s, for a 100 points, while Team B goes 40-90, but 21 of their shots were made 3s, for a 101 points). Why are there complaints? Because only one offensive style really works now. If I wanted to build a team like the 3 peat Lakers or 99 Spurs, no chance they win. And as Pop mentioned, being concerned about other facets of the game has taken a backseat to how many 3s you make.

That happened before also. I would like to see the % of times that happens now, compared to previous eras. Again, I doubt there's too much difference.

In any case, the eFG% argument was a dumb one, tbh.

[midnightpulp]

So, you are telling me that teams that tend to get more points per every shot they take are most likely to win? Well, no shit Sherlock. :lol

I really don't see how that number could be much lower on previous eras, tbh.

In 1999, the Spurs ranked 11th in eFG%. The 2000 Lakers ranked 14th. The 2004 Pistons ranked 20th. 2005 Spurs ranked 6th. Golden State has ranked 1st since 2015, with Cleveland a perennially in the top 5, along with other top teams since then (Rockets, Kawhi-Spurs). If you're not at the very, very least a top 5 team in eFG%, you have slim-to-none chance of winning a title.

[Fat Brandon Bass]

yeah it's interesting. I don't know if they'll change it or not since the three point shot is a respectable skill to have in the NBA despite it being whored to death now. Other rule changes such as handchecking (no skill required here) and "big man" changes like goaltending or widening the lane because a physical freak of nature comes along who can take over the league just by being big (again no skill required), made more sense because you weren't punishing someone for their skillset.

I actually think games are played at a higher level now than in years past with the exception of some douchebags trying to imitate Curry/Harden with their stepback 3's. The problem, like mid said, is that only one style of play works. Every team literally looks the same

[midnightpulp]

That happened before also. I would like to see the % of times that happens now, compared to previous eras. Again, I doubt there's too much difference.

In any case, the eFG% argument was a dumb one, tbh.

eFG% is not a dumb argument. Maybe you have a team that loses the eFG% battle, but makes up for it through controlling the boards, creating turnovers, and getting to the line. See 1999 Spurs, 2004 Pistons. Those Pistons ranked 25th in 3 point attempts per game and 16th in percentage. But they were the 3rd best rebounding team in the league, lead the league in blocks, and 4th best at forcing TOs. It would be unfathomable for a team with their offensive metrics to have success today, despite how good their defense was.

All these teams are basically cookie cutter builds now.

[midnightpulp]

yeah it's interesting. I don't know if they'll change it or not since the three point shot is a respectable skill to have in the NBA despite it being whored to death now. Other rule changes such as handchecking (no skill required here) and "big man" changes like goaltending or widening the lane because a physical freak of nature comes along who can take over the league just by being big (again no skill required), made more sense because you weren't punishing someone for their skillset.

I actually think games are played at a higher level now than in years past with the exception of some douchebags trying to imitate Curry/Harden with their stepback 3's. The problem, like mid said, is that only one style of play works. Every team literally looks the same

Indeed. The math is too powerful to even consider building a team any other way. If was a GM of some bottom feeder, and suggested that we're going to build a defensive first team like the 2004 Pistons, who only averaged 11.8 three attempts per game, I'd be laughed out of the office.

2005 was a good year for strategy balance. The Pistons and Suns were at opposite ends of the spectrum and the #2 and #3 teams in the league that season.

[midnightpulp]

Here's another example. In the 2005 Finals, the Spurs outscored the Pistons 153 to 54 from 3, and it still went a nailbiting 7 games.

[DAF86]

In 1999, the Spurs ranked 11th in eFG%. The 2000 Lakers ranked 14th. The 2004 Pistons ranked 20th. 2005 Spurs ranked 6th. Golden State has ranked 1st since 2015, with Cleveland a perennially in the top 5, along with other top teams since then (Rockets, Kawhi-Spurs). If you're not at the very, very least a top 5 team in eFG%, you have slim-to-none chance of winning a title.

San Antonio finished 7th on EFG% and they are the least 3pt shooting team in the entire league.

[midnightpulp]

San Antonio finished 7th on EFG% and they are the least 3pt shooting team in the entire league.

And what seed were they :lol

And didn't I say if you're not top 5, you have a slim-to-none change of winning a title? The Finals will probably be Warriors/Bucks, the top two eFG% teams in the league. Not sure what or why you're arguing? The data is pretty clear on how much more eFG% (as it relates to efficient 3 point shooting) centric the league is. You won't get competitive teams at the opposite end of the philosophy spectrum, like my Suns/Pistons example. Or even Lakers/Kings. All these teams are essentially built the same and play the same tactical on-court game.

[DAF86]

2005 - Spurs 6th on efg.
2006 - Heat 2nd.
2007 - Spurs 2nd.
2008 - Celtics 5th.
2009 - Lakers 7th.
2011 - Mavs 1st.
2012 - Heat 5th.
2013 - Heat 1st.
2014 - Spurs 2nd.

The Champions will always be among the best shooting teams in the league. They have always been and they will always be.

Those champions that aren't among the leaders in EFG are because they had elite defense that made up for that fact. Elite defenses that brought the other's team EFG % down, therefore allowing them to win the EFG battle on that particular night. So, yeah, the fact that, nowadays, teams that have a higher EFG% win 80% of the games isn't anything weird. It has always been like that. Retarded stat is retarded, tbh.

[DAF86]

And what seed were they :lol

Across the entire NBA? 12th.


And didn't I say if you're not top 5, you have a slim-to-none change of winning a title? The Finals will probably be Warriors/Bucks, the top two eFG% teams in the league. Not sure what or why you're arguing? The data is pretty clear on how much more eFG% (as it relates to efficient 3 point shooting) centric the league is. You won't get competitive teams at the opposite end of the philosophy spectrum, like my Suns/Pistons example. Or even Lakers/Kings. All these teams are essentially built the same and play the same tactical on-court game.

My point is that the team that shot 3's the least, still finished 7th overall on EFG, proving that you don't always have to launch a lot of threes to be succesful on the EFG departament.

[Rusty]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/044/247/297.png

[lefty]

Mark Price and Larry Bird would be unanimous MVPs in today’s NBA tbh

Craig Ehlo and Brent Price would be all stars every year

[midnightpulp]

Across the entire NBA? 12th.



My point is that the team that shot 3's the least, still finished 7th overall on EFG, proving that you don't always have to launch a lot of threes to be succesful on the EFG departament.

I think you still miss the crux of the argument. Sure, teams that shoot better win the game more often than not, even before the introduction of the 3 point line. The issue with today's game is that it would be near impossible for a team to have a competitive eFG% if they built their team like the 2004 Pistons. The Spurs still shot 26 threes per game. A balanced sport should allow a team like the 2004 Pistons to exist (they would be 30 percentage points behind the worst eFG% team in the league). But if you're not hitting 3s at a good rate on +30 attempts, you basically have no chance at winning a title.

To clarify, if a team wants to build itself around being a 15 three point attempt squad with a focus on the low post, midrange and defense, basketball's design should allow for that. It doesn't anymore. The fact it's a more one dimensional game than ever can't be argued. The math of the three has simply gotten too powerful.


If it’s true that 3-point shots go in 36 percent of the time and 10-foot shots go in just 40 percent of the time, then why are we assigning 50 percent more value to shots from beyond that magical little arc?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-mapping-shots-in-the-nba-changed-it-forever/

[DAF86]

I think you still miss the crux of the argument. Sure, teams that shoot better win the game more often than not, even before the introduction of the 3 point line. The issue with today's game is that it would be near impossible for a team to have a competitive eFG% if they built their team like the 2004 Pistons. The Spurs still shot 26 threes per game. A balanced sport should allow a team like the 2004 Pistons to exist (they would be 30 percentage points behind the worst eFG% team in the league). But if you're not hitting 3s at a good rate on +30 attempts, you basically have no chance at winning a title.

To clarify, if a team wants to build itself around being a 15 three point attempt squad with a focus on the low post, midrange and defense, basketball's design should allow for that. It doesn't anymore. The fact it's a more one dimensional game than ever can't be argued. The math of the three has simply gotten too powerful.



https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-mapping-shots-in-the-nba-changed-it-forever/

Well, that's a different argument.

All I'm saying is that bringing up the fact that teams win 80% of the games when they have a higher efg% than the opponent is a dumb argument, because it has always been like that.

[FrostKing]

How inefficient is the 3 pointer on a 3-2 fast break now? Considering teams can get open shots at will and stationary open 3's even. Why jack up a moving three pointer.

One of the most frustrating plays watching today

[midnightpulp]

Well, that's a different argument.

All I'm saying is that bringing up the fact that teams win 80% of the games when they have a higher efg% than the opponent is a dumb argument, because it has always been like that.

I think Goldsberry was just using it to frame the argument, that if a team desired to play a style not centered on the 3, they'd have no chance at winning the eFG battle against a team that does. I would also be willing to bet the winning percentage wasn't a high in the past. Teams had more ways to offset a eFG deficiency.

[DAF86]

I wonder, if shots behind the arc were worth 2.5 instead of 3 pts, would shot distribution become more balanced? I would try that on the G-league for a season, tbh.

[midnightpulp]

How inefficient is the 3 pointer on a 3-2 fast break now? Considering teams can get open shots at will and stationary open 3's even. Why jack up a moving three pointer.

One of the most frustrating plays watching today

Highlights. The 3 has funny enough replaced the dunk as the most exciting offensive play in basketball (per casual taste). They usually have a lane to an open dunk and will still pull up :lol

[midnightpulp]

I wonder, if shots behind the arc were worth 2.5 instead of 3 pts, would shot distribution become more balanced? I would try that on the G-league for a season, tbh.

It's a math question. Ideally, we'd want 3s being worth the same PPP as the midrange to incentivize more of the latter. Midrange shooting percentage is 40%, while 3s are made at 36%. So you get 50% more points for a shot that is only 10 percent more difficult (10 percent of 40% is 4%). To balance it, you'd want the shot being worth 2.2 points. Be a dumb number, though. Another solution is to make the shot 50 percent harder, either through moving the line back or allowing more defensive latitude above the arc. Goldsberry's proposal of allowing goaltending on 3s is interesting, as well. But it's pretty easy to pull bigs out of the paint.

Probably seems like I'm picking on basketball, but all sports go through this and will continue to go through this, especially with analytics. My concern is that change will never come because this style has proven to be the most entertaining to casual fans out of any NBA era in history.

[Rusty]

Funny how he complained about today's NBA and yet quickly signed that 3 year extension. If you're so sick of it then why come back

[daslicer]

Funny how he complained about today's NBA and yet quickly signed that 3 year extension. If you're so sick of it then why come back

Outside of his job he has nothing to live for. That's pretty much why he's till coaching.

[Will Hunting]

Another solution is to make the shot 50 percent harder, either through moving the line back or allowing more defensive latitude above the arc. Goldsberry's proposal of allowing goaltending on 3s is interesting, as well. But it's pretty easy to pull bigs out of the paint.
IMO this is the most practical solution. It would also make a big difference if the NBA was tougher on calling illegal screens/push off fouls. At some point it became common practice for a screener to contort his body in any direction to jam up the defender and the officials never call it (my favorite is when a screener stick his ass out to stop a defender who he never intended to screen but happens to be running behind him :lol).

I think it's a common sense move at this point to move the arc back to 25 feet and the baseline 3 back to 23 feet and see what that does. Right now the baseline 3 is especially way too easy at 22 feet. 23 feet is still short but shortening the amount of floor space between the 3 point line and out of bounds line on the baseline makes it harder.

[R. DeMurre]

I wonder, if shots behind the arc were worth 2.5 instead of 3 pts, would shot distribution become more balanced? I would try that on the G-league for a season, tbh.

I've thought about that idea too, and think it's one possible way to adjust things. One problem with this is how to reward a foul on a shot behind the line... you can't shoot 2.5 free throws.

[lefty]

... you can't shoot 2.5 free throws.

Karl Malone could

[FrostKing]

Watching blacks attempt to do the math on points of 2.5 would renergize the entertainment factor

[UZER]

Yeah well, mp3s are not authentic music compared to records, but times change.

[Mark Celibate]

Funny how he complained about today's NBA and yet quickly signed that 3 year extension. If you're so sick of it then why come back

:lol That doesn't make any sense. He's coming back for the same reason why 90% of working professionals bitch about their current corporation yet still slog in to the office day in/day out.

What else is he gonna do that will earn him millions per year?

[Jeremy]

I've thought about that idea too, and think it's one possible way to adjust things. One problem with this is how to reward a foul on a shot behind the line... you can't shoot 2.5 free throws.

Have them shoot one free throw from where they attempted the shot. If they can't hit the shot without being fouled, they don't deserve points.

[140]

:lol That doesn't make any sense. He's coming back for the same reason why 90% of working professionals bitch about their current corporation yet still slog in to the office day in/day out.

What else is he gonna do that will earn him millions per year?

I hear his wine and food pairings are to die for tbh

[Arcadian]

2005 was a good year for strategy balance. The Pistons and Suns were at opposite ends of the spectrum and the #2 and #3 teams in the league that season.

:toast 2005 was a great season. The Spurs struck the perfect balance of offense and defense, taking down both Phoenix and Detroit in their title run.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Pop is full of shit. Why don't he just run his 1999 Avery Johnson offense? Let's see how that will work in today's NBA :lol

Pop's whining reminds me of comments Larry Brown made about the ever increasing pick and roll spreading across the league and perfected by Malone and Stockton. Brown said he hated it because it wasn't pure basketball. Seems the common denominator is two older coaches who had success in the league but resistive to the ever changing game .

[Capt Bringdown]

If a made FG is worth 3 points from one part of the court (presumably because it is a lower percentage shot that requires more skill to execute) should not dunks and/or points in the paint be worth less, say 1 point?
And should a made FG taken from far beyond the 3 point line be worth more, say 4, 5, 10, 20 points?

This to me is the logic of the 3-pointer. Originally an ABA marketing stunt, it has turned the game into a shooting contest, a glorified version of horse.

[LkrFan]

:lol you only like chuckhoop because Lakers North do it.

:lol

[midnightpulp]

:toast 2005 was a great season. The Spurs struck the perfect balance of offense and defense, taking down both Phoenix and Detroit in their title run.

The 2005 Spurs were a special team in that they could play any style. Low-post, grit-and-grind, fastbreak, long range (they out shot the Suns from 3), dribble drive. The Suns and Pistons were two entirely different teams and the Spurs outplayed each at "their" game.

[midnightpulp]

IMO this is the most practical solution. It would also make a big difference if the NBA was tougher on calling illegal screens/push off fouls. At some point it became common practice for a screener to contort his body in any direction to jam up the defender and the officials never call it (my favorite is when a screener stick his ass out to stop a defender who he never intended to screen but happens to be running behind him :lol).

I think it's a common sense move at this point to move the arc back to 25 feet and the baseline 3 back to 23 feet and see what that does. Right now the baseline 3 is especially way too easy at 22 feet. 23 feet is still short but shortening the amount of floor space between the 3 point line and out of bounds line on the baseline makes it harder.

Moving/illegal screens are a big part of the issue. It makes the 3 pretty much unguardable. You just have to hope your opponent is cold.

[Othyus Lalanne]

sadly shooting a bunch of midranges won't prove anybody wrong though

He already did prove the Spurs are over crowd wrong.

[Rusty]

:lol That doesn't make any sense. He's coming back for the same reason why 90% of working professionals bitch about their current corporation yet still slog in to the office day in/day out.

What else is he gonna do that will earn him millions per year?

He's rich enough to retire unlike the 90% working professionals

[ambchang]

I never understood how the idea is that the players skills have broken the game.

Much of it is based on the success GsW had with curry and Thompson in the regular season and one championship. In both 15 and 16, prior to Durant the warriors looked very beatable in the playoffs. What broke the nba was an mvp joining a dominant but still beatable team. Without Durant we won’t be having this discussion at all.

Besides, if the league actually wants to “fix” it, all they have to do is call fouls in the paint and on the perimeter consistently. The league has now allowed excessive physical plays in the paint but not allowed any actual or perceived contact around the perimeter, making perimeter play a much better option on offense because the level of difficulty is actually less. Just allow perimeter defense, don’t reward moving screens and everything will be back to what it was.

Curry didn’t choke in the playoffs the last few years, it’s just that the league allowed perimeter defense that is slightly tighter than what he’s used to in the regular season. Tougher d = lower fg%. It really isn’t rocket science.

[UZER]

I never understood how the idea is that the players skills have broken the game.

Much of it is based on the success GsW had with curry and Thompson in the regular season and one championship. In both 15 and 16, prior to Durant the warriors looked very beatable in the playoffs. What broke the nba was an mvp joining a dominant but still beatable team. Without Durant we won’t be having this discussion at all.

Besides, if the league actually wants to “fix” it, all they have to do is call fouls in the paint and on the perimeter consistently. The league has now allowed excessive physical plays in the paint but not allowed any actual or perceived contact around the perimeter, making perimeter play a much better option on offense because the level of difficulty is actually less. Just allow perimeter defense, don’t reward moving screens and everything will be back to what it was.

Curry didn’t choke in the playoffs the last few years, it’s just that the league allowed perimeter defense that is slightly tighter than what he’s used to in the regular season. Tougher d = lower fg%. It really isn’t rocket science.

I’ve said this before. It all changed for the worse when Durant joined them. Teams had started figuring out the Warriors. Hell Lebron beat them with Kyrie. Curry was starting to struggle handling the heavy load when opponents would rough him up. But Durant joining completely unbalanced them compared to the rest of the league. It gave Curry freedom to run wild, and in return, make Durant unguardable.

Once Durant joined them, the 3 point chucking just to keep up started spreading throughout the league and 3 years later, here we are.

[midnightpulp]

I never understood how the idea is that the players skills have broken the game.

Much of it is based on the success GsW had with curry and Thompson in the regular season and one championship. In both 15 and 16, prior to Durant the warriors looked very beatable in the playoffs. What broke the nba was an mvp joining a dominant but still beatable team. Without Durant we won’t be having this discussion at all.

Besides, if the league actually wants to “fix” it, all they have to do is call fouls in the paint and on the perimeter consistently. The league has now allowed excessive physical plays in the paint but not allowed any actual or perceived contact around the perimeter, making perimeter play a much better option on offense because the level of difficulty is actually less. Just allow perimeter defense, don’t reward moving screens and everything will be back to what it was.

Curry didn’t choke in the playoffs the last few years, it’s just that the league allowed perimeter defense that is slightly tighter than what he’s used to in the regular season. Tougher d = lower fg%. It really isn’t rocket science.

It's not just about the Warriors. All the contending teams play the same binary strategy of basketball that centers offense around an outside/in gameplan to either generate 3s or layups/dunks (which are a result of the spacing from teams having to step out onto the perimeter more than ever before). In short, basketball is totally 3 point centric today. All offense basically starts from there.

Skills have broken the game precisely because of that defensive strictness on the perimeter. Modern NBA perimeter players fueled by analytics have figured out how to exploit it to the maximum. And since the 3 is worth 50 percent more points, there's no reason to heavily focus your skillset and gameplan anywhere else. Sure, it always help to have a couple of post-plays and a good midrange shooter to throw in a curveball now and then, but teams are primarily looking three, three, three and then layup if the lanes are there.

For example, the end game execution in the Warriors/Rockets game last night was comical. 1 point game at the 5:39 minute mark and both teams proceeded to shoot a combined 8 three point attempts from then on. At that point in the game, points are more important than PPP. You just want a lead to maintain pressure, and shouldn't be worried at this point that a 3 made 40 percent of the time is worth more than a 2 made 50 percent of the time. The plan should be to get the highest percentage shots possible. Thompson, for instance, shot a terrible contested corner 3 with 5:24 left down 1. Just ugly basketball. This is how obsessed the league is with the 3. I switched the game at that point :lol. It really does feel like watching rec league.

[HWoodNixon]

It's not just about the Warriors. All the contending teams play the same binary strategy of basketball that centers offense around an outside/in gameplan to either generate 3s or layups/dunks (which are a result of the spacing from teams having to step out onto the perimeter more than ever before). In short, basketball is totally 3 point centric today. All offense basically starts from there.

Skills have broken the game precisely because of that defensive strictness on the perimeter. Modern NBA perimeter players fueled by analytics have figured out how to exploit it to the maximum. And since the 3 is worth 50 percent more points, there's no reason to heavily focus your skillset and gameplan anywhere else. Sure, it always help to have a couple of post-plays and a good midrange shooter to throw in a curveball now and then, but teams are primarily looking three, three, three and then layup if the lanes are there.

For example, the end game execution in the Warriors/Rockets game last night was comical. 1 point game at the 5:39 minute mark and both teams proceeded to shoot a combined 8 three point attempts from then on. At that point in the game, points are more important than PPP. You just want a lead to maintain pressure, and shouldn't be worried at this point that a 3 made 40 percent of the time is worth more than a 2 made 50 percent of the time. The plan should be to get the highest percentage shots possible. Thompson, for instance, shot a terrible contested corner 3 with 5:24 left down 1. Just ugly basketball. This is how obsessed the league is with the 3. I switched the game at that point :lol. It really does feel like watching rec league.


People were bitching when Snaq was bowling over people in the post...commenting that his play was “ugly” basketball. How is this any different?

[midnightpulp]

People were bitching when Snaq was bowling over people in the post...commenting that his play was “ugly” basketball. How is this any different?

Post-play is still a more difficult skill to learn than shooting 3s (and thus more interesting to watch). Shaq wasn't ugly basketball. Great footwork and fine passer. He lacked touch, sure, but he was a pretty refined big and not just a "bully." Also there was only one Shaq. There's dozens of chuckers in the league.

[ambchang]

It's not just about the Warriors. All the contending teams play the same binary strategy of basketball that centers offense around an outside/in gameplan to either generate 3s or layups/dunks (which are a result of the spacing from teams having to step out onto the perimeter more than ever before). In short, basketball is totally 3 point centric today. All offense basically starts from there.

Skills have broken the game precisely because of that defensive strictness on the perimeter. Modern NBA perimeter players fueled by analytics have figured out how to exploit it to the maximum. And since the 3 is worth 50 percent more points, there's no reason to heavily focus your skillset and gameplan anywhere else. Sure, it always help to have a couple of post-plays and a good midrange shooter to throw in a curveball now and then, but teams are primarily looking three, three, three and then layup if the lanes are there.

For example, the end game execution in the Warriors/Rockets game last night was comical. 1 point game at the 5:39 minute mark and both teams proceeded to shoot a combined 8 three point attempts from then on. At that point in the game, points are more important than PPP. You just want a lead to maintain pressure, and shouldn't be worried at this point that a 3 made 40 percent of the time is worth more than a 2 made 50 percent of the time. The plan should be to get the highest percentage shots possible. Thompson, for instance, shot a terrible contested corner 3 with 5:24 left down 1. Just ugly basketball. This is how obsessed the league is with the 3. I switched the game at that point :lol. It really does feel like watching rec league.

I agree it’s a three point chucking league now and it’s an ugly product. However I think it’s a rule enforcement issue (allowing rough interior play but not on the perimeter, leading to easier perimeter shots than scoring in the paint; not calling moving screens to open the perimeter for open shots) and a follow the leader league (Durant joining the warriors).

Houston still hasn’t won a title using analytics. The warriors were looking like one and dones before Durant joined.

[R. DeMurre]

Golden State has done a lot of things right besides understanding the math of shooting threes. Moving Iguodala to the Ginobili-like 6th man role was smart, but then also having him replace the center in the Death Lineup shows their flexibility. Taking a chance with an undersized PF like Draymond-- who measured 6'5.75" in bare feet at the combine-- in the draft was obviously a good move. Having Jerry West lead the pitch to Durant was smart as hell. They're a smart bunch of guys. They emphasize ball movement and easy looks-- something OKC still hasn't figured out. It's not like they sat down and just said, "Oh, let's shoot a shitload of threes!"

[lefty]

Golden State has done a lot of things right besides understanding the math of shooting threes. Moving Iguodala to the Ginobili-like 6th man role was smart, but then also having him replace the center in the Death Lineup shows their flexibility. Taking a chance with an undersized PF like Draymond-- who measured 6'5.75" in bare feet at the combine-- in the draft was obviously a good move. Having Jerry West lead the pitch to Durant was smart as hell. They're a smart bunch of guys. They emphasize ball movement and easy looks-- something OKC still hasn't figured out. It's not like they sat down and just said, "Oh, let's shoot a shitload of threes!"

Exactly, the problem os that everybody else think they can play like GS while they don’t have the right personel, which leads to ugly 3 pt chucking

In the 90s a few teams tried to emulate the Bulls triangle offense but failed miserably

[pad300]

Golden State has done a lot of things right besides understanding the math of shooting threes. Moving Iguodala to the Ginobili-like 6th man role was smart, but then also having him replace the center in the Death Lineup shows their flexibility. Taking a chance with an undersized PF like Draymond-- who measured 6'5.75" in bare feet at the combine-- in the draft was obviously a good move. Having Jerry West lead the pitch to Durant was smart as hell. They're a smart bunch of guys. They emphasize ball movement and easy looks-- something OKC still hasn't figured out. It's not like they sat down and just said, "Oh, let's shoot a shitload of threes!"

Yeah, but with the even rules enforcement that some people are discussing here (paint vs perimeter fouls, moving screens), the "smart" moves of an undersized PF and the emphasis on long distance shooting would be much less effective.

[spurraider21]

Was it ever really any different though tbh? The team who wins eFG has almost always won. And before the advent of the 3 point shot it was the same way tbh. In a game where the objective is to score points, the team who gets the most points per shot is usually going to win.
before the 3 point shot, eFG% and FG% were the same thing

[Play Boban]

before the 3 point shot, eFG% and FG% were the same thing
I’m not stupid.

[spurraider21]

I’m not stupid.
Whatever you say little guy!

[Play Boban]

Whatever you say little guy!
:cry