Reply With Quote
Just imagine all five Rockets standing behind center line and jacking 5-pointers from there. Great basketball.
agreed. Or make a 4 point line from about 32 feet back to just beyond about where that little hash mark is. And anything from halfcourt or greater is 5 points
Just imagine all five Rockets standing behind center line and jacking 5-pointers from there. Great basketball.
This 3point chuckfest of an era is boring. They need to extend the 3point line and make the court bigger. The court is too small for these big men. They need to start rewarding closer shots and bring back dunks and physical post play. Nba rarely gets close nail bitting games anymore. .
I’m not sure if you’re being serious, but that would be awful and it would change the game too much. If a team is down by 5 with 2 seconds left, it shouldn’t be able to send a game to OT by heaving a halfcourt shot.
The only reason I say move the 3 back is because players have gotten too good at shooting and the 3 pointer wasn’t supposed to be a high percentage shot when it was first introduced. IMO if you moved it back to 27’ the quality of play would improve a lot. If you extended the size of the court that also wouldn’t be bad because it would adjust for the fact players are a lot more athletic now than they were 20+ years ago.
Reading comprehension is your friend...
Recent? Westbrook has been a stat padder since the ABA merger.
Stop with the garbage takes already, dumbass.
Recent? Westbrook has been a stat padder since the ABA merger.
Stop with the garbage takes already, dumbass.
They just need to let guys defend without calling every ticky tack bull .
Why not? It's still a low percentage shot, but it does dramatically increase the value of a Curry.
(Curry would have been out of the league with major injuries by this point if he played in the '80s.)
Why is the goal to increase the value of Curry? That’s really stupid.
(Curry would have been out of the league with major injuries by this point if he played in the '80s.)
And it’s a circus act type rule. A half court shot has a huge element of luck to it, you shouldn’t be able to erase a 5 point deficit by chucking a lucky shot from half court.
Then again, you can definitely make an argument that pro basketball in general is a circus act. Only the 450 luckiest athletes in the world get to play in the NBA (based on their genetics -- sheer luck) and only around 300 or so of those young men actually see significant action on the court. Therefore, it's fitting.
Plus, basketball inherently is a game largely based on luck... you've got two hands in their eye and they still drill the shot, nothing you can do but grin and move on... not to mention the chronically wavering moods of the referees at any given juncture.
I didn't know there were multiple games in the series. I think they could have come up with something a little more creative and less alienating to fans of other teams.
I think there was a long series of those. Maybe people were more fans of basketball back in those days than they are now.
Lakers and rockets at 103 combined 3's tonight
Today's NBA is so bad
You couldn't even defend the shot, imagine fouling the shooter and having him shoot 5 free throws.
(Curry would have been out of the league with major injuries by this point if he played in the '80s.)
why not defend it the same way as the 3? Idiots are already stupid for fouling 3 point shooters tbh especially since most of them these days make about 85% or better on FTs.
105 even. 68 of the Rockets' 100 FG's were threes.
They started off _______ vs ________ (whichever teams where in the finals the year before). Then they changed the name to NBA Live. It’s the origin of the NBA Live series.
Basketball is a simple game, the evolution of the 3-point shot was inevitable..just like in any other facet, the people running things figured out a better way to get the best out of an offense..it's strange and stupid that people want to go backwards
Changing the dimensions of the court is fine, but changing the value of a shot is silly..
Teams aren't going to shoot less 3s, why would they go back to taking inefficient shots that are worth less points?
The best they can do(and I'm in favor of) to help the game is:
- Crack down on illegal screens..a large % of these open 3s are created through illegal screens
- Stop calling fouls on everything on defense..nobody wants to watch FTs all game
- Allow defenders to hold more off the ball
Nobody wants to watch 2000s ball, there's a reason the NBA changed the game in 2006..nobody actually liked the 90s either, it's just nostalgia, Jordan and more white American players..their best eras of basketball were the 80s and 2011-2016, hopefully we get more of the latter going forward rather than what Silver is trying to do now..
Basketball is a simple game, the evolution of the 3-point shot was inevitable..just like in any other facet, the people running things figured out a better way to get the best out of an offense..it's strange and stupid that people want to go backwards
Changing the dimensions of the court is fine, but changing the value of a shot is silly..
Teams aren't going to shoot less 3s, why would they go back to taking inefficient shots that are worth less points?
The best they can do(and I'm in favor of) to help the game is:
- Crack down on illegal screens..a large % of these open 3s are created through illegal screens
- Stop calling fouls on everything on defense..nobody wants to watch FTs all game
- Allow defenders to hold more off the ball
Nobody wants to watch 2000s ball, there's a reason the NBA changed the game in 2006..nobody actually liked the 90s either, it's just nostalgia, Jordan and more white American players..their best eras of basketball were the 80s and 2011-2016, hopefully we get more of the latter going forward rather than what Silver is trying to do now..
We're past the point of the evolution of the 3 point shot and to the point where there's simply way more 3s than originally intended because of how much more efficient the shot is. The shooters are good enough now where a 22-24 foot shot shouldn't be worth 50% more than a traditional field goal. Changing the value of the shot is a re ed idea, but just moving the 3 point line back several feet would solve the problem imo.
I'm with you. Move the line back some, extend it all the way to the sideline and eliminate the corner 3 so that the whole 3-point line is the same distance from the basket all the way around. The 3-point line would be shorter in terms of the length of the stripe, so it would be easier to defend.
We're past the point of the evolution of the 3 point shot and to the point where there's simply way more 3s than originally intended because of how much more efficient the shot is. The shooters are good enough now where a 22-24 foot shot shouldn't be worth 50% more than a traditional field goal. Changing the value of the shot is a re ed idea, but just moving the 3 point line back several feet would solve the problem imo.
Changing the dimensions of the court is too drastic, and has too many effects on lower levels of basketball. It's almost as bad as changing the rim height imo.
Live used to be the until 2k obliterated it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions