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

[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 ty 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

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

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]

Not really. Twitter and the core NBA market (which is star following casuals) love this . 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 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 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 led 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 . 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 le 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.