NBA: "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/2...-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 . Why don't he just run his 1999 Avery Johnson offense? Let's see how that will work in today's NBA

[midnightpulp]

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

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?

[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?

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 Sherlock.

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 Sherlock.

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 le.

[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 d 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 bags 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 d 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 bags 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 le.

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

And didn't I say if you're not top 5, you have a slim-to-none change of winning a le? 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 compe ive 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. Re ed stat is re ed, tbh.

[DAF86]

And what seed were they

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 le? 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 compe ive 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]

[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 compe ive 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 le.

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...ed-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 compe ive 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 le.

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...ed-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.