Reply With Quote
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
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.
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
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 la ude 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Karl Malone could
Watching blacks attempt to do the math on points of 2.5 would renergize the entertainment factor
Yeah well, mp3s are not authentic music compared to records, but times change.
What else is he gonna do that will earn him millions per year?
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.
I hear his wine and food pairings are to die for tbh
What else is he gonna do that will earn him millions per year?
2005 was a great season. The Spurs struck the perfect balance of offense and defense, taking down both Phoenix and Detroit in their le run.
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 .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
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.
Last edited by Capt Bringdown; 05-04-2019 at 05:32 PM.
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.
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.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
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.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 05-04-2019 at 08:31 PM.
He already did prove the Spurs are over crowd wrong.
He's rich enough to retire unlike the 90% working professionals
What else is he gonna do that will earn him millions per year?
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. 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.
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
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
People were ing when Snaq was bowling over people in the post...commenting that his play was “ugly” basketball. How is this any different?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
