Reply With Quote
That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. gots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh
today's NBA
T
That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. gots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh
That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. gots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh
No more Duncans and Chris Webber’s... only Towns’s and Nowitzkis
so nowadays anything that's not a dunk or a 3 is a bad shot?
It's more with the rule changes to be honest. The league no longer allows defense on the perimeter nor centers manning the paint in order to manufacture the next Jordan, so players can penetrate the paint at will. Once that is in place, defense has to back way off to defend against the drive which opens up all kinds of room for 3s.That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. gots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh
Disgusting. As I've said before, the efficiency of layups/3 pointers is too great to really attempt any other shot, making 60-70% of the court useless. Broken sport right now.
That's what you get for bringing nerds into sports. gots can't play so they decide to ruin it for everybody else tbh
If you take out the unknown variable of defender - yes.
It's kinda how in those All Star compe ions where you try scoring as many points as possible in 25 seconds. You shoot 3's and layup your bricks. It is dumb to take mid range jumpers
I don't think their data goes deep enough into calculating defense ie steals, blocks, forcing passes to congested areas. I imagine it is all shooting percentage based and from the looks of say free throw shooting - players aren't shooting mid range jumpers well enough.
This is all based on 100s, 1000s, 100,000 shots. It is not at all situational - ie your legs are tired late in games or defense collapses the box and crashes the 3point line leaving mid range shots open
Also, a 23 foot 3 pointer isn't significantly more difficult to make than a 15-20 footer. Just makes no logical sense to shoot from that range unless it's like the only shot available. League average on 15-21 footers is about 40%. League average on 3s is 36%. So 50% more points for a shot roughly 11% harder to make.
I'll always remember that it was the Suns from around 2004-2008 with Steve Nash that first made me think a team wasn't taking advantage of the three point shot correctly. Nash was a 50/40/90 threat every year for that period but was overly generous when it came to passing the ball. He led the league in assists a few years in a row, but I remember watching games versus the Spurs and thinking I was glad he didn't shoot more threes, which would've produced more points than passes to Amare and Shawn Marion did. Nash was the Curry of his era, but shot half the 3 pt attempts that Curry does.
Billups had a nice pull-up 3 and Arenas was the original Curry imo
The original Curry was Abdul Rauf
Exactly, the problem is that 23 feet is too short. It shouldn’t be worth 50% more than a 15-20 footer is. That’s the heart of the problem.
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'd even argue that the 3 point shot is an even easier shot for many players in that you don't have to try to adjust and hold back the strength of your shot to the same degree as the in-between areas.
this is an interesting point. unless you are steph or a wannabe like jimmer, your 3pt shots are basically from a uniform distance, about 6 inches behind the line. so from each spot, your distance is fairly constant with every shot. when you have a midrange game you might get your shot off from 14 feet or 19 feet. a lot more adjustment needed. but 2 point shots are also more difficult since they're usually contested or off the dribble. you dont see a lot of guys catch and shoot from 19 feet unless its a big man off a pick and pop. but most 3 point shooters are able to catch, set their feet, and get a clean shot off
It's just advanced stats showing the most efficient shooting spots for maximum point per possession. It's the Billy Beane method employed in the NBA.
Exactly. I also think it's easier (less adjustment) when you're shooting close to full power. If you're at 3 or behind, you're shooting from full power to something just under. But on a short jumper, you're trying adjust to something in the middle. Not sure if I explained that very well.
yep. that's why only re s aimed for the middle row
perfectyep. that's why only re s aimed for the middle row
its hilarious to think that basketball would have advanced so much quicker if more NBA coaches had just played pokemon stadium in the 90s
Pop was smart to do that out of necessity, and being fans of the team, of course we're to going to celebrate it. Doesn't mean it does not illustrate how basketball is a broken sport.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
But Pop's offenses were also heavily post-centric for obvious reasons. Post-game is just about dead. Those Spurs offenses still had more balance than today's general game, because the post-game was still perceived as the greatest offense weapon in the sport.
Luckily for baseball that philosophy (Three-True-Outcomes) flames out in the post-season. All around teams that can hit for both average and power, run, play defense, and have a balanced starting staff and bullpen still win out.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
