Are 3 pointers ruining the league?

[Ohioplayer00]

Yeah, thats an effect of the math. I am not sure thats a bad thing tho. Ugly midrange isos and postups have been phased out of the game in favor of more offball actions and weak side back screens all of which I think is good. The space is being used far more effectively by the competent teams. Our offense is about as ugly as it gets in the modern NBA, and even that is better than the crap we watched in the late 00s

There is nothing ugly about midrange isos because then you get to see who can really play defense. And they haven’t been phased out it’s just that players work more on their three ball shooting than actually trying to get to the basket or draw a foul. And all off the weak side and back screen action is again just used to free up three point shooters. But as I said earlier this whole conversation is all about “preference”…..some people love the new NBA of 35-40 three pointers a game and some enjoy the creative side of basketball using the dribble and player movement.

 

[Ohioplayer00]

Durant isn't a stopper but he is a legitimate rim protector at the 3 and generates a lot of deflections with those long arms. We saw that with the Hampton Fives lineup. Harden is a major outlier for how lazy he is on D, but he also has carried some of the highest offensive loads in NBA history. Got to give him some credit tho, he is an excellent post defender. Bigs cant back him down for free at all.

Sorry I don’t care about his offensive load…..LBJ has carried offenses as well and he has never been the sieve on defense that Harden is. Nobody needs to post up Harden….he’s easily beaten off the dribble and he is probably #1 in league in getting beat on back door cuts! Durant’s size/length is his only advantage. If he were 6’8 or 6’9 he would be JAG on defense.

 

[foucault87]

There is nothing ugly about midrange isos because then you get to see who can really play defense. And they haven’t been phased out it’s just that players work more on their three ball shooting than actually trying to get to the basket or draw a foul. And all off the weak side and back screen action is again just used to free up three point shooters. But as I said earlier this whole conversation is all about “preference”…..some people love the new NBA of 35-40 three pointers a game and some enjoy the creative side of basketball using the dribble and player movement.

Midrange isos are ugly because its low percentage. Even the best midrange shooters rarely break 50% over the course of a season. And if your offense is a steady diet of that? Not efficient at all. On the defensive side, you want the guy taking that awful shot. You arent likely to draw FTs since its a jumper. You aren't getting the extra value of the 3pt shot. You arent getting a high percentage look since you are 18-22 ft from the basket. Its just bad and ugly offense. If a guy im defending pulls up for that garbage, I will contest it and trust in my guys to pull down the board, bc that shot is worthless unless its a last second down by one shot.

On the backcuts/movement stuff, I am a huge fan of off-ball motion. Its why the Warriors are so fun to watch. Miami used a lot of backscreens in the last two years to open up guys for 3s. Off ball movement is off ball movement. Whether its to open a back cut or a swing 3, why is that a bad thing?

Sorry I don’t care about his offensive load…..LBJ has carried offenses as well and he has never been the sieve on defense that Harden is. Nobody needs to post up Harden….he’s easily beaten off the dribble and he is probably #1 in league in getting beat on back door cuts! Durant’s size/length is his only advantage. If he were 6’8 or 6’9 he would be JAG on defense.

I would caution against using LeBron as an example for anything. The rules dont apply to that man and we reaped the benefits of it. Houston Harden's load was only matched by OKC Russ in NBA history. Even LeBron didn't dominate the ball like that historically. But yeah, I wont argue Harden is a lazy and exploitable defender. Disagree with KD tho. When he was with GS, he was a legitimately good defensive player. Some of that was having Draymond to tell him what to do, but the size/length is a major help.

 

[cavsfever]

Yeah, thats an effect of the math. I am not sure thats a bad thing tho. Ugly midrange isos and postups have been phased out of the game in favor of more offball actions and weak side back screens all of which I think is good. The space is being used far more effectively by the competent teams. Our offense is about as ugly as it gets in the modern NBA, and even that is better than the crap we watched in the late 00s

Michael Jordan played beautiful basketball and in his later 1990s version he was the greatest master of the midrange iso the game has ever known. There are many other examples. Yes there was a particular brand of ugly basketball that just had repetitive clear outs for mediocre volume scorers to try for midrange isos, but that doesn’t mean the shot is inherently ugly

 

[foucault87]

Michael Jordan played beautiful basketball and in his later 1990s version he was the greatest master of the midrange iso the game has ever known. There are many other examples. Yes there was a particular brand of ugly basketball that just had repetitive clear outs for mediocre volume scorers to try for midrange isos, but that doesn’t mean the shot is inherently ugly

The modern approach is basically this. If you are a star player with the right skillset, take the midrange shot. Guys like Dirk, DDR, Aldridge, and yes, Steph Curry all excel there. But what I am referring to is the random role players like John Salmons and Travis Outlaw who aren't taking those shots today. Either way, if I get Steph Curry to take a long 2 as a defender I am ecstatic because that is always a win for the defense over the course of a long game and season.

 

[cavsfever]

Midrange isos are ugly because its low percentage. Even the best midrange shooters rarely break 50% over the course of a season. And if your offense is a steady diet of that? Not efficient at all. On the defensive side, you want the guy taking that awful shot. You arent likely to draw FTs since its a jumper. You aren't getting the extra value of the 3pt shot. You arent getting a high percentage look since you are 18-22 ft from the basket. Its just bad and ugly offense. If a guy im defending pulls up for that garbage, I will contest it and trust in my guys to pull down the board, bc that shot is worthless unless its a last second down by one shot.

It’s weird to argue that midrange shots are inherently ugly because people shoot 45% on them and then cheer for three pointers where people shoot 35%. What you are responding to here isn’t the inherent efficiency of the shot in terms of the chance of making it, but the inherent distortions created by giving a 50% points bonus to a shot that is just a few feet further out

The three pointer is good in stopping a slow overly physical game with people clustering around the basket, but scoring bonus is just too big for a shot that distance for athletes this skilled

 

[foucault87]

It’s weird to argue that midrange shots are inherently ugly because people shoot 45% on them and then cheer for three pointers where people shoot 35%. What you are responding to here isn’t the inherent efficiency of the shot in terms of the chance of making it, but the inherent distortions created by giving a 50% points bonus to a shot that is just a few feet further out

The three pointer is good in stopping a slow overly physical game with people clustering around the basket, but scoring bonus is just too big for a shot that distance for athletes this skilled

Thats a fair argument. Given the current rules a 33% 3pt shot is worth mroe than a 47% midrange shot, so its better, cleaner offense. That is my point.

 

[Heat Check]

Today, NBA teams look at the issue like this:

If you're an absolute master of the midrange and that shot is like a layup to you... hey, go crazy. Take those shots.

But if you're just a dude who dribbles into middies because teams easily scare you away from the 3pt line... you're hearing about it.

Passing up 3pt shots is kryptonite for a succesful modern offense.

 

[Benway]

1. Remove corner 3s

Why did it even exist to start with?
When you camp out in the corner you deserve no more than 2 anyway.

 

[letgocavs]

Move the line back. Game has evolved

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

The switch to 3 & 4 pt debate is interesting, but I guess you could then ask why is a 24ft shot only worth 25% more than a 1 ft shot? It goes both ways. Also, what do you do with free throws, technicals, and flagrant foul shots?

Seems like the only route is moving the line back, getting rid of the corner three, and see how it goes. Maybe you then hit a point down the road where you add a ‘mid-range’ line that’s worth 3 and bump the deeper line up to 4? I’m not advocating for any of this. Just throwing out ideas.

Slight tangent, but to me this is effectively like discussing getting rid of the ‘shift’ in baseball. Fans complain because it mucks up the game and some players/managers don’t like it either, but getting rid of it would basically be rewarding players for not being able to hit opposite field. Getting rid of the shift might produce more runs, but it’s also going to lengthen games and increase pitching changes, which are both things baseball doesn’t want.

 

[Rich]

 

[Rich]

Boston Golden State drawing the lowest ratings in 15 years other than the bubble season.

Boston and Golden State.

Nba has a problem.

We'll see what types of contracts cable companies are willing to hand out in a couple of years when they are losing subscribers by the boatload already.

 

[Ohioplayer00]

Today, NBA teams look at the issue like this:

If you're an absolute master of the midrange and that shot is like a layup to you... hey, go crazy. Take those shots.

But if you're just a dude who dribbles into middies because teams easily scare you away from the 3pt line... you're hearing about it.

Passing up 3pt shots is kryptonite for a succesful modern offense.

I don’t think anybody is saying pass up open 3pt shots….I believe people are arguing that a lot of today’s 3pt attempts are not coming in the flow of the game or that teams are relying on the 3pt shot for most of its offense. When you see teams shooting 8-41, 9-30, or 5-35 and they are losing games (and close games) it’s concerning and those type of games become both frustrating and unwatchable. GS makes the 3pt shot look beautiful because they do a lot of player/ball movement to get those open 3pt looks! But the majority of teams pound the ball for 20 seconds or pass the ball around the perimeter “seeking out” the 3pt shot then having to force up a 3pt shot or end up with the ball in the hands of the team’s worst shooter with 4-5 seconds left to create a shot. There is a definite and vital place for the 3pt shot in today’s game but unfortunately the game has become over saturated with the love of hoisting up 3pt shots. You have way too many players firing 3 pointers that shouldn’t even be shooting out beyond 15-20 feet.

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

Boston Golden State drawing the lowest ratings in 15 years other than the bubble season.

Boston and Golden State.

Nba has a problem.

We'll see what types of contracts cable companies are willing to hand out in a couple of years when they are losing subscribers by the boatload already.

Exactly what problem do you believe they have? I’m assuming you believe the ratings are a result of three point shooting?

Maybe you missed this one? I find it interesting you take this approach when you’re always preaching about people overreacting game-to-game:

Upozornění na přesměrování

www.google.com