NBA Competition Committee looking at how can parity be achieved between offense & defense in today's game

[coldfish]

I believe you and I have discussed this before but the analytics on 3's are just broken. They shouldn't be worth 50% more than a mid range shot. People's brains would explode, but it should be a 2.5 point shot. I suspect that if you did the analytics based on that point value, the whole floor would look more even.

That said, the offense would still be overpowering the defense. They would just get less points for doing so.

Yeah, I agree that would drive more parity (and we'd never do it).

To be honest, I don't think the offense is even really a problem at all anyway. I think people saying this is why ratings are down are chock full of fundamental attribution error.

From my perspective, the game isn't as mentally interesting as it was 10 years ago. Virtually everyone in the league is running the same tactics and concepts. I used to get entertainment value from watching the chess matches unfold with varying strategies. Nowadays its all about who executes the scheme better (ie. makes their shots).

I have difficulty believing I'm your typical fan though. I watched the Cavs-Wolves game live early this week from the floor and the skills and speed was breathtaking. If someone is into basketball they are probably going to be entertained by what is going on. Any ratings issues are likely far more complex.

[HomoSapien]

I believe you and I have discussed this before but the analytics on 3's are just broken. They shouldn't be worth 50% more than a mid range shot. People's brains would explode, but it should be a 2.5 point shot. I suspect that if you did the analytics based on that point value, the whole floor would look more even.

That said, the offense would still be overpowering the defense. They would just get less points for doing so.

Yeah, I agree that would drive more parity (and we'd never do it).

To be honest, I don't think the offense is even really a problem at all anyway. I think people saying this is why ratings are down are chock full of fundamental attribution error.

From my perspective, the game isn't as mentally interesting as it was 10 years ago. Virtually everyone in the league is running the same tactics and concepts. I used to get entertainment value from watching the chess matches unfold with varying strategies. Nowadays its all about who executes the scheme better (ie. makes their shots).

I have difficulty believing I'm your typical fan though. I watched the Cavs-Wolves game live early this week from the floor and the skills and speed was breathtaking. If someone is into basketball they are probably going to be entertained by what is going on. Any ratings issues are likely far more complex.

I don’t know. It has become such a common complaint on the general board and by talking heads. If the NBA is starting to get concerned then part of the concern has to be related to all the negativity about the offensive explosion.

Another idea that will never happen: only three players can be designated as three-point shooters per team on the court at a time. The other two players could still shoot them, they would just count as twos. This would bring back some traditional post offense, IMO.

One more never going to happen idea: each team gets a certain amount of three point attempts per game. That would make the use of threes more strategic and would force coaches to pick prefer their actual shooters.

[Stratmaster]

I think we all might be overanalyzing. Just move the 3 point line out, including eliminating the pure corner 3. Make it where any Tom, Dick or Vucevic can't shoot over 33% for their career.

I mean, the league average is up to roughly 37% now. That's crazy.

Look what it would do to the Bulls. Ayo would likely not be taking them at all. Same with Caruso. Same with Derozan. Same with Vuc.

The only players on the roster with the range to scare 35% from that distance would be Coby, Zach, Carter, and pre-injury Ball.


Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

I think we all might be overanalyzing. Just move the 3 point line out, including eliminating the pure corner 3. Make it where any Tom, Dick or Vucevic can't shoot over 33% for their career.

I mean, the league average is up to roughly 37% now. That's crazy.

Look what it would do to the Bulls. Ayo would likely not be taking them at all. Same with Caruso. Same with Derozan. Same with Vuc.

The only players on the roster with the range to scare 35% from that distance would be Coby, Zach, Carter, and pre-injury Ball.

While I doubt the league will do this, it's probably the best way to "solve" the problem to the extent you want to solve it. Even just removing the corner 3 without making the line further back would cut down the space you have to cover a lot and remove the highest percentage 3s.

[RagingBull316]

They have already tried moving the 3 point line further away in the past, it has just led to more floor spacing and even more 3's. A further 3 point line would just make the games more unwatchable then they are right now.

[meekrab]

I think we all might be overanalyzing. Just move the 3 point line out, including eliminating the pure corner 3. Make it where any Tom, Dick or Vucevic can't shoot over 33% for their career.

I mean, the league average is up to roughly 37% now. That's crazy.

Look what it would do to the Bulls. Ayo would likely not be taking them at all. Same with Caruso. Same with Derozan. Same with Vuc.
[/url]

Ayo and Caruso are both shooting better on non-corner 3s than in the corners this season, not so sure about this.

[Ice Man]

I think we all might be overanalyzing. Just move the 3 point line out, including eliminating the pure corner 3. Make it where any Tom, Dick or Vucevic can't shoot over 33% for their career.

I mean, the league average is up to roughly 37% now. That's crazy.

Look what it would do to the Bulls. Ayo would likely not be taking them at all. Same with Caruso. Same with Derozan. Same with Vuc.

The only players on the roster with the range to scare 35% from that distance would be Coby, Zach, Carter, and pre-injury Ball.

In other words, adjust for the improved range of today's players to make the 3 point line as it was during the Nineties -- a regular shot for the shooting specialists like Hodges, Tucker, Kerr. But for everybody else, an occasional thing. Yes, I agree with you. That is the simplest solution and probably also the best.

[Ice Man]

They have already tried moving the 3 point line further away in the past, it has just led to more floor spacing and even more 3's. A further 3 point line would just make the games more unwatchable then they are right now.

There will be a distance that finds the sweet spot, discouraging shots from ordinary shooters but still permitting from the marksmen. 25 feet? 28 feet? more? That is a matter for the experiment, but that distance does exist.

[Stratmaster]

I think we all might be overanalyzing. Just move the 3 point line out, including eliminating the pure corner 3. Make it where any Tom, Dick or Vucevic can't shoot over 33% for their career.

I mean, the league average is up to roughly 37% now. That's crazy.

Look what it would do to the Bulls. Ayo would likely not be taking them at all. Same with Caruso. Same with Derozan. Same with Vuc.
[/url]

Ayo and Caruso are both shooting better on non-corner 3s than in the corners this season, not so sure about this.

But the 3 point line would be deeper as well: "move the 3 point line out, including eliminating the corner 3". You can tell by the way Ayo shoots his 3's from in front of the basket that it is pretty much the limit of his range.

[sco]

What about capping the number of 3's a team gets per game, and after that they count as 2's?

[madvillian]

I believe you and I have discussed this before but the analytics on 3's are just broken. They shouldn't be worth 50% more than a mid range shot. People's brains would explode, but it should be a 2.5 point shot. I suspect that if you did the analytics based on that point value, the whole floor would look more even.

That said, the offense would still be overpowering the defense. They would just get less points for doing so.

Yeah, I agree that would drive more parity (and we'd never do it).

To be honest, I don't think the offense is even really a problem at all anyway. I think people saying this is why ratings are down are chock full of fundamental attribution error.

From my perspective, the game isn't as mentally interesting as it was 10 years ago. Virtually everyone in the league is running the same tactics and concepts. I used to get entertainment value from watching the chess matches unfold with varying strategies. Nowadays its all about who executes the scheme better (ie. makes their shots).

I have difficulty believing I'm your typical fan though. I watched the Cavs-Wolves game live early this week from the floor and the skills and speed was breathtaking. If someone is into basketball they are probably going to be entertained by what is going on. Any ratings issues are likely far more complex.

Yea, it's the people that watch the most basketball that are the most turned off. The more casual fans appreciate the speed and skill. We appreciate it to, it just gets old watching everybody play the same style and there's only so many times you can watch Brook Lopez nail a corner three before you stop appreciating his skill and start wondering if the line is too close at this point.

[dougthonus]

Yeah, I agree that would drive more parity (and we'd never do it).

To be honest, I don't think the offense is even really a problem at all anyway. I think people saying this is why ratings are down are chock full of fundamental attribution error.

From my perspective, the game isn't as mentally interesting as it was 10 years ago. Virtually everyone in the league is running the same tactics and concepts. I used to get entertainment value from watching the chess matches unfold with varying strategies. Nowadays its all about who executes the scheme better (ie. makes their shots).

I have difficulty believing I'm your typical fan though. I watched the Cavs-Wolves game live early this week from the floor and the skills and speed was breathtaking. If someone is into basketball they are probably going to be entertained by what is going on. Any ratings issues are likely far more complex.

Yea, it's the people that watch the most basketball that are the most turned off. The more casual fans appreciate the speed and skill. We appreciate it to, it just gets old watching everybody play the same style and there's only so many times you can watch Brook Lopez nail a corner three before you stop appreciating his skill and start wondering if the line is too close at this point.

I'm curious for either of you, what do you think is now missing that used to exist?

I'd say 90s offense was _by far_ the least interesting, it was mostly banging in the low post and clear outs for star players. Not to say either of you are rooting for 90s offense.

Today, most offense is now variants of 4 out / 5 out with lots of spacing, the play types that are then wrapped around that seem more diverse than the 90s to me. Maybe there was a golden age in the early early 2005-2015 era that was different or are we talking about 90s style stuff? To me, the stuff you were running earlier outside of all the post ups / mid post stuff was mostly the same stuff you're running in the 4 out / 5 out, just that you were spacing guys for mid range jumpers because they couldn't shoot.

You still see all the pick and rolls, back picks, basket cuts, dribble hand offs, weaves, multi-cuts, and all the variations, plus there is way more complexity in the transition game and early offense game than their used to be as teams realized that it's not just about getting a layup on a fast break, but that if you execute in the first 7 seconds the defense has a lesser chance of being set.

What are all the plays and styles of play that are gone that you would enjoy seeing more of? I still feel like there's a similar level of strategy in both offense in defense in terms of how you hunt matchups and defend. Certainly when they started allowing zones, the defense became way more interesting than prior to that point.

The main thing that feels gone to me is post offense and clear outs, and I can't imagine a more boring style of offense than either of those. I'm not saying either of you are wrong in this sentiment, I'm just curious if you have specific examples of something you saw in the past that you don't see today that you want back?

The end result of the plays is definitely a lot more three pointers, but the way we get to them doesn't seem universal or more repetitive than any other era of offense to me. Just in the earlier days you'd have your big man setting up like Haslem or PJ Brown for a mid range base line shot instead of a 3, but the action to get that shot is no different, just the shot is more valuable now.

That said, I'm definitely more of an analytical guy than an Xs and Os guy, though I understand the basic playtypes.

[coldfish]

From my perspective, the game isn't as mentally interesting as it was 10 years ago. Virtually everyone in the league is running the same tactics and concepts. I used to get entertainment value from watching the chess matches unfold with varying strategies. Nowadays its all about who executes the scheme better (ie. makes their shots).

I have difficulty believing I'm your typical fan though. I watched the Cavs-Wolves game live early this week from the floor and the skills and speed was breathtaking. If someone is into basketball they are probably going to be entertained by what is going on. Any ratings issues are likely far more complex.

Yea, it's the people that watch the most basketball that are the most turned off. The more casual fans appreciate the speed and skill. We appreciate it to, it just gets old watching everybody play the same style and there's only so many times you can watch Brook Lopez nail a corner three before you stop appreciating his skill and start wondering if the line is too close at this point.

I'm curious for either of you, what do you think is now missing that used to exist?

I'd say 90s offense was _by far_ the least interesting, it was mostly banging in the low post and clear outs for star players. Not to say either of you are rooting for 90s offense.

Today, most offense is now variants of 4 out / 5 out with lots of spacing, the play types that are then wrapped around that seem more diverse than the 90s to me. Maybe there was a golden age in the early early 2005-2015 era that was different or are we talking about 90s style stuff? To me, the stuff you were running earlier outside of all the post ups / mid post stuff was mostly the same stuff you're running in the 4 out / 5 out, just that you were spacing guys for mid range jumpers because they couldn't shoot.

You still see all the pick and rolls, back picks, basket cuts, dribble hand offs, weaves, multi-cuts, and all the variations, plus there is way more complexity in the transition game and early offense game than their used to be as teams realized that it's not just about getting a layup on a fast break, but that if you execute in the first 7 seconds the defense has a lesser chance of being set.

What are all the plays and styles of play that are gone that you would enjoy seeing more of? I still feel like there's a similar level of strategy in both offense in defense in terms of how you hunt matchups and defend. Certainly when they started allowing zones, the defense became way more interesting than prior to that point.

The main thing that feels gone to me is post offense and clear outs, and I can't imagine a more boring style of offense than either of those. I'm not saying either of you are wrong in this sentiment, I'm just curious if you have specific examples of something you saw in the past that you don't see today that you want back?

The end result of the plays is definitely a lot more three pointers, but the way we get to them doesn't seem universal or more repetitive than any other era of offense to me. Just in the earlier days you'd have your big man setting up like Haslem or PJ Brown for a mid range base line shot instead of a 3, but the action to get that shot is no different, just the shot is more valuable now.

That said, I'm definitely more of an analytical guy than an Xs and Os guy, though I understand the basic playtypes.

Pinnacle of basketball tactics was that time from 2005 to 2015 you mentioned. The NBA had allowed hybrid zones and every team was trying to figure out what worked and what didn't. Lots of teams had different takes on it.

Going back to the 90's, you still had more variation night to night. Defenses were more simplistic but you could still double team. There were also odd rules that allowed teams to do things like put Greg Ostertag above the top of the key and force the defense to pull a man out. On offense, you had teams running motion offenses like the triangle. You certainly had a lot of post action but there was a lot of movement off it. Basically, tactics played out even if it was cheesey.

Nowadays its almost exclusively high pick and roll, drive and kick. Defenses help from the weak side and recover. Its all the right thing to do but its very repetitive.

Sloan offense:
https://saltcityhoops.com/a-breakdown-of-jerry-sloans-offense-and-its-impact/

Triangle:
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/triangle-offense-guide

To me, these are like a dance recital with the dancers doing different things as a group, but the skills involved with the individual jumps and moves being similar.

[madvillian]

I def like that for awhile, Thibs defense (wasn't it designed to force players baseline and into help?) was a thing that teams struggled with. Now you just kick it weakside for a corner three. I like when teams had different offensive styles, some were more post up oriented, some were more oriented around running guys off screens, some shot more threes and so on.

Now everybody pretty much just plays 5 out, high PnR, and "motion' with a lot of back screens and cutting, but that usually just results in a three (contested or not) and sometimes a layup or foul at the rim.

I'm not a tactics expert by any means that's just my subjective impression. I've watched so much NBA this year as I'm in the finals of my fantasy league and super tuned in. I've become a little tired of just how easy it is to score. "20 points is the new 12" they say, when it comes to leads, which is crazy. A lot of blowouts still.

[GoBlue72391]

They have already tried moving the 3 point line further away in the past, it has just led to more floor spacing and even more 3's. A further 3 point line would just make the games more unwatchable then they are right now.

They have? When? I know they shortented the line for a couple seasons in the mid-90s, but I don't recall the line ever having been moved back.

[GoBlue72391]

I think we all might be overanalyzing. Just move the 3 point line out, including eliminating the pure corner 3. Make it where any Tom, Dick or Vucevic can't shoot over 33% for their career.

I mean, the league average is up to roughly 37% now. That's crazy.

Look what it would do to the Bulls. Ayo would likely not be taking them at all. Same with Caruso. Same with Derozan. Same with Vuc.
[/url]

Ayo and Caruso are both shooting better on non-corner 3s than in the corners this season, not so sure about this.

Yeah, Caruso is money from the wing 3 and Ayo takes and makes a lot of top of the key and wing 3s too.

[GoBlue72391]

What about capping the number of 3's a team gets per game, and after that they count as 2's?

Ehh, these kinds of changes are too radical for me. What if a team needs a 3 to tie but they already reached their limit of 3 point attempts? That would suck.

I'm also not a fan of changing the 3 to be worth 2.5 points. Imagine what that would do to the record book, even if they went make and changed every made 3 in history to worth 2.5 points.

Just do something basic that isn't glaringly obvious and different.

[GoBlue72391]

Shrink the rim diameter by 1 cm?

My theory is that would disproportionately impact range shooting vs. scoring inside, encouraging more balanced play and reducing reliance on the 3.

Came in here to post this. Any referee based solution isn't going to work. The game has to fundamentally change to account for the radical increase in shooting acumen amongst the players.

Shrinking the rim is an interesting idea, but I think you'd hurt mid range shots more than 3s. A smaller rim will hurt lower arcing shots more than higher arcing shots. Generally 3s have more arc on them.

Either way, in the end, if you want to change the offensive styles, you need to change the value proposition of different shots, but in the end, in this day of analytics, it's probably really hard to create a game that has wildly divergent but similarly successful strategies.

As humans, we're so advanced now an analytical breakdowns that whatever meta emerges, teams will copy it. Now, if you can find a meta that's more entertaining to fans, go for it.

What about instead of shrinking the rim size, increase the ball size from 29.5 to either 30.0 or 30.5? I have no idea how viable this would be, but the degree of difficulty sharply increases from a women's ball (28.5) to a men's ball, so I would think increasing the men's ball size (haha) would increase the difficulty of making shots.

That in combination with altering how the game is called could have a big effect. Experiment with it in the G League or whatever before doing it in the NBA. I'm just spitballing here.

[dougthonus]

Came in here to post this. Any referee based solution isn't going to work. The game has to fundamentally change to account for the radical increase in shooting acumen amongst the players.

Shrinking the rim is an interesting idea, but I think you'd hurt mid range shots more than 3s. A smaller rim will hurt lower arcing shots more than higher arcing shots. Generally 3s have more arc on them.

Either way, in the end, if you want to change the offensive styles, you need to change the value proposition of different shots, but in the end, in this day of analytics, it's probably really hard to create a game that has wildly divergent but similarly successful strategies.

As humans, we're so advanced now an analytical breakdowns that whatever meta emerges, teams will copy it. Now, if you can find a meta that's more entertaining to fans, go for it.

What about instead of shrinking the rim size, increase the ball size from 29.5 to either 30.0 or 30.5? I have no idea how viable this would be, but the degree of difficulty sharply increases from a women's ball (28.5) to a men's ball, so I would think increasing the men's ball size (haha) would increase the difficulty of making shots.

That in combination with altering how the game is called could have a big effect. Experiment with it in the G League or whatever before doing it in the NBA. I'm just spitballing here.

Fundamentally, that's going to have the same impact as shrinking the rim slightly in terms of margins of error and hurt mid range shots more than 3s for the same reasons.

I think you just need to change the value proposition, there are a few ways to do it IMO:

1: Just change the distance of the 3 point line and remove the corner 3 by making the 3 point line just hit out of bounds (would need to change it's arc slightly). This would make the amount of 3 point space much smaller and remove the highest percentage 3s, and make it much easier to rotate, and make it much easier to play a couple non shooters (probably can't use more than 3 effectively anyway at one time).

2: Change the ratio of the value of the shot to make it more inline with other shots. If you made it about 2.5, it's probably pretty close to the same PPP as a mid range shot or a post up.

I think either of those changes would be tough for fans to get behind, and again, I don't think the three point shooting is really a problem for the league, just for the talking heads, and that both these changes, while fixing this problem, would be terrible for the league.

[League Circles]

Just eliminate the 3 point shot entirely. Guys will still shoot open shots from that distance and it will be more impressive as a non gimmick. Post play and other mid range will reappear.