RealGM

Sedale Threatt wrote:

NyKnicks1714 wrote:

Sedale Threatt wrote:
Nope, and this is what it all comes down to. Just like NFL teams are figuring out they've been way, way, way too conservative with fourth downs, the NBA optimized game strategy based on the current court layout. It only took them 30-plus years and it didn't have as much to do with Stephen Curry as increased statistical analysis inspired by baseball.

It's pretty simple: The most efficient shot in basketball on a points-per-attempt basis is, obviously, right at the rim. Then it gradually slopes downward until you get to the 3-point line, where it skyrockets because of the 50-percent boost from 2 to 3. So it doesn't take a brain genius to figure out which shots you should be emphasizing.

And then because of all the movement cameras and advanced tracking that came into use, they were able to break down shot efficiency by play type and figured out that post-ups and isos were some of the worst shots you could take. It's fine if you're dealing with Hakeem Olajuwon or Kevin McHale. But 90 percent of the rest of the goons that used to get NBA jobs? Not so much.

So until they move the line back or get rid of it entirely, or do something radical like what you mentioned -- that one's hard to wrap my head around but I suppose it could work -- nothing's going to change it.

It's wild, no doubt, but it's the only way I can see to add more variety back into the game at the team level. As an example, maybe three options: current 3-point line, 3-point line with no corner three, extended 3-point line. They choose one and it's their home 3-pt line for the entire regular season and postseason.

Let teams use analytics to figure out which would give them the best advantage over their opponent according to their rosters. There are added wrinkles and more challenges when putting together game-plans on the road.

It's a little gimmicky, but it has a lot of utility.

The more I think about it the less Iike it. At one point the 3-point line itself was a gimmick so it's not that. It just feels goofy that the 3-point line would vary from building to building. I guess baseball fields are all different, and I know soccer fields only have set mins/maxes that teams can use to fit their facilities. But that just feels way off to me.

Honestly, the only thing that will probably fix it -- if it even needs to be fixed -- goes back to pushing the line out deep enough where there isn't as much reward for taking them. That would eliminate the corner 3, but they already had to shorten those porches to get it to fit in the first place. Or I guess they could widen the court, but that's got all kinds of potential ramifications -- besides removing valuable seats from your bottom line, which no team would want to do.

SkyBill40 wrote:The game has, to me anyway, become boring. Is Curry at fault for the massive increase in chucking from distance by just about everyone? Probably not, but he's definitely had an effect.

I genuinely miss the days of 90's basketball with hard nosed defense which included hand checking and no zone. The rules have given so much favor to the offensive player and stripped away tactics for the defensive player to counter it. That's created the entertainment monster we have today. No one wants to see those grind out, low scoring Knicks games anymore. And while I wasn't a fan of that method per se, it meant that if you wanted to score... you had to earn it.

sisibilio wrote:

SkyBill40 wrote:The game has, to me anyway, become boring. Is Curry at fault for the massive increase in chucking from distance by just about everyone? Probably not, but he's definitely had an effect.

I genuinely miss the days of 90's basketball with hard nosed defense which included hand checking and no zone. The rules have given so much favor to the offensive player and stripped away tactics for the defensive player to counter it. That's created the entertainment monster we have today. No one wants to see those grind out, low scoring Knicks games anymore. And while I wasn't a fan of that method per se, it meant that if you wanted to score... you had to earn it.

How exactly allowing "a bit" of zone defense favors the offensive player?

jpengland wrote:It does make me laugh that people are yearning for.the days of Josh Smith throwing up deep 2s and Jerry Stackhouse isolating and throwing up off balance mid rangers.

Basketball got smarter and more talented.

dhsilv2 wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:It always amuses me when I read a draft profile of a young player being a 3-level scorer...knowing that modern NBA offenses typically only allow 2 level scoring.

It becomes a wasted skill TBH.

3 levels is allowed by the allstars. If this were the top 300 shots by the guys who made the allstar game for example, it would look significantly different.

Ito wrote:Moving the 3 point line back just gon have players shooting more long 2’s which then would have people complaining bout what is a good or bad shot..

Jamaaliver wrote:

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

Jamaaliver wrote:

KembaWalker wrote:I don’t really get why people act like it’s some kind of stylistic preference, it’s just truly and simply objectively worse that we’ve lost 3 level basketball. Fewer archetypes in the league make for a more boring sport

It always amuses me when I read a draft profile of a young player being a 3-level scorer...knowing that modern NBA offenses typically only allow 2 level scoring.

It becomes a wasted skill TBH.