NBA Shot Profile 2004 vs 2024

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

I vividly remember a Lakers game from around 25 years ago where we posted up Sean Rooks -- possibly one of the least talented players to ever get 10-plus years in the league -- on 3 or 4 possessions in a row thinking, what in the living fck are we doing?

I'm not going to sit here and say that I knew all along that the 3-point line was grossly underused; I definitely didn't. But I knew wasting possessions posting up jobbers -- which you used to see aaaaaaaaaaall the time -- was stupid-ass basketball.

[Sedale Threatt]

The NBA can't ban math.

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.

[jpengland]

It does truly baffle me that it took professional sportspeople and coaches literally decades to realise..

'Hey, if I practice that jump shot another 8 feet further out it's worth 50% more, is more open and actually opens up space for my teammates'

[jpengland]

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.

I vividly remember a Lakers game from around 25 years ago where we posted up Sean Rooks -- possibly one of the least talented players to ever get 10-plus years in the league -- on 3 or 4 possessions in a row thinking, what in the living fck are we doing?

I'm not going to sit here and say that I knew all along that the 3-point line was grossly underused; I definitely didn't. But I knew wasting possessions posting up jobbers -- which you used to see aaaaaaaaaaall the time -- was stupid-ass basketball.

Yep.

Everyone erases that from their memories. Just as they erase the sight of two bit wing players isolating possession after possession, after possession whilst 8 other guys stand around scratching their backsides and it ends up with a contested mid range 30% chuck.

[f4p]

i know it doesn't solve the real problem and i completely agreed with this rule change when first implemented, but they definitely need to get rid of 3 point fouls being worth 3 free throws (outside of the last 2 minutes). it is a massive imbalance in the game, even moreso than 3's being worth more than 2's. fouls at the basket are typically done to stop dunks and layups, which are almost a sure 2 points. the cost of reducing the sure 2 to only 2*FT% is that you pick up a foul. for big men who are poor free throw shooters, you are potentially removing 0.8 (60% free throw shooter) to 1.0 points (50%).

fouls on 3's are done to stop 3's, which are worth between 1.05 to 1.35 points (for 35% to 45% shooters). and yet the foul is worth a staggering amount of points. for 80-90% free throw shooters (which most guys who take 3's are), you are getting 2.4 to 2.7 points. you are getting called for a foul but now there isn't even a trade-off in points. you are giving up something like 1.35 to 1.65 more points per possession.

while we have figured out that 3's are worth more than long 2's, they are still not close to worth more than a dunk or a layup. and yet a 3 point foul is worth 0.8 to 0.9 points more than a foul on a dunk or layup. and even moreso when comparing bigs to smalls. only further exacerbating how much we tend to help shooters over inside guys.

[SkyBill40]

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.

[Dan1970]

Change the regular shot to 3 points and turn the 3 point line into a 4 point line. That will make the deep ball worth 133% of a regular shot instead of 150%.

[DBurks2818]

Allow fans to bring pets to the games.

[Harry Garris]

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

We haven't, though. Star players still shoot midrange jumpers. It's just that the role players (vast majority of them who can't shoot anyway) have been moved out of the mid range area and behind the 3 point line.

That doesn't mean there's nothing to criticize about the modern game, I do wish there was more stylistic variation today. I hope we continue to see more physicality on the perimeter and I'd love it if we got rid of the corner 3. Anything to cramp the space on the court would make it easier to defend the 3 point line and harder for guys to get to the basket at ease when there's less spacing. This would do wonders for increasing the volume of mid range jumpers shot.

But bad players who shoot ~30% from outside 12 feet vomiting up mid range bricks because we have zero offensive schematic creativity is an incredibly overrated part of old school basketball, I don't miss that aspect at all.

[dhsilv2]

for big men who are poor free throw shooters, you are potentially removing 0.8 (60% free throw shooter) to 1.0 points (50%).

There are like 20 guys who've taken 50 or more free throws who shoot under 65% this year. 15 if we set that to 75 attempts. Guys listed as center or PF/C shoot 74.4% this year (qualifying players with 75 attempts).

[The-Power]

What about the ‘None’ option in the polls (not necessarily my choice but certainly should be an option).

[KembaWalker]

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

We haven't, though. Star players still shoot midrange jumpers. It's just that the role players (vast majority of them who can't shoot anyway) have been moved out of the mid range area and behind the 3 point line.

That doesn't mean there's nothing to criticize about the modern game, I do wish there was more stylistic variation today. I hope we continue to see more physicality on the perimeter and I'd love it if we got rid of the corner 3. Anything to cramp the space on the court would make it easier to defend the 3 point line and harder for guys to get to the basket at ease when there's less spacing. This would do wonders for increasing the volume of mid range jumpers shot.

But bad players who shoot ~30% from outside 12 feet vomiting up mid range bricks because we have zero offensive schematic creativity is an incredibly overrated part of old school basketball, I don't miss that aspect at all.

Personally I enjoyed mid range big shooters, even the role player ones like McDyess, Brandon Bass, PJ Brown. Guards like Cassell, or somewhat recently Shaun Livingston. I think you’re strawmanning here somewhat, nobody wants to watch scrubs “vomiting bricks”, there were legitimately effective mid range scoring role players that added a lot of creative and interesting play to the game that have by and large seen their archetype phased out of the league, and that’s a shame

[cgf]

2004 really was a dark time for the NBA.

[Bum Adebayo]

Change the regular shot to 3 points and turn the 3 point line into a 4 point line. That will make the deep ball worth 133% of a regular shot instead of 150%.

Yeah it's the needed solution that doesn't affect the game in other ways like spacing, defense, etc, whereas moving the line back could render most bigs even more useless with all that ridiculous spacing.

The only issue would be that layups and shots inside the pain would be too OP IMO, so you could end up with a situation where analytics tell you that instead of 3s and layups, now any kind of shot has to be dismissed and only drives to the rim are good basketball.

So it would be better to maintain the 33% ratio between 3s and 2s but also nerf inside shots:
3pt shot is now worth 8 points
Midrange shot is now worth 6 points
Layups and inside shots are now worth 5 points

[Sedale Threatt]

No one wants to see those grind out, low scoring Knicks games anymore.

Oh god, speaking of this...

During the pandemic I was fiddling around on my League Pass app and saw that they had all the 90s Finals series up in 4K. Way, way better quality than YouTube uploads. So over the course of a few months I cruised through all of them. Definitely some great moments and memories. But the 99 series was just about the worst display of basketball -- or anti-basketball, rather -- I've ever seen. Like I knew it was bad from memory, but until you watch it through a more contemporary lense you forget just how bad.

Yes, it definitely did feel like an achievement when anybody scored. But that also felt more like pure ineptitude on either team's part rather than anything brilliant going on strategically or tactically. Zero pace, zero creativity, zero ideas. Obviously that was an extreme. But if that was the starting point for NBA basketball I'd pretty much stop watching. Indeed, it's a huge reason why I haven't watched a college game outside of some tournament stuff here and there in more than two decades.

[One_and_Done]

Imagine if they did this for 1992. It really makes it hard to argue they're even playing the same game tbh.

[BloodNinja]

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.

I vividly remember a Lakers game from around 25 years ago where we posted up Sean Rooks -- possibly one of the least talented players to ever get 10-plus years in the league -- on 3 or 4 possessions in a row thinking, what in the living fck are we doing?

I'm not going to sit here and say that I knew all along that the 3-point line was grossly underused; I definitely didn't. But I knew wasting possessions posting up jobbers -- which you used to see aaaaaaaaaaall the time -- was stupid-ass basketball.

Ah yes back in the day when coaches had to give their bigs touches early to keep them playing D and rebounding.

[Sedale Threatt]

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.

I vividly remember a Lakers game from around 25 years ago where we posted up Sean Rooks -- possibly one of the least talented players to ever get 10-plus years in the league -- on 3 or 4 possessions in a row thinking, what in the living fck are we doing?

I'm not going to sit here and say that I knew all along that the 3-point line was grossly underused; I definitely didn't. But I knew wasting possessions posting up jobbers -- which you used to see aaaaaaaaaaall the time -- was stupid-ass basketball.

Ah yes back in the day when coaches had to give their bigs touches early to keep them playing D and rebounding.

This probably would have worked just as well: We're paying you a couple million per year. Do your job.

[NyKnicks1714]

The NBA can't ban math.

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.

[Sedale Threatt]

The NBA can't ban math.

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.