Taj Gibson working on his 3 point shot...

[Mattya]

The shot clock is fine. I like the goal tending rule, but wish they would change to international that once the ball bounces off the rim it is fair game. The outside shot still had a place in the game before the three and it would still have a place in the game if the three was eliminated. I know the three will never be eliminated, but it SUCKS. It really is nonsense. No other sport does anything like it.

There is a reason that the NBA took off in popularity after its addition.

The reason wasn't the 3pt shot, it was Bird/Magic.

Yea Larry Bird being an all time outside shooting great had nothing to do with the popularity of that rivalry.

[Mattya]

If anything the outside shot has allowed for more spacing for guards and wings to attack the paint. It's balanced the game so the great shooters impact the game in the same way as a dominant player at the rim. The myth that NBA players aren't looking to get the ball inside is just nonsense.

[Klomp]

If anything the outside shot has allowed for more spacing for guards and wings to attack the paint. It's balanced the game so the great shooters impact the game in the same way as a dominant player at the rim. The myth that NBA players aren't looking to get the ball inside is just nonsense.

I would agree with this. It's just changed from post-ups to perimeter drives where you see most of them.

[YourBuddy]

If anything the outside shot has allowed for more spacing for guards and wings to attack the paint. It's balanced the game so the great shooters impact the game in the same way as a dominant player at the rim. The myth that NBA players aren't looking to get the ball inside is just nonsense.

I would agree with this. It's just changed from post-ups to perimeter drives where you see most of them.

Just look at the Rockets shot distribution. They haven't stopped driving to the rim. They just stopped shooting mid range shots.

[KGdaBom]

The problem is, no one would guard anyone that far out otherwise. If you're really good, it's a 40% shot. Shots in the paint are also as high a reward. Midrange shots are the ones with less value. Take out the 3 point shot and now everyone steps in and zones the middle. It'd be a grit and grind defense all the time.

Fans want variety. I think restoring the handcheck is the bigger problem. You can't guard someone close anymore, the league wanted that. Change that rule and it'd be much easier to guard people straight up instead of collapsing immediately and leaving an open 3 point shooter.

Shot's in the paint should be a high reward. You have to have skill to get in position to take that shot in the paint. Teams also risk turnovers trying to get the ball in for that shot in the paint. Outside shots were a part of basketball well before the three. Maybe stupid long ones weren't and they shouldn't be.

Why shouldn't long shots be apart of the game?

Players are welcome to shoot from anywhere they damn well please. Just don't reward them extra points for doing it. NFL teams throw bombs and score from 80-90 yards sometimes. It still only counts as 6 points.

[Mattya]

Shot's in the paint should be a high reward. You have to have skill to get in position to take that shot in the paint. Teams also risk turnovers trying to get the ball in for that shot in the paint. Outside shots were a part of basketball well before the three. Maybe stupid long ones weren't and they shouldn't be.

Why shouldn't long shots be apart of the game?

Players are welcome to shoot from anywhere they damn well please. Just don't reward them extra points for doing it. NFL teams throw bombs and score from 80-90 yards sometimes. It still only counts as 6 points.

Why? If anything it balances the game.

[KGdaBom]

Why shouldn't long shots be apart of the game?

Players are welcome to shoot from anywhere they damn well please. Just don't reward them extra points for doing it. NFL teams throw bombs and score from 80-90 yards sometimes. It still only counts as 6 points.

Why? If anything it balances the game.

If artificially changes the game. As I mentioned no other sport awards distance scoring bonus points. It simply is wrong and should not be done. Just my opinion. I"m 99% sure it will never be removed. The three is making shooting mid range shots almost pointless.

[Mattya]

Players are welcome to shoot from anywhere they damn well please. Just don't reward them extra points for doing it. NFL teams throw bombs and score from 80-90 yards sometimes. It still only counts as 6 points.

Why? If anything it balances the game.

If artificially changes the game. As I mentioned no other sport awards distance scoring bonus points. It simply is wrong and should not be done. Just my opinion. I"m 99% sure it will never be removed. The three is making shooting mid range shots almost pointless.

All scoring in sports is artificial. Why are field goals worth half of a touchdown? Because someone decided it would increase scoring and balance the game.

Comparing scoring across sports is silly anyway. It's a false equivalence. It ignores all the different aspects that detriment how scoring happens. Why shouldn't guards who shoot the ball well from outside be able to impact the game as much as bigs near the rim?

[urinesane]

Ah crap, this forum is turning into Rube Chat.

[ace625214]

Ah crap, this forum is turning into Rube Chat.

Yep, it's been a slow descent ever since RubeChat shut down.

[KGdaBom]

Why? If anything it balances the game.

If artificially changes the game. As I mentioned no other sport awards distance scoring bonus points. It simply is wrong and should not be done. Just my opinion. I"m 99% sure it will never be removed. The three is making shooting mid range shots almost pointless.

All scoring in sports is artificial. Why are field goals worth half of a touchdown? Because someone decided it would increase scoring and balance the game.

Comparing scoring across sports is silly anyway. It's a false equivalence. It ignores all the different aspects that detriment how scoring happens. Why shouldn't guards who shoot the ball well from outside be able to impact the game as much as bigs near the rim?

They can, but IMO don't give them bonus points to try to force it. Anyway, I'm done. I got my rant out about my hatred of the three point shot. If you like it more power to you. Until they change things we will continue seeing more and more three point shots. It could easily end up being over half the shots taken.

[Mattya]

If artificially changes the game. As I mentioned no other sport awards distance scoring bonus points. It simply is wrong and should not be done. Just my opinion. I"m 99% sure it will never be removed. The three is making shooting mid range shots almost pointless.

All scoring in sports is artificial. Why are field goals worth half of a touchdown? Because someone decided it would increase scoring and balance the game.

Comparing scoring across sports is silly anyway. It's a false equivalence. It ignores all the different aspects that detriment how scoring happens. Why shouldn't guards who shoot the ball well from outside be able to impact the game as much as bigs near the rim?

They can, but IMO don't give them bonus points to try to force it.

And how do you accomplish this balance without the extra point?

[KGdaBom]

All scoring in sports is artificial. Why are field goals worth half of a touchdown? Because someone decided it would increase scoring and balance the game.

Comparing scoring across sports is silly anyway. It's a false equivalence. It ignores all the different aspects that detriment how scoring happens. Why shouldn't guards who shoot the ball well from outside be able to impact the game as much as bigs near the rim?

They can, but IMO don't give them bonus points to try to force it.

And how do you accomplish this balance without the extra point?

By them making the shot well enough for it to be worth shooting. If they can't make it well enough for it to be worth shooting then don't shoot it. There have always been good scoring guards before the three point shot. They always impacted the game before the three point shot.

[Mattya]

They can, but IMO don't give them bonus points to try to force it.

And how do you accomplish this balance without the extra point?

By them making the shot well enough for it to be worth shooting. If they can't make it well enough for it to be worth shooting then don't shoot it. There have always been good scoring guards before the three point shot. They always impacted the game before the three point shot.

So great perimeter players would need to shoot 70% from 25' away to have the same impact as great bigs?

No they didn't.

[Narf]

There is a reason that the NBA took off in popularity after its addition.

The reason wasn't the 3pt shot, it was Bird/Magic.

Yea Larry Bird being an all time outside shooting great had nothing to do with the popularity of that rivalry.

Bird averaged 1.9 3 point ATTEMPTS a game. Just FYI.

[Mattya]

The reason wasn't the 3pt shot, it was Bird/Magic.

Yea Larry Bird being an all time outside shooting great had nothing to do with the popularity of that rivalry.

Bird averaged 1.9 3 point ATTEMPTS a game. Just FYI.

Different era. That was a lot of attempts for a career starting the same season as the adoption of the shot. I would love to see anybody ask any NBA historian an ask them if Bird was an all time great shooter. Hint... the answe would be "Absolutely."

[KGdaBom]

And how do you accomplish this balance without the extra point?

By them making the shot well enough for it to be worth shooting. If they can't make it well enough for it to be worth shooting then don't shoot it. There have always been good scoring guards before the three point shot. They always impacted the game before the three point shot.

So great perimeter players would need to shoot 70% from 25' away to have the same impact as great bigs?

No they didn't.

What the hell are you talking about. First of all there was no good reason to shoot from 25 feet away. They were shooting from more like 15-20 feet away and it was beneficial to their team with no need to shoot 70%. 25 feet away is a bad shot unless you give them a 50% bonus on it. You are getting way off base here. If you like the three fine. Go ahead. I think it's nonsense.

[Mattya]

By them making the shot well enough for it to be worth shooting. If they can't make it well enough for it to be worth shooting then don't shoot it. There have always been good scoring guards before the three point shot. They always impacted the game before the three point shot.

So great perimeter players would need to shoot 70% from 25' away to have the same impact as great bigs?

No they didn't.

What the hell are you talking about. First of all there was no good reason to shoot from 25 feet away. They were shooting from more like 15-20 feet away and it was beneficial to their team with no need to shoot 70%. 25 feet away is a bad shot unless you give them a 50% bonus on it. You are getting way off base here. If you like the three fine. Go ahead. I think it's nonsense.

Simple math is my point. This nonsense you are talking about idk. If you think players were helping their teams pre 70s then you don't understand the efficiency on paint shot vs non paint shots in a non outside shot era.

[Narf]

Yea Larry Bird being an all time outside shooting great had nothing to do with the popularity of that rivalry.

Bird averaged 1.9 3 point ATTEMPTS a game. Just FYI.

Different era. That was a lot of attempts for a career starting the same season as the adoption of the shot. I would love to see anybody ask any NBA historian an ask them if Bird was an all time great shooter. Hint... the answe would be "Absolutely."

I never said Bird wasn't a great shooter. I said Bird averaged 1.9 3PA for his career.

[King Malta]

I like Taj Gibson