Official NBA General Discussion 2024-25 V1.0

[elmer_yuck]

I’ve been complaining about this for years. Get rid of the corner 3.
It will bring back movement, passing, inside play.
The game today is unwatchable.
Especially the Celtics.
And everyone is starting to copy them, because math is math.

[mdenny]

I’ve been complaining about this for years. Get rid of the corner 3.
It will bring back movement, passing, inside play.
The game today is unwatchable.
Especially the Celtics.
And everyone is starting to copy them, because math is math.

I have to admit...I always thought the complaints were kinda dismissive or insubstantial. But I'm on board now.

I don't find golden state boring to watch because they run actions and screens. But the celtics look like the death of basketball. It's like when the new jersey devils started playing the trap in hockey during the late 90s.

5 guys standing still along the perimeter. Drive kick swing barf.

[Kurtz]

Ppl mistake the corner 3s as a problem because they are thinking the shot is easier because it is shorter.

That's not the problem. The problem is what the corner 3s allow in terms of positioning for half court sets.

Just to be clear on this one - it's not just people thinking this, it's the reality. The corner 3 is easier to shoot, and it is the highest points per possession (119) spot in the game (followed closely by the low paint shot (117), which includes dunks/layups).

https://www.82games.com/locations.htm

Note that the wing-3 is only at 89 points per posession - roughly on par with a high-post shot attempt.

The straight-on 3 is also very efficient at 105, but it would fall distinctly behind the low-post shot in efficiency, so teams following the math would be encouraged to engage the low post more often.

[JB7]

So with viewership down and a growing chorus complaining about 3 point attempts....it seems well within the realm of possibility that the league does something about it this summer. Personally, it's never bothered me that much in the past. But even those like me are starting to change our minds. The attempts are clearly out of hand and the entertainment product is suffering. It's bad showbiz.

So let's suppose that they alter the line to eliminate the corner 3s and they do it THIS summer. How does it impact the league and what does it mean for the raptors?

Obviously the first thing that disappears is the 5 out floor spacing offense (ie celtics). Traditional centers can't be pulled away from the basket easily anymore so their value goes way up. I think 3 and D guys are safe if somewhat devalued. Floor spacers like Gary Trent become very devalued. Size matters alot more.

So I think this would actually be a boon for the raptors. Particularly for RJ and Barnes. Poetl, being a trad center, also becomes much more valuable. Our team defense gets alot better. Our offense doesn't suffer like alot of other teams.

I think it could mean up to 7 or 8 places in the overall standings for the raptors.

I wonder if any FO's have considered this possibility and are hedging against it via prospect evaluation and contract negotiations?

The best move to fix the over reliance on 3s is just to cap the number of 3's attempted (so any 3's taken after passing the cap just become 2's). Doesn't require any significant changes to the rules/floor.

And is a simple way to try and get games back to a reasonable number of attempts.

I looked into that. Some have suggested the cap be 15 which doesn't make any sense to me because 90% of teams average less than 15 successful 3s per game. So I suppose a cap of 10 to 12 would be a viable action. Many of the ramifications would be similar to a true 3 point line arc. Traditional centers becoming more valuable. Floor spacing becoming less effective.
.
Personally....I just want to see an end to 5 out offensive half court sets where everyone stands still around the perimeter. The reason why I'd personally prefer the 3 poi t line alteration is so that a team like the celtics don't spam the 5 out offense until they hit the cap. And you'd probably also see a team like the celtics 'save' their 3 point shots/5 out sets for the 4th quarter.

Changing the line will change the game for good. The
3 point line would meet the sideline approx 2 feet deeper than the FT line. And at least 2 feet of that space would be too narrow for guys to set their feet properly.

So essentially...the widest 3 point shots would be aligned with FT line.

I truly believe that in this case....changing the shape of the court is less impactful on the game than a cap. Let's not forget....the NBA is the only basketball league in the world that has it's particular 3 point line arc. In contrast....no league in the world has a cap on 3 point shots.

Point being...changing the 3 point line shape is not as disruptive to the universal game or essence of the sport.

This seems like it would be a massive change to the game. Completely disrupting how players and teams operate.

The beauty of the cap, is essentially it is returning the game to a better balance, and eliminating the outliers (Celtics current play & Rockets from the past). By capping the attempts, teams would need to be much more selective on their attempts, and who takes them. And it would incentivize more higher percentage shots closer to the basket. But if the team has a star, like Curry, he could still continue to put up a lot of attempts. It would just come at the expense of other teammates 3pt attempts.

[mdenny]

Ppl mistake the corner 3s as a problem because they are thinking the shot is easier because it is shorter.

That's not the problem. The problem is what the corner 3s allow in terms of positioning for half court sets.

Just to be clear on this one - it's not just people thinking this, it's the reality. The corner 3 is easier to shoot, and it is the highest points per possession (119) spot in the game (followed closely by the low paint shot (117), which includes dunks/layups).

https://www.82games.com/locations.htm

Note that the wing-3 is only at 89 points per posession - roughly on par with a high-post shot attempt.

The straight-on 3 is also very efficient at 105, but it would fall distinctly behind the low-post shot in efficiency, so teams following the math would be encouraged to engage the low post more often.

I don't have data to back this up....but I strongly suspect those differences in % are not a function of the shorter distance.....they are a function of corner shots being disproportionately open/uncontested compared to shots from the break. Also notable that players assigned to stand in the deep corners tend to be specialized shooters. Also notable that bail-out desperation shots at the end of shot-clocks on failed possessions tend to be located centrally too.

[ForeverTFC]

Ppl mistake the corner 3s as a problem because they are thinking the shot is easier because it is shorter.

That's not the problem. The problem is what the corner 3s allow in terms of positioning for half court sets.

Just to be clear on this one - it's not just people thinking this, it's the reality. The corner 3 is easier to shoot, and it is the highest points per possession (119) spot in the game (followed closely by the low paint shot (117), which includes dunks/layups).

https://www.82games.com/locations.htm

Note that the wing-3 is only at 89 points per posession - roughly on par with a high-post shot attempt.

The straight-on 3 is also very efficient at 105, but it would fall distinctly behind the low-post shot in efficiency, so teams following the math would be encouraged to engage the low post more often.

I don't have data to back this up....but I strongly suspect those differences in % are not a function of the shorter distance.....they are a function of corner shots being disproportionately open/uncontested compared to shots from the break. Also notable that players assigned to stand in the deep corners tend to be specialized shooters. Also notable that bail-out desperation shots at the end of shot-clocks on failed possessions tend to be located centrally too.

Distance makes it so that more players can hit it and will therefore take it, but agree that % being higher is a function of the shots being open at a higher rate.

The problem with getting rid of the corner 3 is that it clogs up the paint. If they get rid of the corner 3, they'll also need to make the zone illegal again, or else teams will just camp in the paint. Also, not sure it would result in less 3s as teams will just shift the player toward the elbows to try and create any spacing they can get.

[deeps6x]

I love how the league admits their refs Fked up in not calling a foul for FVV, but is still going to fine him $50k for blowing up at the incompetent refs who all let the foul go.

In cases like this, the refs should have to pay the fine.

[JB7]

I love how the league admits their refs Fked up in not calling a foul for FVV, but is still going to fine him $50k for blowing up at the incompetent refs who all let the foul go.

In cases like this, the refs should have to pay the fine.

I'm amazed he didn't get suspended for it. If he were on the Raps at the time, he probably would have been suspended.

[tecumseh18]

So Missi was 16-13 with 4 stocks, and a +26 in 31 minutes, in a 4 point loss to the Pacers. Pels lost the 17 Missi-less minutes by 30 points. How is that even possible?

[Tripod]

I love how the league admits their refs Fked up in not calling a foul for FVV, but is still going to fine him $50k for blowing up at the incompetent refs who all let the foul go.

In cases like this, the refs should have to pay the fine.

Them missing a call doesn't give him the right to:

Hard foul a guy on the next play
Then go off on every ref cursing looking like a drag

Refs miss calls all the time. Grow up.

[douggood]

So Missi was 16-13 with 4 stocks, and a +26 in 31 minutes, in a 4 point loss to the Pacers. Pels lost the 17 Missi-less minutes by 30 points. How is that even possible?

daniel theis the starting c was -30 in 17 minutes.
also elfrid payton signed off the scrap heap, started and had 21 assists.

[bballsparkin]

DeMar is a mid range assassin.

[ForeverTFC]

So Missi was 16-13 with 4 stocks, and a +26 in 31 minutes, in a 4 point loss to the Pacers. Pels lost the 17 Missi-less minutes by 30 points. How is that even possible?

17 minutes is a lot of time. Hornets lost 95-84 today. Melo put up 44/9/7 on 57% shooting and the rest of the team combined for 40 points, of which 20 came from Miller on 6 of 17 shooting!! Imagine putting up an efficient 44, almost a 40 points triple double, and your team not crossing a 100 points

[PushDaRock]

Just to be clear on this one - it's not just people thinking this, it's the reality. The corner 3 is easier to shoot, and it is the highest points per possession (119) spot in the game (followed closely by the low paint shot (117), which includes dunks/layups).

https://www.82games.com/locations.htm

Note that the wing-3 is only at 89 points per posession - roughly on par with a high-post shot attempt.

The straight-on 3 is also very efficient at 105, but it would fall distinctly behind the low-post shot in efficiency, so teams following the math would be encouraged to engage the low post more often.

I don't have data to back this up....but I strongly suspect those differences in % are not a function of the shorter distance.....they are a function of corner shots being disproportionately open/uncontested compared to shots from the break. Also notable that players assigned to stand in the deep corners tend to be specialized shooters. Also notable that bail-out desperation shots at the end of shot-clocks on failed possessions tend to be located centrally too.

Distance makes it so that more players can hit it and will therefore take it, but agree that % being higher is a function of the shots being open at a higher rate.

The problem with getting rid of the corner 3 is that it clogs up the paint. If they get rid of the corner 3, they'll also need to make the zone illegal again, or else teams will just camp in the paint. Also, not sure it would result in less 3s as teams will just shift the player toward the elbows to try and create any spacing they can get.

Is there really a reason to even have defensive 3 seconds anymore? At least as originally intended, it was to allow for offensive spacing but all teams (other than ours) can shoot and sufficiently punish the bigs that are just camping down there.

I suppose it could also backfire too where in allowing teams to play better defense by protecting the paint better that it leads to even more 3 point shots being taken as a result if teams can no longer get all the way to the rim as much.

[ForeverTFC]

I don't have data to back this up....but I strongly suspect those differences in % are not a function of the shorter distance.....they are a function of corner shots being disproportionately open/uncontested compared to shots from the break. Also notable that players assigned to stand in the deep corners tend to be specialized shooters. Also notable that bail-out desperation shots at the end of shot-clocks on failed possessions tend to be located centrally too.

Distance makes it so that more players can hit it and will therefore take it, but agree that % being higher is a function of the shots being open at a higher rate.

The problem with getting rid of the corner 3 is that it clogs up the paint. If they get rid of the corner 3, they'll also need to make the zone illegal again, or else teams will just camp in the paint. Also, not sure it would result in less 3s as teams will just shift the player toward the elbows to try and create any spacing they can get.

Is there really a reason to even have defensive 3 seconds anymore? At least as originally intended, it was to allow for offensive spacing but all teams (other than ours) can shoot and sufficiently punish the bigs that are just camping down there.

I suppose it could also backfire too where in allowing teams to play better defense by protecting the paint better that it leads to even more 3 point shots being taken as a result if teams can no longer get all the way to the rim as much.

Yeah, there is usually always someone to cheat off of. Giannis, JJJ, and Timelord are good example of roamers that just leave non-shooters alone and protect the rim. If you could just park someone down there all the time, probably leads to even less drives. Might not mean more 3s as >50% of 3s are catch and shoot created by penetration, probably means a lot more ISOs and **** mid-range shots at the expense of the corner 3 and shots at the rim.

[PushDaRock]

Distance makes it so that more players can hit it and will therefore take it, but agree that % being higher is a function of the shots being open at a higher rate.

The problem with getting rid of the corner 3 is that it clogs up the paint. If they get rid of the corner 3, they'll also need to make the zone illegal again, or else teams will just camp in the paint. Also, not sure it would result in less 3s as teams will just shift the player toward the elbows to try and create any spacing they can get.

Is there really a reason to even have defensive 3 seconds anymore? At least as originally intended, it was to allow for offensive spacing but all teams (other than ours) can shoot and sufficiently punish the bigs that are just camping down there.

I suppose it could also backfire too where in allowing teams to play better defense by protecting the paint better that it leads to even more 3 point shots being taken as a result if teams can no longer get all the way to the rim as much.

Yeah, there is usually always someone to cheat off of. Giannis, JJJ, and Timelord are good example of roamers that just leave non-shooters alone and protect the rim. If you could just park someone down there all the time, probably leads to even less drives. Might not mean more 3s as >50% of 3s are catch and shoot created by penetration, probably means a lot more ISOs and **** mid-range shots at the expense of the corner 3 and shots at the rim.

That doesn't seem like a bad result at least in creating more variety in play styles. Analytically, the mid range is a terrible shot for probably over 95% of players, but aesthetically it's really nice to watch especially from the players good at it. Maybe the percentages would go up too though if there is a focus on improving it, right now players are just encouraged not to even shoot it which also likely means they aren't working on it too much either.

[mdenny]

I love how the league admits their refs Fked up in not calling a foul for FVV, but is still going to fine him $50k for blowing up at the incompetent refs who all let the foul go.

In cases like this, the refs should have to pay the fine.

I'm amazed he didn't get suspended for it. If he were on the Raps at the time, he probably would have been suspended.

I love Fred but that's BS. He deserves 2 or 3 games. They can't let players start to physically intimidate refs.

Also...the ref admitting that it was a non-shooting foul isn't the copped plea like it might sound. The whole point of the play for Fred was to AVOID the non-shooting foul because it would've essentially ended the game. That's why he heaved the shot up.

[ForeverTFC]

Is there really a reason to even have defensive 3 seconds anymore? At least as originally intended, it was to allow for offensive spacing but all teams (other than ours) can shoot and sufficiently punish the bigs that are just camping down there.

I suppose it could also backfire too where in allowing teams to play better defense by protecting the paint better that it leads to even more 3 point shots being taken as a result if teams can no longer get all the way to the rim as much.

Yeah, there is usually always someone to cheat off of. Giannis, JJJ, and Timelord are good example of roamers that just leave non-shooters alone and protect the rim. If you could just park someone down there all the time, probably leads to even less drives. Might not mean more 3s as >50% of 3s are catch and shoot created by penetration, probably means a lot more ISOs and **** mid-range shots at the expense of the corner 3 and shots at the rim.

That doesn't seem like a bad result at least in creating more variety in play styles. Analytically, the mid range is a terrible shot for probably over 95% of players, but aesthetically it's really nice to watch especially from the players good at it. Maybe the percentages would go up too though if there is a focus on improving it, right now players are just encouraged not to even shoot it which also likely means they aren't working on it too much either.

We already saw this kind of basketball in the 2000s. It was regarded as the ugliest era of the NBA. We were eventually saved by Jerry Colangelo, Mike D'Antoni, Steve Nash and the SSOL Suns, which gave rise to the game we see today.

Now, maybe you can say teams these days understand that FG% isn't end all and be all of basketball and that posting up the big man each and every play isn't a winning recipe, which may save us from the hideousness of basketball from the era. But honestly, I'm not even willing to take the risk.

Not sure if you've ever seen this thread on the GB regarding the really low pace of the 2000s. It is full of some of the best posters here talking about the flaws of that era and only a page long. Highly recommend it: viewtopic.php?t=2363918

[PushDaRock]

Yeah, there is usually always someone to cheat off of. Giannis, JJJ, and Timelord are good example of roamers that just leave non-shooters alone and protect the rim. If you could just park someone down there all the time, probably leads to even less drives. Might not mean more 3s as >50% of 3s are catch and shoot created by penetration, probably means a lot more ISOs and **** mid-range shots at the expense of the corner 3 and shots at the rim.

That doesn't seem like a bad result at least in creating more variety in play styles. Analytically, the mid range is a terrible shot for probably over 95% of players, but aesthetically it's really nice to watch especially from the players good at it. Maybe the percentages would go up too though if there is a focus on improving it, right now players are just encouraged not to even shoot it which also likely means they aren't working on it too much either.

We already saw this kind of basketball in the 2000s. It was regarded as the ugliest era of the NBA. We were eventually saved by Jerry Colangelo, Mike D'Antoni, Steve Nash and the SSOL Suns, which gave rise to the game we see today.

Now, maybe you can say teams these days understand that FG% isn't end all and be all of basketball and that posting up the big man each and every play isn't a winning recipe, which may save us from the hideousness of basketball from the era. But honestly, I'm not even willing to take the risk.

Not sure if you've ever seen this thread on the GB regarding the really low pace of the 2000s. It is full of some of the best posters here talking about the flaws of that era and only a page long. Highly recommend it: viewtopic.php?t=2363918

I don't think you would suddenly see teams revert to post-ups and mid range jumpers for the majority of their offense, but I think it's a reasonable argument that things have tilted too far in the other direction with only paint 2's, 3's and FT's.

Players back in the earlier days weren't shooting that many 3's at least partly because they weren't good at shooting them. Now, they're good at them and everybody let's it fly. Shooting 3's also became an essential skill, who's to say that couldn't happen for the mid range? Let's say the elite mid range shooters can get up close to 60% and the mediocre ones get closer to 50%, well that's a whole lot different to guard than the typical sub 40% mid range shooter.

Either way, offenses will eventually evolve and find the next inefficiency not being exploited currently to get an advantage over the competition and then there will be copy cats, then eventually everyone does it and rinse and repeat.

[ForeverTFC]

That doesn't seem like a bad result at least in creating more variety in play styles. Analytically, the mid range is a terrible shot for probably over 95% of players, but aesthetically it's really nice to watch especially from the players good at it. Maybe the percentages would go up too though if there is a focus on improving it, right now players are just encouraged not to even shoot it which also likely means they aren't working on it too much either.

We already saw this kind of basketball in the 2000s. It was regarded as the ugliest era of the NBA. We were eventually saved by Jerry Colangelo, Mike D'Antoni, Steve Nash and the SSOL Suns, which gave rise to the game we see today.

Now, maybe you can say teams these days understand that FG% isn't end all and be all of basketball and that posting up the big man each and every play isn't a winning recipe, which may save us from the hideousness of basketball from the era. But honestly, I'm not even willing to take the risk.

Not sure if you've ever seen this thread on the GB regarding the really low pace of the 2000s. It is full of some of the best posters here talking about the flaws of that era and only a page long. Highly recommend it: viewtopic.php?t=2363918

I don't think you would suddenly see teams revert to post-ups and mid range jumpers for the majority of their offense, but I think it's a reasonable argument that things have tilted too far in the other direction with only paint 2's, 3's and FT's.

Players back in the earlier days weren't shooting that many 3's at least partly because they weren't good at shooting them. Now, they're good at them and everybody let's it fly. Shooting 3's also became an essential skill, who's to say that couldn't happen for the mid range? Let's say the elite mid range shooters can get up close to 60% and the mediocre ones get closer to 50%, well that's a whole lot different to guard than the typical sub 40% mid range shooter.

Either way, offenses will eventually evolve and find the next inefficiency not being exploited currently to get an advantage over the competition and then there will be copy cats, then eventually everyone does it and rinse and repeat.

I don't see how the half court doesn't become a lot more post ups and ISOs. Players actually haven't gotten all that better at shooting the 3, it's only attempts that have increased. And players hit the mid-range at a higher % than the 3. The 3 is the better shot because it's worth more points resulting in higher expected points, not because it's an easier shot.


The only saving grace would be teams not shying away from transition as they did in the 2000s. But in the half court? It will be ugly basketball.