Bad shot - Also old man yelling at clouds.

[jazzfan1971]

I'm watching teams take a ton of 'bad shots' in preseason. I've never seen anything like it. What am I talking about? Well, I saw Dame pull up for a 26 foot shot with 20 seconds on the shot clock and said to myself, 'that's a bad shot.'

But, then I started noticing, almost all the shots are bad shots. They are all 3s. Contested 3s. Long 3s. Step back 3s. Off balance 3s.

I don't mind a 3 when it's open, but this is getting ridiculous.

So, is it me? Or are those still bad shots? Or has the day come when the game as so past me by that I can no longer tell a good look from a bad one? Is that 26 footer by Dame really better than anything else the team offense could produce in the next 20 seconds?

I dunno. Am I just an old man yelling at clouds here or are teams just jacking up a lot of low quality shots in preseason?

[GeorgeMarcus]

One man’s bad shot is another man’s good shot. It all comes down to a player’s capabilities, and whether that player can produce the same shot efficiently over the long run. It may look ugly, but looks can be deceiving.

[playoffs]

I haven't watched any preseason games so far but it would make sense that teams/players would try out things (or just **** around) that they wouldn't necessarily do on a regular basis in the regular season and playoffs.

[nomansland]

They're just working off the rust in many ways, and they know the games are inconsequential. I watched the Nuggets starters pretty much coast the other night. You could tell they didn't care much. They're still going at 80% both mentally and physically.

[DaPessimist]

On paper they're good shots apparently. In my mind you can always get a 26-footer, so why take it so early in the shot-clock?


I remember reading an article about taking early transition 3-pointers a few years back, and how the Warriors analytic team had essentially proven that early transition 3's are both higher percentage AND lead to more offensive rebounds, which typically lead to another high % shot.

[BIGJ1ER]

If I'm really focusing on a game, I almost judge a shot by it's potential PPP via spot on the floor, who's taking it, how close the defender is etc.

If A dame pull up 26 footer is a 30% shot, it may not be a horrendous shot, although you're right that with 20 seconds on the clock they may've been able to run a set and use the dame deep three as a bailout considering it's always there as an option. Game rhythm and flow also have to be considered within the context of each shot too.

But yes I do agree some players have become a tad trigger happy with low percentage shots, I'd wager some of these contested threes taken are honestly a lower potential PPP then a lot of other shots that could be generated within the shot clock set, especially from lower tier players

[Lalouie]

it was inevitable. where there once was a premium placed on 3s, it has now become a "commodity" and with it the attitude that it is no longer a "special" shot. it is being addressed like a 2 but players are forgetting the percentages are lower, and all because analytics has said it don't matter.

the 3 has become a "preferred shot" - as in "i'd rather do this than that".

[GeorgeMarcus]

it was inevitable. where there once was a premium placed on 3s, it has now become a "commodity" and with it the attitude that it is no longer a "special" shot. it is being addressed like a 2 but players are forgetting the percentages are lower, and all because analytics has said it don't matter.

the 3 has become a "preferred shot" - as in "i'd rather do this than that".

"Analytics" wouldn't say that at all, but maybe people who misuse them...

[Lalouie]

it was inevitable. where there once was a premium placed on 3s, it has now become a "commodity" and with it the attitude that it is no longer a "special" shot. it is being addressed like a 2 but players are forgetting the percentages are lower, and all because analytics has said it don't matter.

the 3 has become a "preferred shot" - as in "i'd rather do this than that".

"Analytics" wouldn't say that at all, but maybe people who misuse them...

analytics made it acceptable. acceptance made it the norm. and normalcy now means chucking whenever you feel like it

[Sixerscan]

An underrated part of Lillard and others taking those shots is that it forces the other team to account for the guy that much further out for that much longer. So even if he misses it extends the defense and allows the offense to operate in more spacing in the 60-70 other possessions in a game where he doesn't take it.

[GeorgeMarcus]

it was inevitable. where there once was a premium placed on 3s, it has now become a "commodity" and with it the attitude that it is no longer a "special" shot. it is being addressed like a 2 but players are forgetting the percentages are lower, and all because analytics has said it don't matter.

the 3 has become a "preferred shot" - as in "i'd rather do this than that".

"Analytics" wouldn't say that at all, but maybe people who misuse them...

analytics made it acceptable. acceptance made it the norm. and normalcy now means chucking whenever you feel like it

NBA offenses have become more efficient as a result, and efficiency is the name of the game. But the idea that "players are forgetting the percentages are lower" is inherently anti-analytics. Analytical minds don't give a damn about 3's, only about efficiency.

[truly]

"Analytics" wouldn't say that at all, but maybe people who misuse them...

analytics made it acceptable. acceptance made it the norm. and normalcy now means chucking whenever you feel like it

NBA offenses have become more efficient as a result, and efficiency is the name of the game. But the idea that "players are forgetting the percentages are lower" is inherently anti-analytics. Analytical minds don't give a damn about 3's, only about efficiency.

Reminds me of this Lebron gem from last year.I have no idea why people think analytics say to shoot a 3 over anything else.

Read on Twitter

[jlokine]

nope, not just u...

Watch on YouTube

[dakomish23]

The threat of him being able to hit the bad shots opens up the offense.

I agree most folks should not attempt it. But Dame is in that upper echelon of deep shooting so for him, he gets the green light.

[kodo]

The difference in % between a 26' shot and a typical 3 at 24' is negligible.

Spoiler:

That's the entire NBA, Lillard in particular shoots a higher % farther out.

According to ESPN shot tracking data, Lillard attempted 51 three-pointers this season from 30 to 40 feet, making 39.2 percent.

Considering that Lillard hit 36.9 percent of his threes from any distance, his decision to launch deeper attempts in search of cleaner looks paid off.

At 39.2% from 30'+, Lillard would need to shoot 58.8% from inside the arc to make it a better shot. He'd have to be one of the best mid range shooters in the league. Lillard's actual 2 point percentages:
16'+ 47.3%
10'-16' 42.9%
3'-10' 35.7%
Rim: 56.4%

There's also the fact that running more complicated plays lead to more turnovers, which is usually 2 or 3 points for the other team.

Jacking up 3's makes for ugly basketball, but the math has been done to death. It won't change until defenders are allowed to defend 3 point shots like normal shots, with leeway on contact. Until then, it will be a 3 point chucking league. Not my cup of tea but the NBA seems more popular now than before, so I don't see the league consciously changing.

[GeorgeMarcus]

analytics made it acceptable. acceptance made it the norm. and normalcy now means chucking whenever you feel like it

NBA offenses have become more efficient as a result, and efficiency is the name of the game. But the idea that "players are forgetting the percentages are lower" is inherently anti-analytics. Analytical minds don't give a damn about 3's, only about efficiency.

Reminds me of this Lebron gem from last year.I have no idea why people think analytics say to shoot a 3 over anything else.

Read on Twitter

Lol it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what analytics represents. Demonizing analytics is like demonizing science. People generate/interpret data in different ways, which lead to different conclusions, but that's an extension of human fallibility rather than some flaw in the field as a whole.

[picc]

"Getting" ridiculous?

Welcome to the NTPSA (National Three-Point-Shooting Association).

It sucks, you're going to rage, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[levon]

Lol it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what analytics represents. Demonizing analytics is like demonizing science. People generate/interpret data in different ways, which lead to different conclusions, but that's an extension of human fallibility rather than some flaw in the field as a whole.

To de-escalate this from some sort of historic epistemological battle, would you agree with me that the homogeneity of today's game is off-putting sometimes? Maybe it's nostalgia, but I find myself wishing players would throw up less long shots early in the clock.

Of course this isn't the fault of analytics, but I do think the flag-bearers of analytics today are a little tone-deaf in that they always bring up the efficiency of shot X or action Y while not realizing that the best interests of a team's analytics staff doesn't always align perfectly with basketball viewers. Which is why I'm skeptical of the more points scored = more exciting basketball angle; to me, more interpersonal battles = more exciting basketball for the avg viewer.

I'm not sure how throwing up uncontested shots from 28ft creates that tension; it makes possessions seem dispensable, and it still feels hacky as hell to me, like your friend finding the one OP move that works in a fighting game and spamming you with it, because if it lands it takes half your health bar.

[Capn'O]

LeBron isn't saying it as well as he could but he's right. "Best shot" is situational and a shot that may be useful throughout normal regular season play may not be in play when it matters. Down the stretch in the playoffs, when teams have game planned for everything the opposing team can do and are guarding full bore, those early 3 ball shots might not be available. At that point, what else can you do to get a good shot? It's why guys like Kawhi and Durant can come up so big in the playoffs. Guys that can get a bucket from anywhere. You still need your shooters as an escape valve and the farther out they're a threat the better but it's why sometimes the best opportunity is "give it to Lillard and let him make the call" because everything else is closed out.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Lol it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about what analytics represents. Demonizing analytics is like demonizing science. People generate/interpret data in different ways, which lead to different conclusions, but that's an extension of human fallibility rather than some flaw in the field as a whole.

To de-escalate this from some sort of historic epistemological battle, would you agree with me that the homogeneity of today's game is off-putting sometimes? Maybe it's nostalgia, but I find myself wishing players would throw up less long shots early in the clock.

Of course this isn't the fault of analytics, but I do think the flag-bearers of analytics today are a little tone-deaf in that they always bring up the efficiency of shot X or action Y while not realizing that the best interests of a team's analytics staff doesn't always align perfectly with basketball viewers. Which is why I'm skeptical of the more points scored = more exciting basketball angle; to me, more interpersonal battles = more exciting basketball for the avg viewer.

I'm not sure how throwing up uncontested shots from 28ft creates that tension; it makes possessions seem dispensable, and it still feels hacky as hell to me, like your friend finding the one OP move that works in a fighting game and spamming you with it, because if it lands it takes half your health bar.

I started typing out a thread to address some of these exact questions. I got side tracked but will probably finish what I started tomorrow.

Regarding the bolded question: I'm not bothered by it personally. It actually satisfies my OCD a little if I'm being honest. That's not to say I don't understand why you and others would be bothered by it. At the end of the day, the game's aesthetic is essential to fanhood. If it's no longer a game we enjoy watching then none of the rest matters. I know I'd stop caring about the Sixers if basketball somehow evolved into field hockey.

I guess my question for you is this: do you feel the league should implement rule changes to counter some of these new age trends? If so do you have any in mind? Obviously we can't expect teams/players to adopt less favorable strategies for the sake of aesthetics.