Bad shot - Also old man yelling at clouds.

[dhsilv2]

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?

Well, you should ask what was the chance the team got the ball back on that 3. But you should also ask if any shot is a bad shot in a preseason game.

[Tim Kempton]

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.

I agree completely with levon, but your point regarding players valuing favorable strategies over aesthetics is spot-on. After all, this is their job.

In a case like this, drastic times call for drastic measures. Move the 3-point line back 5 feet and eliminate corner 3s. Players like Dame and Steph will still have their long distance contested pull-ups, but the move back would severely cut into the number of 3-point attempts.

[logical_art]

NBA is going to have to do something about threes.

The game is boring as hell with teams jacking up 40 threes a game.

Expand the court. Move the line back. Allow more contact.

[Lalouie]

"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.

well i see efficiency differently, i guess.
i'm assuming by "efficiency" you mean more bang for the buck, and you are right if you count up the points at the end of the game.
but here's what i see. i see players coming down court and not only taking 3s whenever and wherever they want. i see teams bringing the ball up and chucking 5ive 3s in a row and missing all of them, and i say to myself "they could have worked that ball and gotten two or three 2's" out of those five possessions.

i see the value of the 3 negated by the sheer insouciance of the shot, if we are abiding by the parameters of the OP's rant. i think you're seeing the 3 shot as just a 3 shot, in other words that every 3 shot is the same, because that is what it has come down. i think there is a time and place for the 3, at which point BOTH the 3 and the 2 have more value.

to take it to an extreme, why don't all teams take ALL their shots from the 3 if that is the efficient thing to do??? why even bother with the 2. example: the bucks beat the wiz last night by 7, 115 to 108. the wiz shot 41% from the 3 but to their misfortune they tried shooting 2's. if they had shot ALL their shots as 3's they would have won!! so why do teams take 2s. - because say, if a player is out on the break ahead of the pack he takes the layup or the dunk because it is the right thing to do. he doesn't stop for the 3 when the 2 is automatic. which all comes down again to why do teams take and miss crazy 3's in a row when they could settle for a surer 2.

you know what i heard last night in the pels game. the ball is moving around and a player makes a 19' shot, and the announcer says ",,,and he hits the deep 2". LMAO. "deep" 2. so now 19' is a deep 2? i thought a deep 2 was something like 22'???

[Gooner]

"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.

No, the defense has become an afterthought.

[Lalouie]

"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.

the 3 has more bang for the buck, ergo analytics say it IS more efficient. player are forgetting about the lower percentages is not inherently anti-analytical. #1 they're not thinking about analytice during play. #2 players are forgetting about the lower percentages because they have been given licence to chuck from anywhere without restraint. the player prefers shooting unguarded than guarded

[zimpy27]

- The more 3s you shoot, the better rhythm you get
- The more 3s and the better the rhythm, the more the defenders guard you at the 3
- The more the defenders guard you at the 3, the less they guard the interior
- The less they guard the interior, the more you drive and lob
- The more you drive and lob, the more the defense covers the interior
- The more the defense covers the interior, the more 3s you shoot
- The more 3s you shoot..

A shot isn't just about the points it gets but the disortion of the D it creates for the next possessions. It's about creating this loop of high-efficiency shots.

Sure, Dame misses a 26-footer, but the first time he makes one (usually every third shot) he will skew the defense more significantly than a 23-footer. This isn't even thinking about the buzz the team gets or the crowd.

[jason bourne]

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.

No, it isn't. This is one of the most hurrible takes I've seen in the pre-season. If you were the Sixers coach, then they already lost the season.

Most bad shots are bad shots. Only a few can make them and even then it's a low percentage shot. If I were the coach, then pre-season I would not be worried if I had a good team. However, I would be chewing players ass*s off if they took that in a real game.

[Pennebaker]

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?

Yelling at clouds.

[Hugi Mancura]

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.

Do agree, but analytics agree too. Example Lebron used was 'it is a 1 possession' -game. If other team is up by two you have 1 shot then it doesn't matter if you score 2 or 3 points, so taking highest% shot is what you should try to do. And 2 pointer is higher% shot than 3. Even analytics agree with this. Mistake Lebron did was to turn 'on average' analytics to 'situational' analytics. Analytics just say on long run it is better to take 3 pointer than to take mid range 2 (analytics do claim dunk is the best shot and then freethrow). But it doesn't claim that a person who is better mid range shooter should start taking 3's, because that is situational. People misuse analytics because they don't understand it. This happens on both sides on pro-analytics and anti-analytics side.

On Hero ball. You need those guys because as you said on playoff teams build their defense against one team, so they don't give so many open shots as they do in RS. Still lot a teams don't try anything else before going to hero ball. You should try to create the open shot first and if it doesn't work then go to hero ball. That hero ball style of play worked in early 00's because both teams usually did that. So if your hero baller shot 40% while the other teams hero baller shot 35% you still would win. This is something analytics and certain way Lebron killed. Lebron did get lot of heat because he passed the ball on the winning shot. He said you have to take the best possible shot and lot of times someone else other than him taking it was the best shot. And that is what analytics is all about. Taking the best shot.

[scrabbarista]

I heard on the Wolves broadcast today that they're going to start jacking three's even if their players suck at them. That's not exactly how they phrased it, but that was what they were saying. They literally said they intend to make the players conform to the system, rather than making the system conform to the players. Maybe it's the right approach, though, considering their roster is pretty young. That is, the players can be molded to the system. Either way, they were definitely jacking three's, which appears to be the plan.

Also heard on the Spurs broadcast, or some Spurs media, I forget where, that they intend to significantly up their three's this season.

Yay.

[DCRYsing89]

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?

I agree,
Though if Dame is feeling it, I think it could be seen as a good shot in some situations.
But even as a guy born in 2000, I get so pissed in pickup/club games when these guys out here thinking they Kobe or Harden.
Like it has evolved slightly and the definition of open has changed I feel, but it is different for many players, but like a lot of players now are just chucking up bad shots to often I feel.

Like it’s what Australia and France were able to exploit to beat team USA...
If USA played how Australia did, we would lose,
But Australia just found ways to get extremely efficient good shots.

[VDT]

It's partly the fact that players are getting better at shooting 3s and thus can make more difficult shot, partly the fact that when you cant create good offense a semi contested/ long 3 looks like a better option than a contested 2 and partly player irrationality.

[dhsilv2]

- The more 3s you shoot, the better rhythm you get
- The more 3s and the better the rhythm, the more the defenders guard you at the 3
- The more the defenders guard you at the 3, the less they guard the interior
- The less they guard the interior, the more you drive and lob
- The more you drive and lob, the more the defense covers the interior
- The more the defense covers the interior, the more 3s you shoot
- The more 3s you shoot..

A shot isn't just about the points it gets but the disortion of the D it creates for the next possessions. It's about creating this loop of high-efficiency shots.

Sure, Dame misses a 26-footer, but the first time he makes one (usually every third shot) he will skew the defense more significantly than a 23-footer. This isn't even thinking about the buzz the team gets or the crowd.

This. It is a lot like football. You throw the ball to the sides to shift the defense away from the middle which opens up then middle. Not all shots in basketball are just about that shot and scoring.

[Sixerscan]

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.

well i see efficiency differently, i guess.
i'm assuming by "efficiency" you mean more bang for the buck, and you are right if you count up the points at the end of the game.
but here's what i see. i see players coming down court and not only taking 3s whenever and wherever they want. i see teams bringing the ball up and chucking 5ive 3s in a row and missing all of them, and i say to myself "they could have worked that ball and gotten two or three 2's" out of those five possessions.

i see the value of the 3 negated by the sheer insouciance of the shot, if we are abiding by the parameters of the OP's rant. i think you're seeing the 3 shot as just a 3 shot, in other words that every 3 shot is the same, because that is what it has come down. i think there is a time and place for the 3, at which point BOTH the 3 and the 2 have more value.

to take it to an extreme, why don't all teams take ALL their shots from the 3 if that is the efficient thing to do??? why even bother with the 2. example: the bucks beat the wiz last night by 7, 115 to 108. the wiz shot 41% from the 3 but to their misfortune they tried shooting 2's. if they had shot ALL their shots as 3's they would have won!! so why do teams take 2s. - because say, if a player is out on the break ahead of the pack he takes the layup or the dunk because it is the right thing to do. he doesn't stop for the 3 when the 2 is automatic. which all comes down again to why do teams take and miss crazy 3's in a row when they could settle for a surer 2.

you know what i heard last night in the pels game. the ball is moving around and a player makes a 19' shot, and the announcer says ",,,and he hits the deep 2". LMAO. "deep" 2. so now 19' is a deep 2? i thought a deep 2 was something like 22'???

No one in their right mind is or would argue that you should take 3s every time down the court, especially at the expense of a layup, so that's a pretty obvious straw man. They're just encouraged and offenses are designed for them to take more than they used to, ideally at the expense of a possessions that would have likely ended in a contested shorter jump shot otherwise.

Doesn't mean that no 3 can ever be a bad shot, players can take bad shots today just like they could in the 70s or 80s well before this theory came into play.

[dhsilv2]

I heard on the Wolves broadcast today that they're going to start jacking three's even if their players suck at them. That's not exactly how they phrased it, but that was what they were saying. They literally said they intend to make the players conform to the system, rather than making the system conform to the players. Maybe it's the right approach, though, considering their roster is pretty young. That is, the players can be molded to the system. Either way, they were definitely jacking three's, which appears to be the plan.

Also heard on the Spurs broadcast, or some Spurs media, I forget where, that they intend to significantly up their three's this season.

Yay.

With a young team I can see value in system first. Not sure I see the value from the spurs given Pop's been pretty good at being a contrarian and going against the grain, it throws defenses off and he's got the personnel to zig while others zag. Then again with the spurs, increasing them might not amount to that many more.

[XxIronChainzxX]

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.

I agree completely with levon, but your point regarding players valuing favorable strategies over aesthetics is spot-on. After all, this is their job.

In a case like this, drastic times call for drastic measures. Move the 3-point line back 5 feet and eliminate corner 3s. Players like Dame and Steph will still have their long distance contested pull-ups, but the move back would severely cut into the number of 3-point attempts.

I don't think this will have the effect you want. The 2018 Rockets were already taking a ton of 3s that far back. This just makes spacing more important.

[contestedlayups]

In the preseason, players are trying to develop their rhythms for the season, and them taking a contested shot in the preseason literally doesn't matter, especially if they're considered a primary scorer for their team/unit on the floor. The preseason is literally about getting game-like reps against different competition than your teammates, which is why these scenarios happen. As the regular season starts, these kind of shots will become less and less common.

[Lalouie]

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.

well i see efficiency differently, i guess.
i'm assuming by "efficiency" you mean more bang for the buck, and you are right if you count up the points at the end of the game.
but here's what i see. i see players coming down court and not only taking 3s whenever and wherever they want. i see teams bringing the ball up and chucking 5ive 3s in a row and missing all of them, and i say to myself "they could have worked that ball and gotten two or three 2's" out of those five possessions.

i see the value of the 3 negated by the sheer insouciance of the shot, if we are abiding by the parameters of the OP's rant. i think you're seeing the 3 shot as just a 3 shot, in other words that every 3 shot is the same, because that is what it has come down. i think there is a time and place for the 3, at which point BOTH the 3 and the 2 have more value.

to take it to an extreme, why don't all teams take ALL their shots from the 3 if that is the efficient thing to do??? why even bother with the 2. example: the bucks beat the wiz last night by 7, 115 to 108. the wiz shot 41% from the 3 but to their misfortune they tried shooting 2's. if they had shot ALL their shots as 3's they would have won!! so why do teams take 2s. - because say, if a player is out on the break ahead of the pack he takes the layup or the dunk because it is the right thing to do. he doesn't stop for the 3 when the 2 is automatic. which all comes down again to why do teams take and miss crazy 3's in a row when they could settle for a surer 2.

you know what i heard last night in the pels game. the ball is moving around and a player makes a 19' shot, and the announcer says ",,,and he hits the deep 2". LMAO. "deep" 2. so now 19' is a deep 2? i thought a deep 2 was something like 22'???

No one in their right mind is or would argue that you should take 3s every time down the court, especially at the expense of a layup, so that's a pretty obvious straw man. They're just encouraged and offenses are designed for them to take more than they used to, ideally at the expense of a possessions that would have likely ended in a contested shorter jump shot otherwise.

Doesn't mean that no 3 can ever be a bad shot, players can take bad shots today just like they could in the 70s or 80s well before this theory came into play.

except that there already are teams taking a third of their shots as 3s. so what encourages a team to take 50. didn't hou take 50 last year? why? cuz it was there to take? and teams are pulling up for the 3 on the break. are you say they'll only take the layup if there's a clear path. because i'm of the belief that it is a matter of choosing the easiest shot, a contested 2 or an uncontested 3, and i believe they would rather settle for the more rewarding uncontested shot. no one can fathom a game wherein a team takes nothing but 3's and that is the only thought holding anyone back. the probable reason why a team will never take all their shots from the three is because all the players CAN'T SHOOT THE 3, and that is the only reason.

this is darwinism at work

[Johnlac1]

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.

Giving teams extra foul shots or even automatic points after a certain amount of two point attempts would make teams think about their shot strategy.
If say after a team took 50 two point shots (off. rebound put backs inside the lane don't count...the team would have to take the ball outside of the lane for the shot to count towards 50 shots), they started getting either an extra foul shot or an automatic one point (I favor the latter) after a foul was committed on a two point attempt, I would think many teams would do the analytics about getting an extra point for a player getting fouled on a two point attempt.
If a player was fouled while shooting a two point shot and made the basket, they would also get an automatic point and a free throw. Or two free throws instead of one.
For the sake of speeding up the game and deterring defensives from committing obvious fouls on shot attempts, I'd favor giving teams an automatic one point of a fouled two point shot attempt after fifty two point shot attempts.