So Do We Like the Amount of Scoring in Today’s Game?

[levon]

Homogeneity of play styles is a problem today. It's not so much any one metric or the number of 3s as much as it is how these numbers are achieved, how teams are constructed, etc.

One thing I like about the Lakers is that they're a big, inside scoring team. They're really unique in this respect. Even though the Rockets get flack for chucking 3s, their microball lineup is fascinating as well. I think the game could use more diversity like that.

[Sedale Threatt]

If this was a video game and you could mess with sliders, I would definitely tone down the 3-point shooting. But that's just a function of the way the NBA chooses to lay out the court. It only took three-plus decades to figure this out, but it's just more mathematically efficient to focus on those shots given the larger reward. The only way you're going to change that is to push the 3-point line back, and I don't think they're seriously considering that.

Otherwise, while I'd never quit watching the NBA, sumo basketball with dudes grappling each other all over the court and virtually zero transition game was really getting to be unwatchable for me. I didn't fall in love with hoops because of Bruce Bowen or Charles Oakley. I fell in love with basketball because it's the ultimate showcase for amazing athletes to run and cut and pass and shoot and dunk and improvise. So for the most part, I've been enormously happy that we've moved back in that direction.

I disagree I liked the fact that players like Bruce Bowen had roles. It displayed the important layer of the defensive end. The game seemed way more diverse back then. Instead today you just have a bunch of players jacking up 3 pointers. I think the game needs to fix this aspect of the game big time. And I also liked the fact that only the fast players excelled in transition. Nowadays most players can excell in transition and it just isn’t as fun and it makes the game way more predictable.

Bruce Bowen would still have a role today. Indeed, he would probably be even more valuable as an elite perimeter defender who can also shoot. But that type of player isn't what got me into basketball. That was the Magic Johnsons and Larry Birds and Michael Jordans, and I am all for maximizing the opportunity for players of that caliber to do all the amazing things they are capable of. For example, I find if vastly superior for Damian Lillard to have the space and freedom to do what he did yesterday than some inferior stiff who doesn't have 1/4 of his talent mug him all over the court. I've seen the NBA change dramatically over the years since I started watching in the late 80s, and for my taste that era was easily the worst. Iso / half-court basketball sucks.

[draftnightsuit]

Homogeneity of play styles is a problem today. It's not so much any one metric or the number of 3s as much as it is how these numbers are achieved, how teams are constructed, etc.

One thing I like about the Lakers is that they're a big, inside scoring team. They're really unique in this respect. Even though the Rockets get flack for chucking 3s, their microball lineup is fascinating as well. I think the game could use more diversity like that.

The league has always been homogeneous. Teams follow the trends of the dominant team/s. As Jeff Van Gundy says; “it’s a copycat league”.

The ‘80s were a run-and-gun fastbreak era. The ‘90s were post/midrange era. The ‘00s were the iso ball era. The ‘10s were the pace-and-space era.

If you want some kind of diverse league, it means you’re looking for a league that has never existed in history.

Sort of reminds me of fans who complain about the lack of parity when there has never been parity in the history of the league.

[Hussien Fatal]

Every team averages over 100 compared to years ago when only the elite offensive teams averaged over 100.

In the late 90’s early 2000’s it felt like every bucket that was scored seemed like a big accomplishment and I often found myself clapping and cheering more each bucket.

Nowadays scoring comes so easy it just seems much less impressive. Stats are clearly inflated because of the rule book which allows easy offense.

So my question is compared to about 25 years ago do you guys find the game more enjoyable or less entertaining?

The game should always be allowed to evolve.

Scoring isn't easy because the rules made scoring easy.

The rule changes actually forced teams to move away from ISO's and post-ups and that's what led to better floor spacing and better shot selection which led to higher offensive efficiency and higher scores.

20 years ago, the Mavericks led the NBA in offensive rating, led by Dirk and Nash (both terrific 3pt shooters), but beyond those two the only other 3pt shooter in the starting lineup was Finley and he shot just 33.9%. They had just two players who took 4 or more 3pt shots a game and averaged 35% or better.

The Mavs lead the league in offensive rating this year too, but they have 6 players that took 4 or more 3pt attempts a game and averaged 35% or better. Their current starting lineup features 4 players shooting 35% or better from 3pt and the 5th is ironically Luka who's shooting just 31.5% himself but sets those guys up.

Better floor spacing is simply the evolution of the game, and gaining that without having to compromise your defense is all part of the puzzle.

The rules 100% played a large roll in the increased scoring, dating back to the no hand check rule. The most recent rule change was the 14 seconds Shot clock rule.

[Hussien Fatal]

Homogeneity of play styles is a problem today. It's not so much any one metric or the number of 3s as much as it is how these numbers are achieved, how teams are constructed, etc.

One thing I like about the Lakers is that they're a big, inside scoring team. They're really unique in this respect. Even though the Rockets get flack for chucking 3s, their microball lineup is fascinating as well. I think the game could use more diversity like that.

The league has always been homogeneous. Teams follow the trends of the dominant team/s. As Jeff Van Gundy says; “it’s a copycat league”.

The ‘80s were a run-and-gun fastbreak era. The ‘90s were post/midrange era. The ‘00s were the iso ball era. The ‘10s were the pace-and-space era.

If you want some kind of diverse league, it means you’re looking for a league that has never existed in history.

Sort of reminds me of fans who complain about the lack of parity when there has never been parity in the history of the league.

I’m sorry I don’t really follow you, you lost me on the second to last paragraph.

[levon]

Homogeneity of play styles is a problem today. It's not so much any one metric or the number of 3s as much as it is how these numbers are achieved, how teams are constructed, etc.

One thing I like about the Lakers is that they're a big, inside scoring team. They're really unique in this respect. Even though the Rockets get flack for chucking 3s, their microball lineup is fascinating as well. I think the game could use more diversity like that.

The league has always been homogeneous. Teams follow the trends of the dominant team/s. As Jeff Van Gundy says; “it’s a copycat league”.

The ‘80s were a run-and-gun fastbreak era. The ‘90s were post/midrange era. The ‘00s were the iso ball era. The ‘10s were the pace-and-space era.

If you want some kind of diverse league, it means you’re looking for a league that has never existed in history.

Sort of reminds me of fans who complain about the lack of parity when there has never been parity in the history of the league.

I mean, I never suggested that it used to be better back in the day. I just think that that's one of the problems with the NBA experience. I suppose you can make the case that that's always been a problem, or that it's fine.

Historically, I generally agree that more bulwarks to scoring will make the game more compelling, minimize blowouts, build better rivalries, etc. Right now it's like the polar opposite of soccer where they score too little imo. There's just scoring possession saturation. But I think that might just be because I grew up watching the 2000s. Maybe kids watching now grow up to lament that the game is no longer the way that it's been now.

[JonFromVA]

Every team averages over 100 compared to years ago when only the elite offensive teams averaged over 100.

In the late 90’s early 2000’s it felt like every bucket that was scored seemed like a big accomplishment and I often found myself clapping and cheering more each bucket.

Nowadays scoring comes so easy it just seems much less impressive. Stats are clearly inflated because of the rule book which allows easy offense.

So my question is compared to about 25 years ago do you guys find the game more enjoyable or less entertaining?

The game should always be allowed to evolve.

Scoring isn't easy because the rules made scoring easy.

The rule changes actually forced teams to move away from ISO's and post-ups and that's what led to better floor spacing and better shot selection which led to higher offensive efficiency and higher scores.

20 years ago, the Mavericks led the NBA in offensive rating, led by Dirk and Nash (both terrific 3pt shooters), but beyond those two the only other 3pt shooter in the starting lineup was Finley and he shot just 33.9%. They had just two players who took 4 or more 3pt shots a game and averaged 35% or better.

The Mavs lead the league in offensive rating this year too, but they have 6 players that took 4 or more 3pt attempts a game and averaged 35% or better. Their current starting lineup features 4 players shooting 35% or better from 3pt and the 5th is ironically Luka who's shooting just 31.5% himself but sets those guys up.

Better floor spacing is simply the evolution of the game, and gaining that without having to compromise your defense is all part of the puzzle.

The rules 100% played a large roll in the increased scoring, dating back to the no hand check rule. The most recent rule change was the 14 seconds Shot clock rule.

We didn't get the no hand-check rule in a vacuum, though, we also got legalized zones that made it harder to score in ISO.

And the 14-second rule is just forcing teams to play with faster pace, something they used to do by default before players decided standing in one spot and pounding the air out of the ball until an appropriate hole opened up in the defense due to the 3 second rule.

We've seen teams flirt with floor spacing over the years, we've even seen teams flirt with shooting lots of 3pt shots, and we've even seen players who could create their own 3pt shot. We just didn't see teams put it all together like modern teams and players are doing.

That's evolution that's been encouraged by the rule changes, not caused by the rule change.

[JonFromVA]

Homogeneity of play styles is a problem today. It's not so much any one metric or the number of 3s as much as it is how these numbers are achieved, how teams are constructed, etc.

One thing I like about the Lakers is that they're a big, inside scoring team. They're really unique in this respect. Even though the Rockets get flack for chucking 3s, their microball lineup is fascinating as well. I think the game could use more diversity like that.

The league has always been homogeneous. Teams follow the trends of the dominant team/s. As Jeff Van Gundy says; “it’s a copycat league”.

The ‘80s were a run-and-gun fastbreak era. The ‘90s were post/midrange era. The ‘00s were the iso ball era. The ‘10s were the pace-and-space era.

If you want some kind of diverse league, it means you’re looking for a league that has never existed in history.

Sort of reminds me of fans who complain about the lack of parity when there has never been parity in the history of the league.

It's a copycat league, but copying a champion isn't easy and I think there is a lot of diversity in play-style around the league because no GM can just snap their fingers and make 2 superstars and 3 guys who shoot, defend, and share the ball well appear.

[nzahir]

No I hate it

I hate how EVERYTHING favors offense, especially as someone who likes to play defense irl and isn't a super talented scorer, but loves to hustle and play pesky defense

How are you supposed to even defend anymore consistently?

Teams are 4-5 spread out a lot now

Not allowed to hand check

Offensive players just flail into you when driving or shooting 3s and its always a foul on you instead of no call or a charge (many of those kicksouts on 3s...Harden, Dame, Lou, Lowry, etc)

The constant whistles actually make it unwatchable for me to watch full games. I rather just watch the 4th Q and highlights now

[Lalouie]

i like the scoring.it's up to the defense to evolve.

i don't like the 3 as is. move the line back 2.5', widen the floor and eliminate the short 3pt shot. this opens the floor, brings back the midrange, keeps announcers from ever saying "long 2", and effectively STOPS centers from ever taking the 3 again.

also stops players from taking a 3 shot when only 1 or 2 points are needed

[Optms]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2004-nba-eastern-conference-finals-pistons-vs-pacers.html

Need to go back to this tbh

Not every series played out like these but man, that was a great series.

[Metallikid]

Yes, it is too high. When the best defensive teams in the league are still giving up more than 105 points then it's too high.

[Hussien Fatal]

The game should always be allowed to evolve.

Scoring isn't easy because the rules made scoring easy.

The rule changes actually forced teams to move away from ISO's and post-ups and that's what led to better floor spacing and better shot selection which led to higher offensive efficiency and higher scores.

20 years ago, the Mavericks led the NBA in offensive rating, led by Dirk and Nash (both terrific 3pt shooters), but beyond those two the only other 3pt shooter in the starting lineup was Finley and he shot just 33.9%. They had just two players who took 4 or more 3pt shots a game and averaged 35% or better.

The Mavs lead the league in offensive rating this year too, but they have 6 players that took 4 or more 3pt attempts a game and averaged 35% or better. Their current starting lineup features 4 players shooting 35% or better from 3pt and the 5th is ironically Luka who's shooting just 31.5% himself but sets those guys up.

Better floor spacing is simply the evolution of the game, and gaining that without having to compromise your defense is all part of the puzzle.

The rules 100% played a large roll in the increased scoring, dating back to the no hand check rule. The most recent rule change was the 14 seconds Shot clock rule.

We didn't get the no hand-check rule in a vacuum, though, we also got legalized zones that made it harder to score in ISO.

And the 14-second rule is just forcing teams to play with faster pace, something they used to do by default before players decided standing in one spot and pounding the air out of the ball until an appropriate hole opened up in the defense due to the 3 second rule.

We've seen teams flirt with floor spacing over the years, we've even seen teams flirt with shooting lots of 3pt shots, and we've even seen players who could create their own 3pt shot. We just didn't see teams put it all together like modern teams and players are doing.

That's evolution that's been encouraged by the rule changes, not caused by the rule change.

Forcing teams to play a faster pace = more possessions which =‘s more points. And I disagree I think the increased scoring was caused mostly by the rule changes and the influx in three point shooting.

[Hussien Fatal]

Yes, it is too high. When the best defensive teams in the league are still giving up more than 105 points then it's too high.

Agree 110%

[DaPessimist]

I'm not impressed with the 3-point chucking. Reminds me of Women's basketball, lower division Men's basketball, and Rec Ball... where the players lack the skill and physical ability to do anything other than shoot 3's.

[scrabbarista]

My opinion/two cents is that as long as defenders are still able to affect a game, then I like scoring. I'm generally good with where the game is at on the court.

[JonFromVA]

The rules 100% played a large roll in the increased scoring, dating back to the no hand check rule. The most recent rule change was the 14 seconds Shot clock rule.

We didn't get the no hand-check rule in a vacuum, though, we also got legalized zones that made it harder to score in ISO.

And the 14-second rule is just forcing teams to play with faster pace, something they used to do by default before players decided standing in one spot and pounding the air out of the ball until an appropriate hole opened up in the defense due to the 3 second rule.

We've seen teams flirt with floor spacing over the years, we've even seen teams flirt with shooting lots of 3pt shots, and we've even seen players who could create their own 3pt shot. We just didn't see teams put it all together like modern teams and players are doing.

That's evolution that's been encouraged by the rule changes, not caused by the rule change.

Forcing teams to play a faster pace = more possessions which =‘s more points. And I disagree I think the increased scoring was caused mostly by the rule changes and the influx in three point shooting.

We've seen changes in pace over the years, though. An increase caused by a rule change is simply an aesthetic. It's an improvement to the game - more action. If you don't want to consider pace, we have ways to do that.

If just firing up more 3pters was some sort of an answer to being a better team and scoring more with higher efficiency, then those Jim O'Brien Celtics teams would have had better success.

[Curmudgeon]

I'd rather see more head butts and fisticuffs, so that I know the players really care instead of being participants in a video game.

[WolfAddict]

I'm of the opinion that if offence can evolve to mean more points, why can't defences evolve to stop it?

[ILOVEIT]

I'd rather watch a skilled guard score efficiently from range then watch a plodding guy like Buck Williams try and hit 8 footers.

BTW....good ball today isn't chucking threes....it's what the Warriors were playing...Spurs...movement...tic tac to passing. So the best of todays game is much more pleasing than watching Barkley try and entice illegal defense by pounding the ball for 15 seconds.