2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[Doctor MJ]

This is the best article I've read on the power of the 3 pointer and why nerfing it is a good idea.

https://deanondraft.substack.com/p/its-time-to-nerf-the-3-pointer?r=24q2x6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

I appreciate the link and opening for discussion. Having read the article, I have some quibbles.

1. The idea that we're essentially seeing offense score to the point that it's too easy for them, I'd object to this on the ground that when you watch a possession you don't feel like a 3-pointer is 50% more of a success than a 2-pointer. And the reality is that we are not at peak FG%, which happened in '83-84, 40 years ago.

2. Just because teams today shoot a lot of 3's compared to the past doesn't mean they're all playing the same style. Frankly the style oftentimes depends much on the team's star and his particular strengths and weaknesses.

3. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Tony Allens of the world went away because they were too well-rounded. Quite the opposite.

4. "less athletic today"? Oh I don't think so. Mobility is at an absolute premium.

On the other hand:

1. The rise of the 3 certainly has changed the aesthetic of the game, and it's fine to prefer how it used to look. Personally, I think the 3 has brought more good than bad and that the aesthetic blight on the modern game comes from officiation-related woes.

2. The fact that nearly all players nowadays focus on shooting from 3-point range, regardless of body type, does decrease the diversity of player types in the league, and it's good to mourn this.

3. He's absolutely right that the NBA is more random today, and there are drawbacks to that. I don't think what you actually want is zero randomness in a spectator sport, so a balance is to be struck...but no one in 2001 was saying "Y'know what the NBA needs? More randomness."

In the end I personally don't see 3-point shooting as a problem at this time, and even those with active concerns about it generally aren't going to embrace a radical change as the author proposes, but it's good to think about such things.

For me a line to cross would be 50% league-wide FG% for reasons similar to what he gave in his article: If it ever gets to a point where players missing a shot is more noteworthy than making it, that's not good for the excitement of the game.

As it is my focus, were I czar of NBA basketball strategy, would be to sour the milk that is incentivizing players to play the refs rather than the basket. Both offense and defense is guilty of playing the refs of course, but my guess is that the changes I'd be looking to make in how the refs officiate would help the defense more than offense.

[itsxtray]

This is the best article I've read on the power of the 3 pointer and why nerfing it is a good idea.

https://deanondraft.substack.com/p/its-time-to-nerf-the-3-pointer?r=24q2x6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

I appreciate the link and opening for discussion. Having read the article, I have some quibbles.

1. The idea that we're essentially seeing offense score to the point that it's too easy for them, I'd object to this on the ground that when you watch a possession you don't feel like a 3-pointer is 50% more of a success than a 2-pointer. And the reality is that we are not at peak FG%, which happened in '83-84, 40 years ago.

2. Just because teams today shoot a lot of 3's compared to the past doesn't mean they're all playing the same style. Frankly the style oftentimes depends much on the team's star and his particular strengths and weaknesses.

3. I don't think it makes sense to say that the Tony Allens of the world went away because they were too well-rounded. Quite the opposite.

4. "less athletic today"? Oh I don't think so. Mobility is at an absolute premium.

On the other hand:

1. The rise of the 3 certainly has changed the aesthetic of the game, and it's fine to prefer how it used to look. Personally, I think the 3 has brought more good than bad and that the aesthetic blight on the modern game comes from officiation-related woes.

2. The fact that nearly all players nowadays focus on shooting from 3-point range, regardless of body type, does decrease the diversity of player types in the league, and it's good to mourn this.

3. He's absolutely right that the NBA is more random today, and there are drawbacks to that. I don't think what you actually want is zero randomness in a spectator sport, so a balance is to be struck...but no one in 2001 was saying "Y'know what the NBA needs? More randomness."

In the end I personally don't see 3-point shooting as a problem at this time, and even those with active concerns about it generally aren't going to embrace a radical change as the author proposes, but it's good to think about such things.

For me a line to cross would be 50% league-wide FG% for reasons similar to what he gave in his article: If it ever gets to a point where players missing a shot is more noteworthy than making it, that's not good for the excitement of the game.

As it is my focus, were I czar of NBA basketball strategy, would be to sour the milk that is incentivizing players to play the refs rather than the basket. Both offense and defense is guilty of playing the refs of course, but my guess is that the changes I'd be looking to make in how the refs officiate would help the defense more than offense.

Yeah, his solution makes sense, but it would never happen, so it's really a non-starter. I tend to agree with you as well; I just thought he made the best case for nerfing the three if it had to be done. We already saw how a slight officiating change reduced offense after the All-Star break. Get rid of all the foul-baiting and let the defense be more physical, and we're more or less right back to equilibrium.

[tsherkin]

2. The fact that nearly all players nowadays focus on shooting from 3-point range, regardless of body type, does decrease the diversity of player types in the league, and it's good to mourn this.

This is true, but we're also seeing star profiles showing that this isn't super necessary. SGA, Jokic, Embiid, they are showing us that you don't need huge volume to be successful. Same same Giannis from a couple years back, and even Lebron, who isn't a hyper-volume 3pt shooter. Or like Jimmy Butler when he's healthy. You can off-set need for 3pt shooting if you can hit a high enough raw FG% and draw fouls, after all, and if you can generate enough looks in close. And even as far back as like 2013, we saw what Lebron was doing, which would still be quite efficient in today's environment. Someone like Tatum is showing that overprioritizing the 3 can put you in a lot of trouble, as he is having another poor showing as a scorer in the Finals due to his lack of other scoring tools. As ever with the league, we will see this pendulum based on the particular talent playing at the time.

I think one thing people need to recall is that teams need talent to be good, and teams try to overcome dearth of talent with whatever edge they can find. 3pt shooting can sometimes help close that gap, but it comes in big runs of heavy variance, which causes issues over shorter samples... like a playoff series. We even saw that with Steph, and he's the greatest 3pt shooter in league history. It's very clear that a more balanced game is still more reliable and effective on the whole, and we've already seen teams settle down some over the past half decade or so. The volume is still there, but we're seeing stars capable of getting it done without big 3pt volume. And if someone like Kawhi was ever heathy, that'd be even more ground into people's minds, I think. Leonard is useless at staying healthy, but he's been a moderate-volume 3pt shooter for most of his starting career and has been a 61% TS (+3% rTS) guy these past 7 seasons or so, and up over 62% for 3 years running. Granted, sample size, but he has an excellent mid-range game off the bounce and from the post, gets a decent proportion of shots in close, is a monster finisher, draws fouls at an above average rate but isn't a spammer like Harden/Embiid. He's a very good 3pt shooter but doesn't abuse it with volume, and he's an outstanding FT shooter.

It can be done, but as ever, teams try to copy what has worked even if they don't have the talent to do it. Donn Nelson was piloting running teams for ages for that purpose, trying to get out ahead of the set defense, leveraging 3pt shooting earlier on, etc, etc. But his teams often had the same issues we see from modern offenses, where the jump shooting cools off and they weren't backed by defense and then they ran into trouble. Same same, right?

So I think we'll eventually start to see even more of a push back to what was there before because the way defenses play right now, the mid-range is frequently available and teams are looking more for the 3 and the shot in the RA than anything else. Wing post is a thing, playmaking hubs from bigs are a thing with like Jokic, Sengun and Sabonis. Lots of interesting options to consider as one casts a look over the whole league.

[penbeast0]

I think changing the scoring has zero chance of happening. Moving the 3 point line out to where it's an arc from the foul line at the sidelines arcing up toward the middle makes sense. It eliminates the "easy" corner 3 but still rewards the great outside shooters like Curry or Lillard who can stretch the floor out that far. Hopefully, it will get rid of the idea that every team has to have at least 9 3-point shooters to be viable and we can see more variety in the role players and offenses. Great players will be great in either case but let's get a little more variety in the rest of the game.

[tsherkin]

Great players will be great in either case but let's get a little more variety in the rest of the game.

I think that was kind of my point, though. In previous eras, we had variety among good teams... and we still have that now. But bad teams and mid teams were generally always boring to watch. Incapable of executing, lacking finishing ability, no really dynamic players, spamming every gimmick they could think of to overcome dearth of talent.

It doesn't strike me as super accurate to look at, like, a healthy Clippers team, the Lakers, the Nuggets, the Warriors, the Suns, the Mavs, and so forth and say that they all play the same or just spam threes, you know?

[Owly]

I think changing the scoring has zero chance of happening. Moving the 3 point line out to where it's an arc from the foul line at the sidelines arcing up toward the middle makes sense. It eliminates the "easy" corner 3 but still rewards the great outside shooters like Curry or Lillard who can stretch the floor out that far. Hopefully, it will get rid of the idea that every team has to have at least 9 3-point shooters to be viable and we can see more variety in the role players and offenses. Great players will be great in either case but let's get a little more variety in the rest of the game.

The issue with a (further out) constant arc is that it renders attacking from and defending the corners near pointless. It's now a long-ish distance shot, an easy place to get trapped from and cause a turnover and gets no additional value. Unless you extend the court out which like everything else seems like a non-starter.

It's personal taste I guess but my guess is that it might lead to a more crowded paint, a tilt towards size more than skill and a less pleasing product for my own tastes (tbh preferences aren't that strong - I'll watch any era). Of course we don't always foresee all consequences in advance and I may be wrong.

I'm all for variety ... I'm not sure ... punishing (too harsh a word?) players for getting too good at a difficult shot is the best way to achieve it (whether or not present levels constitutes a "problem" is as we see here, up for debate).

[itsxtray]

Yep, this is why the correct answer is to change the values of 2s and 3s, but it would be such a fundamental change that it's a non-starter, even though it's the correct one.

[jalengreen]

Somewhat related (really just some empirical evidence of what we already know), this is a neat thread I saw earlier this season with some visualizations of points per shot by distance

Read on Twitter

[Colbinii]

Somewhat related (really just some empirical evidence of what we already know), this is a neat thread I saw earlier this season with some visualizations of points per shot by distance

Read on Twitter

Excellent stuff. This is definitely a data point in support of "change not just for change" and change to actually benefit the league as it gets stagnant.

[ardee]

Man zero posts on this thread after a Finals game would've been unthinkable even five years ago.

But I understand though, it's just not resonating with me this year.

[Dr Positivity]

Tatum will be Hayes level best player on a champion

[mikejames23]

Tatum will be Hayes level best player on a champion

Yeah, I see him as a lesser legend as well, but he's still very dangerous even if he's not good as Luka or Jokic.

[Dr Positivity]

Tatum will be Hayes level best player on a champion

Yeah, I see him as a lesser legend as well, but he's still very dangerous even if he's not good as Luka or Jokic.

I've made the argument before the lack of "tier 1.5" stars winning titles since Isiah was somewhat bad luck with ones like Webber, Ewing being possible and better timing for some stars like how the Payton Sonics peaked one year too late and the Drexler Blazers two years too early.

[Statlanta]

Man zero posts on this thread after a Finals game would've been unthinkable even five years ago.

But I understand though, it's just not resonating with me this year.

Sometimes a team can win and there is nothing meaningful to be learned from their victory.

Just a better more deeper team wins.

[Colbinii]

Tatum will be Hayes level best player on a champion

Nah, Kobe level

[Dutchball97]

Tatum will be Hayes level best player on a champion

Nah, Kobe level

2000 Kobe maybe.

[falcolombardi]

Soooo, what are your poy rankings looking like right now? Cause we are in a hella weird situation with the best player on the champion team being not all that

Luka being poy seems like a easy alternative but he didnt set the world on fire exactly against either or boston for a poy player imo (was great vs minny ) but he still has the best convo of reg season brilliance + long run

Jokic and shai definetely out with 2nd round exits

[therealbig3]

Nah Jokic is still #1 for me. He was just so much better than everyone else that it doesn’t really matter. Only way he would have been surpassed by Luka is if Luka was dominant in the Finals, but he hasn’t been that.

I’ve got

1. Jokic
2. Luka
3. Shai
4. Tatum
5. LeBron

Brunson, Gobert, Edwards as honorable mentions.

[jalengreen]

Soooo, what are your poy rankings looking like right now? Cause we are in a hella weird situation with the best player on the champion team being not all that

Luka being poy seems like a easy alternative but he didnt set the world on fire exactly against either or boston for a poy player imo (was great vs minny ) but he still has the best convo of reg season brilliance + long run

Jokic and shai definetely out with 2nd round exits

Shai’s mine rn, he was lowkey my MVP pick and although he had an R2 exit, Jokic (the other main MVP contender) did as well. Wasn’t as high on Luka’s RS, and it’s not like his PS is historically notable or anything.

It does feel weird and I wonder if I’m underrating the best player on an all-time great team by not putting him in the top 3. But prolly not lol

[Doctor MJ]

Soooo, what are your poy rankings looking like right now? Cause we are in a hella weird situation with the best player on the champion team being not all that

Luka being poy seems like a easy alternative but he didnt set the world on fire exactly against either or boston for a poy player imo (was great vs minny ) but he still has the best convo of reg season brilliance + long run

Jokic and shai definetely out with 2nd round exits

Well for me it's between Luka, Jokic & Shai. The idea that a guy gets eliminated simply because his team loses early doesn't fit with my assessment, and this year is a great year why:

Who was the best player in the Denver-Minnesota series: Jokic.
Who was the best player in the OKC-Dallas series: Shai.

When a guy is the best player in a series where his team loses, hard for me to knock all that much.

ftr, aside from the fact that I'm really not looking to object to those voting Luka #1 generally, I think you can make definite case that Luka's WCF performance against the best RS defense was the most impressive performance by anyone in these playoffs. If he gets held back for me, it will be because he didn't have that much success in very series.

Beyond those 3, I'm leaning Tatum for the 4th spot. We'll see how it ends up, but being the star of a team with an absolutely dominant RS & PS run, is no small thing.

From there I'm pondering Brunson, Ant & Gobert. I see all 3 as at least locks for my HM, which I give to 5 more guys beyond my Top 5. My HM isn't intended to be a literal POY 6-10 to be clear, but yeah, pretty sure they'd be in my 6-10.