Constructing the Timberwolves rotation

[Jedzz]

A touchdown is a touchdown a FG is not a TD
An Extra point is not a FG or a touchdown. A two point conversion is not an extra point a FG or a Touchdown. A three point basket is just a basket. You know you are talking nonsense just to argue Mattya.
The ABA made up this gimmick in a desperate attempt to compete with the NBA.

A field goal and extra point are exactly the same, as are a touchdown and a two point conversion. I’m not trying to argue just seems like you are holding the two sports to different standards of arbitrary scoring for some reason.

I think KG's point is more around the arbitrary scoring leading to a shift in the way the game is played, based on different scoring for almost identical outcomes/actions.

A better comparison perhaps would be if the NFL awarded 8 points for a passing touchdown and 6 points for a run, leading to teams leaning heavily on passing play as a result.

I don't agree with him necessarily, but I think his overall point is being a little misunderstood/misrepresented.

Sounds a lot like a fantasy football discussion now. The difference in touchdown score for QB vs RB/WR, or pts per yard run vs...
The one FF scoring difference I never seemed to think was wrong was the additional points for longer field goal distance. Maybe because of the 3 in basketball. That additional skill level needed to make it from further distance and repeatability in order for your team to want you to try to. That might be a better comparison. If football were to change longer field goals to 4 pts, say 4 for beyond 40 and 5 pts if over 50 yards. That would all of a sudden put a greater premium on skilled field goal kickers than in the past. Maybe more similar to what we see occured in NBA. But if you look at the best 3 pt shooter now, or for example Steph Curry, you can't say that is all he is good for. He's capable of much more than just that. I think so anyway.

[Mattya]

A touchdown is a touchdown a FG is not a TD
An Extra point is not a FG or a touchdown. A two point conversion is not an extra point a FG or a Touchdown. A three point basket is just a basket. You know you are talking nonsense just to argue Mattya.
The ABA made up this gimmick in a desperate attempt to compete with the NBA.

A field goal and extra point are exactly the same, as are a touchdown and a two point conversion. I’m not trying to argue just seems like you are holding the two sports to different standards of arbitrary scoring for some reason.

I think KG's point is more around the arbitrary scoring leading to a shift in the way the game is played, based on different scoring for almost identical outcomes/actions.

A better comparison perhaps would be if the NFL awarded 8 points for a passing touchdown and 6 points for a run, leading to teams leaning heavily on passing play as a result.

I don't agree with him necessarily, but I think his overall point is being a little misunderstood/misrepresented.

I mean they already did when they decided that a field goal and touchdown were different and changed their values. How is that any less arbitrary than the NBA 3 point line? If the NBA added a second goal above the hoop that you had to kick in I’m pretty sure most people would consider that more ridiculous than the NBA 3 point line. But because NFL rules were formed and changed over 100 years ago it is just the norm. The shift in the way teams played has only been within the last 10-15 years. That has more to do with analytics and that is impacting how every sport is played. In my mind I don’t see how we can say a 3 point shot is no different than a 2 point shot compared to a 2 point conversion and any other touchdown play.

[KGdaBom]

Football
Touchdown:6 points
Field goal: 3 points
Extra point:1 Point
2 point conversion:2 points

Why are these things awarded different points when this is two different combinations of essentially the same thing? By your logic with the NBA 3 point line. The 2 point conversion should be 6 points and the extra point should be 3 or the other way around. These are just as arbitrary point systems as the NBA has.

A touchdown is a touchdown a FG is not a TD
An Extra point is not a FG or a touchdown. A two point conversion is not an extra point a FG or a Touchdown. A three point basket is just a basket. You know you are talking nonsense just to argue Mattya.
The ABA made up this gimmick in a desperate attempt to compete with the NBA.

A field goal and extra point are exactly the same, as are a touchdown and a two point conversion. I’m not trying to argue just seems like you are holding the two sports to different standards of arbitrary scoring for some reason.

They both involve kicking the ball through the goalposts or advancing the ball across the goal line. They are not the exact same thing just like a FT is not the same thing as a FG. The XP is basically a free point awarded to a team that scores a TD. They can go for the one almost sure thing or they can go for the 50-50 2pointer. The FT should in most occasions be a free point awarded as a penalty against the fouling team. I have no problem with FTs being worth 1 point instead of two because it is not the same as a FG. However, a dunk and a 3 point FG are both FGs and nobody is forcing a player to shoot it from long distance. Players should IMO be able to shoot FGs from wherever they like without any stupid bonus points. Just my opinion. I think the three is very bad for the game. I find watching three point shots to be very boring while I admire great post play. Working the ball in close should always be the goal of the offense IMO.

[KGdaBom]

What about golf? Everyone essentially does the same thing and gets the ball in the hole, why are they awarded different point values?

They aren't awarded different point values in golf. Golf is just a total of the strokes taken to complete the usually 18 holes. The better you do on a hole the cooler a name they have for the accomplishment, but all shots are counted as one each. Unless you are talking about penalties. there may be another sport that awards distance bonuses, but none of the major sports do. Maybe target based sports like shooting award different points for making a bullseye from a longer distance. I'm not even sure about that.

[KGdaBom]

The 3 has been around since 1979. Probable a number of reasons it never became what is is now before now. Today how the shooter is protected, turning a 3 into a 4 is really damaging and it doesn't take much. Players actually growing up practicing the shot, vs it just becoming a thing the very year Larry Bird and Magic joined the league. Funny how quickly Bird took to it anyway. Teams being so obsessed with physical anomolies before actual shooting skills in drafts. Nobody bright enough to realize that a certain percentage of 3s is enough to keep up with higher probability possessions of two at a time.

I think the and1 is the great equalizer and teams with a player great at drawing fouls while also great at finishing, or great at getting refs to make calls for them is one way to keep up wiith a good 3pt shooting team. But if you focus on your roster and getting 4 to 5 capable 3pt shooters out there at all times that sounds like a great plan to me. It doesn't have to mean that's all they can do. We know they need to be able to threaten to drive the net and finight with layups and dunks as well. We know this offense will be seeing some pick n roll, maybe pick and pop?

Shooting a lot of threes is winning basketball and that's why it sucks so much. Take the gimmick away and teams will go back to playing IMO real basketball. The goal should not be to take a bunch of long shots because you get bonus points for them The goal should be to make a high percentage of shots with them all worth the same.

[KGdaBom]

A touchdown is a touchdown a FG is not a TD
An Extra point is not a FG or a touchdown. A two point conversion is not an extra point a FG or a Touchdown. A three point basket is just a basket. You know you are talking nonsense just to argue Mattya.
The ABA made up this gimmick in a desperate attempt to compete with the NBA.

A field goal and extra point are exactly the same, as are a touchdown and a two point conversion. I’m not trying to argue just seems like you are holding the two sports to different standards of arbitrary scoring for some reason.

I think KG's point is more around the arbitrary scoring leading to a shift in the way the game is played, based on different scoring for almost identical outcomes/actions.

A better comparison perhaps would be if the NFL awarded 8 points for a passing touchdown and 6 points for a run, leading to teams leaning heavily on passing play as a result.

I don't agree with him necessarily, but I think his overall point is being a little misunderstood/misrepresented.

Very good analogy. The run would virtually disappear from the game if they gave more points to passing TDs. Kind of like post play is disappearing from basketball.

[Mattya]

A touchdown is a touchdown a FG is not a TD
An Extra point is not a FG or a touchdown. A two point conversion is not an extra point a FG or a Touchdown. A three point basket is just a basket. You know you are talking nonsense just to argue Mattya.
The ABA made up this gimmick in a desperate attempt to compete with the NBA.

A field goal and extra point are exactly the same, as are a touchdown and a two point conversion. I’m not trying to argue just seems like you are holding the two sports to different standards of arbitrary scoring for some reason.

They both involve kicking the ball through the goalposts or advancing the ball across the goal line. They are not the exact same thing just like a FT is not the same thing as a FG. The XP is basically a free point awarded to a team that scores a TD. They can go for the one almost sure thing or they can go for the 50-50 2pointer. The FT should in most occasions be a free point awarded as a penalty against the fouling team. I have no problem with FTs being worth 1 point instead of two because it is not the same as a FG. However, a dunk and a 3 point FG are both FGs and nobody is forcing a player to shoot it from long distance. Players should IMO be able to shoot FGs from wherever they like without any stupid bonus points. Just my opinion. I think the three is very bad for the game. I find watching three point shots to be very boring while I admire great post play. Working the ball in close should always be the goal of the offense IMO.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. How is an extra point any different than any other field goal in football? Or how is a two point conversion any different than any other touchdown? This is the difference between a field goal and free throw in basketball where you have an uncontested shot. Extra points and two point conversions have defenses so I don’t see how we are determining they are any different than the regular scoring plays in football.

[King Malta]

A field goal and extra point are exactly the same, as are a touchdown and a two point conversion. I’m not trying to argue just seems like you are holding the two sports to different standards of arbitrary scoring for some reason.

I think KG's point is more around the arbitrary scoring leading to a shift in the way the game is played, based on different scoring for almost identical outcomes/actions.

A better comparison perhaps would be if the NFL awarded 8 points for a passing touchdown and 6 points for a run, leading to teams leaning heavily on passing play as a result.

I don't agree with him necessarily, but I think his overall point is being a little misunderstood/misrepresented.

I mean they already did when they decided that a field goal and touchdown were different and changed their values. How is that any less arbitrary than the NBA 3 point line? If the NBA added a second goal above the hoop that you had to kick in I’m pretty sure most people would consider that more ridiculous than the NBA 3 point line. But because NFL rules were formed and changed over 100 years ago it is just the norm. The shift in the way teams played has only been within the last 10-15 years. That has more to do with analytics and that is impacting how every sport is played. In my mind I don’t see how we can say a 3 point shot is no different than a 2 point shot compared to a 2 point conversion and any other touchdown play.

I'm significantly less informed as to the evolution of NFL, so if those two actions did originally have the same outcome as far as points, then that is probably the best possible example and is no different, I agree.

2 point conversions happen in a different phase of play, I'm not sure the comparison is entirely appropriate there.

[KGdaBom]

A field goal and extra point are exactly the same, as are a touchdown and a two point conversion. I’m not trying to argue just seems like you are holding the two sports to different standards of arbitrary scoring for some reason.

They both involve kicking the ball through the goalposts or advancing the ball across the goal line. They are not the exact same thing just like a FT is not the same thing as a FG. The XP is basically a free point awarded to a team that scores a TD. They can go for the one almost sure thing or they can go for the 50-50 2pointer. The FT should in most occasions be a free point awarded as a penalty against the fouling team. I have no problem with FTs being worth 1 point instead of two because it is not the same as a FG. However, a dunk and a 3 point FG are both FGs and nobody is forcing a player to shoot it from long distance. Players should IMO be able to shoot FGs from wherever they like without any stupid bonus points. Just my opinion. I think the three is very bad for the game. I find watching three point shots to be very boring while I admire great post play. Working the ball in close should always be the goal of the offense IMO.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. How is an extra point any different than any other field goal in football? Or how is a two point conversion any different than any other touchdown? This is the difference between a field goal and free throw in basketball where you have an uncontested shot. Extra points and two point conversions have defenses so I don’t see how we are determining they are any different than the regular scoring plays in football.

Because they are specially designated plays. Every Touchdown scored no matter the length gets the same bonus opportunity. It isn't being awarded based on distance. You score a one yard touchdown you get an extra point op. You score a 99 yard TD you get an extra point op. Getting extra points based on distance is my whole complaint against the ridiculous 3 point shot. Mattya my point is not difficult to understand so to me it seems like you just want to argue.

[KGdaBom]

I think KG's point is more around the arbitrary scoring leading to a shift in the way the game is played, based on different scoring for almost identical outcomes/actions.

A better comparison perhaps would be if the NFL awarded 8 points for a passing touchdown and 6 points for a run, leading to teams leaning heavily on passing play as a result.

I don't agree with him necessarily, but I think his overall point is being a little misunderstood/misrepresented.

I mean they already did when they decided that a field goal and touchdown were different and changed their values. How is that any less arbitrary than the NBA 3 point line? If the NBA added a second goal above the hoop that you had to kick in I’m pretty sure most people would consider that more ridiculous than the NBA 3 point line. But because NFL rules were formed and changed over 100 years ago it is just the norm. The shift in the way teams played has only been within the last 10-15 years. That has more to do with analytics and that is impacting how every sport is played. In my mind I don’t see how we can say a 3 point shot is no different than a 2 point shot compared to a 2 point conversion and any other touchdown play.

I'm significantly less informed as to the evolution of NFL, so if those two actions did originally have the same outcome as far as points, then that is probably the best possible example and is no different, I agree.

2 point conversions happen in a different phase of play, I'm not sure the comparison is entirely appropriate there.

My complaint is distance scoring bonus so it is entirely inappropriate here as distance has nothing to do with it.

[KGdaBom]

For anybody who cares Here is the Wiki page on the FG and it gives the history of the points awarded for touchdowns FGs, and conversions after TDs. Distance has never had anything to do with points awarded for any of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_goal

[Mattya]

They both involve kicking the ball through the goalposts or advancing the ball across the goal line. They are not the exact same thing just like a FT is not the same thing as a FG. The XP is basically a free point awarded to a team that scores a TD. They can go for the one almost sure thing or they can go for the 50-50 2pointer. The FT should in most occasions be a free point awarded as a penalty against the fouling team. I have no problem with FTs being worth 1 point instead of two because it is not the same as a FG. However, a dunk and a 3 point FG are both FGs and nobody is forcing a player to shoot it from long distance. Players should IMO be able to shoot FGs from wherever they like without any stupid bonus points. Just my opinion. I think the three is very bad for the game. I find watching three point shots to be very boring while I admire great post play. Working the ball in close should always be the goal of the offense IMO.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. How is an extra point any different than any other field goal in football? Or how is a two point conversion any different than any other touchdown? This is the difference between a field goal and free throw in basketball where you have an uncontested shot. Extra points and two point conversions have defenses so I don’t see how we are determining they are any different than the regular scoring plays in football.

Because they are specially designated plays. Every Touchdown scored no matter the length gets the same bonus opportunity. It isn't being awarded based on distance. You score a one yard touchdown you get an extra point op. You score a 99 yard TD you get an extra point op. Getting extra points based on distance is my whole complaint against the ridiculous 3 point shot. Mattya my point is not difficult to understand so to me it seems like you just want to argue.

Im legit just asking questions because I think the logic is hypocritical. I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive.

[Klomp]

The 3 has been around since 1979. Probable a number of reasons it never became what is is now before now. Today how the shooter is protected, turning a 3 into a 4 is really damaging and it doesn't take much. Players actually growing up practicing the shot, vs it just becoming a thing the very year Larry Bird and Magic joined the league. Funny how quickly Bird took to it anyway. Teams being so obsessed with physical anomolies before actual shooting skills in drafts. Nobody bright enough to realize that a certain percentage of 3s is enough to keep up with higher probability possessions of two at a time.

I think the and1 is the great equalizer and teams with a player great at drawing fouls while also great at finishing, or great at getting refs to make calls for them is one way to keep up wiith a good 3pt shooting team. But if you focus on your roster and getting 4 to 5 capable 3pt shooters out there at all times that sounds like a great plan to me. It doesn't have to mean that's all they can do. We know they need to be able to threaten to drive the net and finight with layups and dunks as well. We know this offense will be seeing some pick n roll, maybe pick and pop?

At one point, people thought it was unfair that Wilt could dunk. Then everyone started doing it. Then kids grew up practicing it. I guess that ruined the league too....

[KGdaBom]

The 3 has been around since 1979. Probable a number of reasons it never became what is is now before now. Today how the shooter is protected, turning a 3 into a 4 is really damaging and it doesn't take much. Players actually growing up practicing the shot, vs it just becoming a thing the very year Larry Bird and Magic joined the league. Funny how quickly Bird took to it anyway. Teams being so obsessed with physical anomolies before actual shooting skills in drafts. Nobody bright enough to realize that a certain percentage of 3s is enough to keep up with higher probability possessions of two at a time.

I think the and1 is the great equalizer and teams with a player great at drawing fouls while also great at finishing, or great at getting refs to make calls for them is one way to keep up wiith a good 3pt shooting team. But if you focus on your roster and getting 4 to 5 capable 3pt shooters out there at all times that sounds like a great plan to me. It doesn't have to mean that's all they can do. We know they need to be able to threaten to drive the net and finight with layups and dunks as well. We know this offense will be seeing some pick n roll, maybe pick and pop?

At one point, people thought it was unfair that Wilt could dunk. Then everyone started doing it. Then kids grew up practicing it. I guess that ruined the league too....

Dunking was not a special rule added to the game. I know on some levels they added a special rule outlawing the dunk. That was stupid and they came to their senses regarding it. However, the three got added and basketball IMO hasn't come to their senses and got rid of it. For awhile it wasn't bad. Just a novelty, but now it is what the whole game is about. Funny how that happens when you make a shot worth 50% more than other shots. It's not right or wrong. It's just stupid and contrary to every other major sport that does not award extra value based on distance.

[shrink]

The only analogy I can make in the other major sports is in the NFL, when they adopted the NCAA’s 2-point conversion in 1994. Teams could make the choice of going for a harder play that was worth more points, like a harder shot in the NBA worth more points.

The interesting thing to me is how many points they make the harder option worth. I read an article a while back that in the NFL, teams would need to average 47.5% success at a 2-point conversion to be equal to the 95% success rate at kicking an extra point for 1 point. Back then (2018?), teams were being successful at around 60%, so we saw a shift where more and more teams went for 2. We are seeing the same thing in the NBA, where the success rate at the three point shot has improved so much that it becomes a more cost-effective use of a possession. It shifts the game.

The only way to balance this out would be to either eliminate the three point shot, or push the NBA three point line farther back, which would reduce the percentage and simultaneously open up more space underneath.

[KGdaBom]

The only analogy I can make in the other major sports is in the NFL, when they adopted the NCAA’s 2-point conversion in 1994. Teams could make the choice of going for a harder play that was worth more points, like a harder shot in the NBA worth more points.

The interesting thing to me is how many points they make the harder option worth. I read an article a while back that in the NFL, teams would need to average 47.5% success at a 2-point conversion to be equal to the 95% success rate at kicking an extra point for 1 point. Back then (2018?), teams were being successful at around 60%, so we saw a shift where more and more teams went for 2. We are seeing the same thing in the NBA, where the success rate at the three point shot has improved so much that it becomes a more cost-effective use of a possession. It shifts the game.

The only way to balance this out would be to either eliminate the three point shot, or push the NBA three point line farther back, which would reduce the percentage and simultaneously open up more space underneath.

Great post. Your analogy is very good. It isn't distance based, but it is difficulty based.
I am a strong advocate of going for the 2 being the norm for the Vikings. We should only go for the 1 based on certain situations.
However, this will affect about 4 plays a game per team at the most. The 3 in the NBA affects almost every play. I'm in favor of the total elimination of the three, but moving the three point line back about 5 feet would at least temporarily have the desired effect.

[KGdaBom]

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. How is an extra point any different than any other field goal in football? Or how is a two point conversion any different than any other touchdown? This is the difference between a field goal and free throw in basketball where you have an uncontested shot. Extra points and two point conversions have defenses so I don’t see how we are determining they are any different than the regular scoring plays in football.

Because they are specially designated plays. Every Touchdown scored no matter the length gets the same bonus opportunity. It isn't being awarded based on distance. You score a one yard touchdown you get an extra point op. You score a 99 yard TD you get an extra point op. Getting extra points based on distance is my whole complaint against the ridiculous 3 point shot. Mattya my point is not difficult to understand so to me it seems like you just want to argue.

Im legit just asking questions because I think the logic is hypocritical. I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive.

I'm getting frustrated with your questions, because my whole point is that other sports don't have bonus scoring based on distance and your questions have to do with different points being awarded for TDs vs FGs vs the point after conversions.

[Jedzz]

The 3 has been around since 1979. Probable a number of reasons it never became what is is now before now. Today how the shooter is protected, turning a 3 into a 4 is really damaging and it doesn't take much. Players actually growing up practicing the shot, vs it just becoming a thing the very year Larry Bird and Magic joined the league. Funny how quickly Bird took to it anyway. Teams being so obsessed with physical anomolies before actual shooting skills in drafts. Nobody bright enough to realize that a certain percentage of 3s is enough to keep up with higher probability possessions of two at a time.

I think the and1 is the great equalizer and teams with a player great at drawing fouls while also great at finishing, or great at getting refs to make calls for them is one way to keep up wiith a good 3pt shooting team. But if you focus on your roster and getting 4 to 5 capable 3pt shooters out there at all times that sounds like a great plan to me. It doesn't have to mean that's all they can do. We know they need to be able to threaten to drive the net and finight with layups and dunks as well. We know this offense will be seeing some pick n roll, maybe pick and pop?

At one point, people thought it was unfair that Wilt could dunk. Then everyone started doing it. Then kids grew up practicing it. I guess that ruined the league too....

I think that is probably another one of the great skills that helped make the league something unique. It's something to marvel at. Just like pros doing anything at a level not many can achieve. Shooting a good number of threes at 40-50% or more in a single game and just crushing your opponents with that level of skill is just another one of those things you have to marvel at. Some people oddly hate it because it's nearly unstoppable looking. But so is a great Dunker. Frankly I don't know why those that can don't attempt 10 dunks a game. Why take 20+ shots when you can assure yourself much higher percentage? (Wiggins) Shoot 10, dunk 10 or 5 times. Maybe that's foolish. But we only see individuals doing it a couple times a game at best. bring it.

[Mattya]

Because they are specially designated plays. Every Touchdown scored no matter the length gets the same bonus opportunity. It isn't being awarded based on distance. You score a one yard touchdown you get an extra point op. You score a 99 yard TD you get an extra point op. Getting extra points based on distance is my whole complaint against the ridiculous 3 point shot. Mattya my point is not difficult to understand so to me it seems like you just want to argue.

Im legit just asking questions because I think the logic is hypocritical. I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive.

I'm getting frustrated with your questions, because my whole point is that other sports don't have bonus scoring based on distance and your questions have to do with different points being awarded for TDs vs FGs vs the point after conversions.

and I don’t see how you can say one thing is any less arbitrary than the other. Football just says “oh well we gonna make this field goal worth one and this touchdown worth 2 now”

Why be mad at scoring based on distance and not different scoring based on just becauses?

[gandlogo]

In other news - any thoughts on the Timberwolves’ rotation?