Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis
Ray AllenLicensed to Il wrote:Here is a (maybe) fun question. What “non first team” (you can’t pick a top 5 guy) player from a previous decade would be the perfect fit for the 2022-23 Bucks?
My answer, Rasheed Wallace.
paulpressey25 wrote:Nice story about Larry Harris and Golden State. Do not believe it to be coincidental that they've done so well since he got there. He was good at finding guys who could play in the later parts of the draft.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nba/bucks/2022/06/07/kevon-looney-jordan-poole-nba-finals-golden-state-warriors/7529050001/
WeekapaugGroove wrote:?t=lgsgCuyC8iIFOUAJt0BPqw&s=19sidney lanier wrote:DrWood wrote:I can't see why we'd want to aim for 1 PPP. But you've miscalculated because you failed to consider turnovers/fouls in the points per possessions.
No one uses a 33" ball, it would make a huge, deleterious difference. The volume would be 40% larger.
Which is why I said more or less. Not aiming for one PPP, just using that as a simple illustration of the rebalancing that could take place.
And yes, the ball would be noticeably bigger -- about an inch bigger in diameter -- (33-29.5)/pi -- and, as you say, about 40% bigger in volume. It's about the same difference as between the women's size 6 basketball and the current size 7. The balls already exist and are made for shooting training purposes.Grow your game, literally with the NBA Oversized basketball. Weighing the same as a regulation size 7 basketball it’s all about improving your shot. It helps develop arc and accuracy, giving you less room for error. This official oversized basketball of the NBA comes in a large 33” size and a microfiber composite leather cover for an in-game feel.
https://www.wilson.com/en-us/product/nba-oversized-bskt-wz10049#colorsteamname=77265&size=54098
The 22-foot corner three is not significantly harder than a 10-foot midrange with the current ball and under the current rules. The idea is to tilt the slope of the line that expresses difficulty as a function of distance. This would probably do it, but it would look funny for a while.
I think Giannis would be on board.
It's a sign
My concern with eliminating the corner 3 is if Ds don't have to worry about that shot wouldn't they pack the hell out of the paint and this would have an unintended consequence of reducing paint play even more?
Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app
sidney lanier wrote:
The 22-foot corner three is not significantly harder than a 10-foot midrange with the current ball and under the current rules. The idea is to tilt the slope of the line that expresses difficulty as a function of distance. This would probably do it, but it would look funny for a while.
Baddy Chuck wrote:I want to win but I also love chaos.
blazza18 wrote:Boston are complaining about fouls and the physicality to the media again. Sucks that it's going to work again.
DrWood wrote:sidney lanier wrote:
The 22-foot corner three is not significantly harder than a 10-foot midrange with the current ball and under the current rules. The idea is to tilt the slope of the line that expresses difficulty as a function of distance. This would probably do it, but it would look funny for a while.
That's obviously incorrect.
sidney lanier wrote:DrWood wrote:sidney lanier wrote:
The 22-foot corner three is not significantly harder than a 10-foot midrange with the current ball and under the current rules. The idea is to tilt the slope of the line that expresses difficulty as a function of distance. This would probably do it, but it would look funny for a while.
That's obviously incorrect.
Antinomy wrote:Widening the court is interesting but it poses new problems — like the defense having to cover even more ground & 5-out offenses would become the even more norm.
You think guys are shooting too much now, just wait until the defenders have to close out from the paint to a now extra 2 feet to the corners.
To me, the most obvious change is making the mid-range jumper worth more in some regard.
As of now, any basket from 1-23 feet is worth 2 points but 24 feet & beyond is worth 3 — “analytically” it makes no sense to shoot from 15-20 feet because it’s worth the same as a shot from much closer.
If defenses don't have to guard the corners wouldn't they just pack the hell out of the paint even more than they do now?dedned wrote:Just move it back a foot and cut off the corners.
FlagsFlyForever wrote:Antinomy wrote:Widening the court is interesting but it poses new problems — like the defense having to cover even more ground & 5-out offenses would become the even more norm.
You think guys are shooting too much now, just wait until the defenders have to close out from the paint to a now extra 2 feet to the corners.
To me, the most obvious change is making the mid-range jumper worth more in some regard.
As of now, any basket from 1-23 feet is worth 2 points but 24 feet & beyond is worth 3 — “analytically” it makes no sense to shoot from 15-20 feet because it’s worth the same as a shot from much closer.
The idea is to make the three point line far enough so that not only does it lower 3P% across the board and every player would attempt fewer threes, but also many players who currently shoot threes would stop shooting them entirely.
Absolutely. I wonder if tweeking the the illegal D rules could help. Basically not allowing the help defender cheat off the corner guy to the paint. Could help open driving lanes and make it easier to pass to a big in the post since they couldn't be doubled without the ball. Plus if there are less open corner 3s then teams probably shoot less of them.emunney wrote:I think you start by calling illegal screens and ignoring floppers before messing with structural stuff.
This is where I'm at. Call the rules as they should be and stop giving superstars a "superstar whistle". Superstars are impressive because they thrive within the context of the rules, not because the refs allow them to bend them.emunney wrote:I think you start by calling illegal screens and ignoring floppers before messing with structural stuff.
