Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

    Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
    I wasn't (obviously) speaking about NBA or other top-level basketball league...

    I was speaking about youngsters honing their basketball skills and whom they try to emulate...

    If you look at (still today) college basketball, the greatest athletic specimen seldom are truly quality 3-point shooters ('cause they have practiced other skills more). Best 3-point shooters usually have little other use...

    But that will change. And with that change, 3-point shot will indeed threaten basketball. You will see...
    No, some players just aren't good at distance shooting. It isn't a skill just anyone can pick up. They aren't bad shooters because it's "nerdy."

    At no point will we ever have 5 reggie millers on the court any more than we'll have 5 Kobe Bryants just because "dunking is cool."

    We don't need a 4 or 5 point shot either. Tactics have changed because the rules have changed, but that doesn't mean the players are somehow totally different.
    Last edited by Kstat; 01-24-2015, 09:47 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

      I'm a lot more worried about guys doing too much solo gym work and not understanding play recognition and being able to react on the fly than I am too many guys becoming good jump shooters. It sounds contradictory I guess, but I dunno, in a way it feels like there's too much focus on "skills" now and not being able to read the floor. Guys are as skilled as ever but save a handful of teams a lot of it isn't really aesthetically pleasing ball. The game may be becoming TOO specialized really.

      Anyway, nothing's about to threaten basketball, c'mon man. Just cuz it's not the way you like the game to be played doesn't mean it's going to go away or something.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

        The game has always been specialized.

        50-60 years ago it was about having the tallest skill player on the floor. 30-40 years ago it was about having the best lead guard. 10-20 years ago it was about having the best isolation player. Now it's about having the best pure shooters.

        Every generation the game changes and someone who thought the game was invented yesterday thinks it's the end of "true" basketball, as if there was ever such a thing to begin with.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          Anyway, nothing's about to threaten basketball, c'mon man. Just cuz it's not the way you like the game to be played doesn't mean it's going to go away or something.
          Actually, I don't have anything against how to game is PLAYED. I just have quite a lot against how it reflects on scoreboard...

          Additionally, one thing I do NOT like in basketball (many disagree) is how the last minutes drag on forever... Ability to trade foul shots against 3-point attempts gives a "chance" for dramatic comeback...

          For some people that may add excitement and maybe it occasionally does... However, 90% of the time that effort doen't come off and all we get is a pointless whistle/timeout parade instead of just letting the game end its natural conclusion instead of wasting half an hour of mostly non-playing minutes ie. lot of time used for a game clock hardly to move...

          Without 3-point shots a losing team would "forfeit" the victory earlier in "hopeless" situations - especially in regular season. For me that would be preferable. I would also strongly consider letting a team which is on "bonus" to decide whether they want FTs or ball on sideline.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

            Really. You have a problem because the three pointer adds too much drama at the end of games, and teams don't give up easily enough....

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Really. You have a problem because the three pointer adds too much drama at the end of games, and teams don't give up easily enough....
              I find that "drama" boring and pointless... Game is about finding the better team on night and if 45 minutes of "regular basketball" is enough to open up a lead which 3 more minutes of "regular basketball" won't be enough to turn around - perfect!

              I have to say that I find that last two minutes of relatively close basketball a real bore to watch. I enjoy BASKETBALL, I don't enjoy the EXCITEMENT when that excitement is borne out of NON-basketball as in intentional fouling 80 ft from basket, hurried bombs from 3-point range and basically playing BAD basketball in hope of striking "lucky"... Add an endless run of timeouts - bleh!

              For some people watching sports is about RESULT & FAN-dom ie. one watches sports hoping his team/his athlete wins and lives for that excitement. I got it.

              However, for me sports are about the beauty of performance - I mostly watch sports which are aesthetically and/or tactically pleasing for my eye. At its best, basketball is a beautiful sport. The way current rules play out the closing minutes of close game tend to take that beauty out and replace it with (to me) artificial "excitement". Do you even understand my point? I'm not asking to agree...

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                you play until the game ends. That's how sports work. You're not supposed to give up because the odds say you should.

                until about 25 years ago, college basketball had a running clock. A made basket to cut it to 1 with 5 seconds left was pointless because the team in the lead wasn't even required to inbound the ball. It was ended when enough people pointed out that it was ridiculous to end a game that way.

                When you say that 45 minutes of better basketball should be enough to decide a game, then you're basically saying you only care about the first 45 minutes. An NBA game is 48 minutes long, not 45. You play the allotted time you're given.

                If you want to watch a guaranteed beauty contest, then sports aren't your thing. The performance arts are probably more your style. The entertainment in sports comes from a competitive atmosphere first, and you hope along the way you can find beauty in the performance. If your attitude towards basketball is "I wish I wouldn't be forced to watch as much basketball," then you should ask yourself exactly why you watch basketball to begin with.

                I'd suggest following the Harlem Globetrotters. You get some beautiful basketball virtually every game without the excessive drama at the end, and the Generals always give up super-early.
                Last edited by Kstat; 01-24-2015, 10:40 AM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                  That's actually very American concept of sports. I'm from Europe - we think differently.

                  You are more win-orientated. Probably why your sports tend to always have rules which prevent ties. For us soccer countries, it is natural that sports do not necessarily have a winner.

                  In chess, you show your class be forfeiting when your situation is hopeless. Only a total idiot goes on until check-mate.


                  Or my Number 1 sport Boxing (the one I have competed myself as a youngster in National level) : In USA, draws are called akin to sister's kiss ie. everybody goes home unfulfilled. Then again f ex in Argentina, they tend to call every close fight a draw and it is treated like a "double-win" ie. there is losers in this fight!

                  Cultures are different.
                  Last edited by PetPaima; 01-24-2015, 10:40 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                    Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
                    That's actually very American concept of sports. I'm from Europe - we think differently.

                    You are more win-orientated. Probably why your sports tend to always have rules which prevent ties. For us soccer countries, it is natural that sports do not necessarily have a winner.

                    In chess, you show your class be forfeiting when your situation is hopeless. Only a total idiot goes on until check-mate.


                    Or my Number 1 sport Boxing (the one I have competed myself as a youngster in National level) : In USA, draws are called akin to sister's kiss ie. everybody goes home unfulfilled. Then again f ex in Argentina, they tend to call every close fight a draw and it is treated like a "double-win" ie. there is losers in this fight!

                    Cultures are different.
                    I get that. Outside of world cup elimination games I cannot stand to watch a soccer game because neither team is guaranteed to even score. I cannot bring myself to watch a game where there is no winner. It feels like a waste of time.

                    NBA teams do "forefit" when the situation is literally hopeless by allowing other teams to run out the clock. The rules in every sport have changed over the years to cut down on "hopeless" situations, because when things become hopeless there is no reason to continue watching. The goal is to keep the fans from leaving early, and the viewers on TV to keep watching.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 01-24-2015, 10:48 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                      Just because the Pacers have poorly adapted to the new NBA doesn't make the new NBA bad, the Pacers just have to adjust and I have no doubt they will. Probably the roughest thing is watching a player like Hibbert that was very effective a couple years ago completely not work in the new NBA where you have to move out to the shooters and a lot of bigs can shoot from outside now. He can't just sit in the paint against most every team now, and his offense isn't dominating enough for most teams to care and if he's ever on a roll, just move off West or Solo and they're probably going to be ok.

                      I hope Solo and Rudez really work hard in the off-season because they are the definite keepers from this miserable season, and Solo hardly gets a chance to score because he's with the starters. A guy like Stuckey isn't going to be as useful because he has no 3 point range.

                      You don't have to constantly shoot 3 pointers, you just have to have the threat that you can win a 3 point shootout against the other team.

                      Oh and I know people will point to Memphis...Gasol is by far the best defensive big in the league at getting out to shooters, he's so much more mobile than a lot of bigs. Conley has improved out to a 3 point shot and that's really helped them as well.
                      Last edited by Cactus Jax; 01-24-2015, 10:59 AM.
                      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                      ----------------- Reggie Miller

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                        There are exceptions to every era. The bad boys dominated in a league where the biggest complaint was that defense was too far behind the offense.

                        IMO the worst thing you can be in the NBA is a copycat. The Spurs stayed relevant by being ahead of the curve. The Hawks are reaping the benefits of that now as well.

                        The 60's celtics, 70's knicks, 80's lakers, and 90's bulls were all trend-setters. They did things nobody really perfected before. The trick is to figure it out before everyone else.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 01-24-2015, 11:07 AM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                          My hatred for the 3 point shot knows no bounds. However long ago I surrendered to the fact that it was here to stay and becoming a larger part of the game.

                          I will just say that I concur with Kstat (which I normally do anyway) and agree that someone someday (maybe 5 years maybe 10 or more) will develop either a defensive scheme or offensive set that will make the current use of the 3 point shot dip down some. Every generation changes (I tend to think the NBA changes styles about every 10 years) and right now its all the rage.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            There are exceptions to every era. The bad boys dominated in a league where the biggest complaint was that defense was too far behind the offense.

                            IMO the worst thing you can be in the NBA is a copycat. The Spurs stayed relevant by being ahead of the curve. The Hawks are reaping the benefits of that now as well.

                            The 60's celtics, 70's knicks, 80's lakers, and 90's bulls were all trend-setters. They did things nobody really perfected before. The trick is to figure it out before everyone else.
                            The 80's Lakers pushed the game much faster offensively, the Pistons countered with great defense, the Bulls were able to out-do them with all-time greats, and were in turn able to beat anyone really, either the defense minded Knicks or offensive minded Pacers or Jazz. The 00's Lakers kept the superstar trend going until the Spurs and Pistons squashed that idea into a defensive minded game again. The Celtics, Lakers, and Heat won with superstars, and just now the Spurs have pushed into this 3 pointer/moving the ball era. It will be interesting if Golden State or Atlanta (or the Spurs as well) can keep this trend going, if a Memphis grindhouse can slow teams down in playoffs or if a superstar like LeBron, Durant, or Harden can carry their team again.
                            "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                            ----------------- Reggie Miller

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              My hatred for the 3 point shot knows no bounds. However long ago I surrendered to the fact that it was here to stay and becoming a larger part of the game.

                              I will just say that I concur with Kstat (which I normally do anyway) and agree that someone someday (maybe 5 years maybe 10 or more) will develop either a defensive scheme or offensive set that will make the current use of the 3 point shot dip down some. Every generation changes (I tend to think the NBA changes styles about every 10 years) and right now its all the rage.

                              The 3 point shot became big after stat geeks pretty much concluded that you're better off taking a lot of 3s as opposed to long or midrange 2s. That's when it became encouraged, and encouragement led to more practice. Players got better at it.

                              Larry Bird was only a career 37% shooter from 3, and he said that was basically because he didn't practice the shot much. It just wasn't a big part of the offense.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Grantland Article on 3-point offense (Don't show Peck)

                                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                                The 3 point shot became big after stat geeks pretty much concluded that you're better off taking a lot of 3s as opposed to long or midrange 2s. That's when it became encouraged, and encouragement led to more practice. Players got better at it.
                                THIS! Perimeter player of today will likely take multiple amount of 3s in practice compared to midrange jumper. That will naturally lead to a situation where that three-pointer actually becomes an EASIER shot to make for those players. Distance be damned - you are just so much familiar with the mechanics, needed power, arc etc.

                                If that is the relatively easier shot to make for many (in somewhat more distant future - the MAJORITY) players, what's the point to give it higher value?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X