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

Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games. Updated post #106 with a good article

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

  • #76
    Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    I think there's a paradox there. If you increase the final score but also increase the number of missed shots, is that really more exciting? After all, which fires the crowd up more often, a 2-pt slam dunk or a 3-point shot? As I said, teams that rain 3s are considered boring even if they score at a high rate.
    Are they? I think the anticipation and explosions of the three point shot may be more exciting than most dunks.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

      I think there is a misconception about the three point line. Of course the introduction of the three pointer changed how the game is played, but not by taking away any single part of the game. Instead it added an additional element. It allows for more excitement at the end of games (as leads can be erased quicker), and greatly increases the pressure on defenses to get back and to defend more space. The increase in the three point shot has not lead to an increase in points per game (quite the opposite, nearly a drop of 10 or more points per game, with a 20 point dip through a large chunk of the 90s) or true shooting percentage. The thing is there are still 2 point shots, still dunks, and still everything else that was prominent in the early 80s. If anything, the main effect of the three point shot is it has decreased the amount of free throws attempted per game. IMO, watching a guy shoot free throws is not a very exciting part of the game, so I don't really have a problem with it.
      Danger Zone

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Those might be valid arguments, and even I agree with some. But it's clearly moving in the opposite direction that the NBA front offices have been going, and that's who's opinion I'm looking at.

        But yes, more scoring even with more missed shots, is more exciting. That's the whole argument about how 3pt shots are more efficient. You can shoot 40% from 3 and have the same point totals as shooting 60% from 2, even with having 20% more missed shots.

        Let's revisit the original topic of this thread, about how teams are moving in the 3pt direction because of efficiency. That means more misses, but more points. That's the natural progression of the NBA, and eliminating part of the 3pt line is going in the opposite direction.

        EDIT: And if more points even with more misses, isn't more exciting, then the NBA never would have adopted the 3pt line anyways.
        But we don't have more points, at least not historically. We have fewer points.

        http://www.besttickets.com/blog/nba-shooting/
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
          But we don't have more points, at least not historically. We have fewer points.

          http://www.besttickets.com/blog/nba-shooting/
          I was more meaning points per shot when talking about more points but more misses. If you take 10 2pt shots, and hit 50%, you've scored 10pts. If you take 10 3pt shots, and hit 40%, you've scored 12pts. More misses, more points.

          EDIT: And yes, the NBA is scoring less than historically, but that's because of pace. This season 83.6 was the average FGA per game with a scoring average 100.0. In 1966, the average game saw 103.1 FGA, and a scoring average of 117.4.
          http://www.basketball-reference.com/...NBA_stats.html
          Last edited by Since86; 05-21-2015, 12:12 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Those might be valid arguments, and even I agree with some. But it's clearly moving in the opposite direction that the NBA front offices have been going, and that's who's opinion I'm looking at.

            But yes, more scoring even with more missed shots, is more exciting. That's the whole argument about how 3pt shots are more efficient. You can shoot 40% from 3 and have the same point totals as shooting 60% from 2, even with having 20% more missed shots.

            Let's revisit the original topic of this thread, about how teams are moving in the 3pt direction because of efficiency. That means more misses, but more points. That's the natural progression of the NBA, and eliminating part of the 3pt line is going in the opposite direction.

            EDIT: And if more points even with more misses, isn't more exciting, then the NBA never would have adopted the 3pt line anyways.
            When the 3-pt line was adopted it was to open up the game to other scoring options besides sending the biggest guys under the basket to wrestle with one another.

            When the 3-pt line was adopted, few players and teams took advantage of it, particularly to the extent they do so today. Even a missed 3-pt attempt was rare enough to get people's blood pumping. Now it's just another brick from outside often leading to a score at the other end.

            Efficiency adoption is not always about higher scoring. If you can score a sufficient number of points in fewer possessions, then you can slow the game down and prevent points more easily from the opponent. All 3-pt games aren't about running to the other end and taking the first open shot. Would anyone here argue JOB's teams were more exciting once the novelty wore off and people became resigned to other teams scoring off the misses?

            I do not agree that the evolution of the NBA is all about high scores with no regard for anything else. If that were the case, they'd have eliminated defense and explicitly called the no-charge circle the automatic-foul circle (and, yes, that's what it is in practice, but we're talking "intent").

            As I said, though, what one fan perceives as exciting is not what another fan perceives as exciting. There did seem to be a perception in the NBA FO that easy scoring is exciting, but I think that is changing because it is clearly the player who can overcome the most opposition to score is more exciting than the player who does a fantastic dunk on a complete 1 on none runout.

            Any time one aspect of the game takes over that aspect becomes commonplace. When every team is raining 3s, it won't be that the 3s are exciting it will be that 2s are considered a cop-out.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

              Originally posted by BillS View Post

              I do not agree that the evolution of the NBA is all about high scores with no regard for anything else. If that were the case, they'd have eliminated defense and explicitly called the no-charge circle the automatic-foul circle (and, yes, that's what it is in practice, but we're talking "intent").
              And I'm not either. You don't have to go to the extreme to acknowledge that the NBA is moving in a certain direction.

              I think one of us was the anti-JOB poster and the other regularly defend him, so it's odd to be seen on that level.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                Just interesting, the year the Pacers went to the Finals, we had the best 3PT % in franchise history.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                  I make no hidden points about it. I have come to pretty much despise the three point shot and yes I think it is ruining the game as I prefer to see it played. However I also admit that I am probably an island of one and that the vast majority of fans love it so I freely admit that it is not going to go away.

                  That being said the three point shot is not new at all. It's been around since the 60's (ABA) and late 70's (NBA), so why has it become more and more of a weapon over the past few years?

                  Players are more proficient at shooting it obviously and players who play positions that never would dream of shooting it are now required to shoot it. But again we have to ask, why? Why now?

                  I think I have an answer to this and honestly an answer as to how to balance it back again.

                  What is the real point of having so many guys behind the three point arc? Sure hitting a three is highly valued but the truth is, and this even goes for Satan himself, they do this to space the floor and allow driving lanes to the basket.

                  Well floor spacing isn't new, it's been around as long as there's been basketball. In fact you could say with the way the NBA now allows zones that this would take away the drive and in some cases it has helped (see the Pacers the two previous seasons).

                  But the one thing that has changed since the late 90's to now is that the NBA has done away with the one defensive rule that allowed defenders to control perimeter players, they took away hand checking in the perimeter. They still allow it in the post but you can't touch anyone outside the post without it being a foul.

                  If you truly want to address the overuse of the three point shot (if you believe there is overuse of it) then there is no need to eliminate the line or modify it. Simply allow the hand checking rule to come back into play, it was there for over 40 years before so you could try it again.

                  Now your going to ask how does this do anything to the three point shot? Simple, it takes away the advantage of spacing because most NBA players are good enough defenders to be able to stop or slow dribble penetration in all but the best of other players. In other words Curry is still sneaky and crafty enough with the ball that he will still get his points but he just won't get them at the high % he does now.

                  You will still have the three point shot but teams I believe would go back to using it as a special weapon, not the basis of their offense.

                  Now this will do nothing to stop the inside out teams as they don't use the three as a tool for cutting, but how many of those teams even exist today?

                  Bring back hand checking and I believe you will balance out a lot of this.

                  Just my


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

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    And I'm not either. You don't have to go to the extreme to acknowledge that the NBA is moving in a certain direction.

                    I think one of us was the anti-JOB poster and the other regularly defend him, so it's odd to be seen on that level.
                    Well, no, contrary to popular belief I was not so much defending JOB as trying to make sure that the things people harangued about were the correct things. Example would be the use of the 3-pt shot. The problem was NOT that he encouraged it over a long 2 - if nothing else current offensive practice proves THAT to be correct. The problem was that he encouraged the FIRST OPEN 3 rather than the proper setup of the rest of the offense.

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    If you truly want to address the overuse of the three point shot (if you believe there is overuse of it) then there is no need to eliminate the line or modify it. Simply allow the hand checking rule to come back into play, it was there for over 40 years before so you could try it again.

                    Now your going to ask how does this do anything to the three point shot? Simple, it takes away the advantage of spacing because most NBA players are good enough defenders to be able to stop or slow dribble penetration in all but the best of other players. In other words Curry is still sneaky and crafty enough with the ball that he will still get his points but he just won't get them at the high % he does now.

                    You will still have the three point shot but teams I believe would go back to using it as a special weapon, not the basis of their offense.

                    Now this will do nothing to stop the inside out teams as they don't use the three as a tool for cutting, but how many of those teams even exist today?

                    Bring back hand checking and I believe you will balance out a lot of this.

                    Just my :2cent:
                    I would agree with this.

                    I like the 3 pt shot, but I don't like that it has become the "best" shot. As at other times the athletes have changed, the game needs to be changed to be more balanced. I'd like to see the probability of making a mid-range jumper vs. making a 3-pt shot mean that the eFG% is more even between the two shots, and whether this is by adjusting the offense (via moving the line) or the defense (by re-introducing hand checking) I'm down with it.

                    My background to this is that I really never liked the NBA as a young kid because if you weren't a huge front court behemoth you might as well have not played in that era. The 3-pt shot meant guys like me could have an impact on the game (well, not like me because I shot for crap, but I had more of a prayer of hitting a 3 than growing to be 6'9"). I never played using it but I loved it in the ABA and then the NBA.

                    But the game for me is all about balance. I'd love to see 30 teams with different styles that all have certain advantages and disadvantages - and for that, the advantage of one shot over another has to be fairly even, or at least commensurate with how easy it is to defend. At that point, the strategy of how a team plays becomes as important as having one guy who can go off in one aspect of the game (a guy who can go off in more than one is always going to be a superstar, and rightfully so).
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                      I was a teen in the 90s and a big Pacers fan, and my memories of those days frequently involve Reggie knocking down a big three. Everyone in the stadium standing up as Reggie launched one from deep and the wave of noise when he drained one. I also forgot about the shorter 3pt line for a few years in the 90s. I guess what it really comes down to is I enjoy whatever style the Pacers are playing (if it's working). I hated JOB ball, but mainly just hated JOB (the guy didn't seem to have any idea how to encourage players. Always so freaking negative.) Still, my favourite quarter of any Pacers game ever was under JOB, when the Pacers made 20 shots in a row (including 8 freakin' threes!) in the third against Denver. I had that game DVR'd and watched it a few times until my cable crapped out and I lost all my recorded shows.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Just interesting, the year the Pacers went to the Finals, we had the best 3PT % in franchise history.
                        To be honest, that team shot everything well... free throws, mid-range shots. That was one of the most awesome offenses I can remember.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          This is the point where you have to look at eFG%, not just FG%. Shooting 40% from 3 is essentially the equivalent of shooting 60% from 2. You are saying you have 13 guys who can shoot the equivalent of 60% for an equivalent number of 2-pt shots. Why wouldn't they just take a shot that bricks that often when a decent 2-pt percentage for a wing is considered 45%? And, yes, the opportunity to get an and-1 (three "the old fashioned way") isn't there on an exclusively 3-point-shooting player, but as teams have to defend it more aggressively and guys get better at flopping we'll see more fouls out there.

                          The 3 pointer is only exciting when it hits. Teams that brick a ton of them get griped about. The extra point should only be in play for a high risk, which is no longer the case with today's players, any more than the narrow lane would be appropriate or the required space between defender and ballhandler, both older parts of the game.
                          Is any shot exciting when it misses? No. Yes, there are 13 guys in a league of how many that can do that. 13 out of 447 NBA players can do it. So 3% of the league can do it. That's a pretty elite number isn't it?

                          Yes, if you shoot 40% from three and 60% from two, you will score the same amount of points. But that does not make them equal. If you are missing 60% of your shots compared to 40% that means more fast break opportunities for your opponent. Not to mention you are more likely to draw fouls on a 2 point shot that a 3. There is still a large incentive to take more 2 point shots, which is why every team takes more 2 point shots than 3s.

                          I'm not sure why there has to be a risk to reward an extra point. A three is a skill shot. Just because there are elite shooters in the NBA doesn't mean that its no longer a skill shot.

                          Teams get griped about when they miss shots period. Doesn't have to be a missed 3. How many times have we pulled our hair out at the missed buckets right at the rim as Pacers fans? Its a damn lay up. Yet they still miss. I find that to be much more infuriating than a missed jumper or a 3.

                          I don't see why we need to change something because a few players are excellent at it. Fact is that the vast majority of the league is not that good at shooting threes. There are few players who truly take advantage of the three because of how good of shooters they are.

                          A missed shot is never exciting no matter where it is taken from.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            Is any shot exciting when it misses? No. Yes, there are 13 guys in a league of how many that can do that. 13 out of 447 NBA players can do it. So 3% of the league can do it. That's a pretty elite number isn't it?

                            Yes, if you shoot 40% from three and 60% from two, you will score the same amount of points. But that does not make them equal. If you are missing 60% of your shots compared to 40% that means more fast break opportunities for your opponent. Not to mention you are more likely to draw fouls on a 2 point shot that a 3. There is still a large incentive to take more 2 point shots, which is why every team takes more 2 point shots than 3s.

                            I'm not sure why there has to be a risk to reward an extra point. A three is a skill shot. Just because there are elite shooters in the NBA doesn't mean that its no longer a skill shot.

                            Teams get griped about when they miss shots period. Doesn't have to be a missed 3. How many times have we pulled our hair out at the missed buckets right at the rim as Pacers fans? Its a damn lay up. Yet they still miss. I find that to be much more infuriating than a missed jumper or a 3.

                            I don't see why we need to change something because a few players are excellent at it. Fact is that the vast majority of the league is not that good at shooting threes. There are few players who truly take advantage of the three because of how good of shooters they are.

                            A missed shot is never exciting no matter where it is taken from.
                            So check to see how many guys shoot 25% from 3. That's equivalent to 50% from 2. The point is that you don't have to be an elite shooter to have a more effective chance shooting from 3 than from almost anything else but a dunk or unopposed layup.

                            Though the Pacers fail to do it, other teams relying on the 3 seem to have actually studied where the rebounds will come from a bricked 3 and position themselves for the rebound or at least to cut off the fast break.

                            The point is that changing the league to one where you have to have 2 guys who shoot the lights out at 3 and you spend your whole game shooting from 3 is NOT exciting, any more than having a league where you had to have two big guys who could clear the lane and dunk and nothing else worked.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              So check to see how many guys shoot 25% from 3. That's equivalent to 50% from 2. The point is that you don't have to be an elite shooter to have a more effective chance shooting from 3 than from almost anything else but a dunk or unopposed layup.

                              Though the Pacers fail to do it, other teams relying on the 3 seem to have actually studied where the rebounds will come from a bricked 3 and position themselves for the rebound or at least to cut off the fast break.

                              The point is that changing the league to one where you have to have 2 guys who shoot the lights out at 3 and you spend your whole game shooting from 3 is NOT exciting, any more than having a league where you had to have two big guys who could clear the lane and dunk and nothing else worked.
                              Is that really how you view the league right now? Cause I don't think its anything like that.

                              Also 25% from 3 is not as efficient as 50% from 2. Not even close. Not only is the math off, it ignores everything else that happens from a missed shot.

                              Look at how the Heat negated Hibbert the last few years. Since Hibbert is so good at the rim they would shoot the floater over him. Now the floater isn't an easy shot, but its also not the hardest either. Players need to master it. And that's what James and Wade did. Elite players, whether they are wings or bigs will make things look easy. Just like how Curry makes the three point shot look easy.

                              As I said previously, teams aren't taking more three point shots than two point shots. And its not that close either.

                              It seems like you are creating a problem that's just not there.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Love it or hate it, the 3pt. shot wins games

                                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                                Is that really how you view the league right now? Cause I don't think its anything like that.

                                Also 25% from 3 is not as efficient as 50% from 2. Not even close. Not only is the math off, it ignores everything else that happens from a missed shot.

                                Look at how the Heat negated Hibbert the last few years. Since Hibbert is so good at the rim they would shoot the floater over him. Now the floater isn't an easy shot, but its also not the hardest either. Players need to master it. And that's what James and Wade did. Elite players, whether they are wings or bigs will make things look easy. Just like how Curry makes the three point shot look easy.

                                As I said previously, teams aren't taking more three point shots than two point shots. And its not that close either.

                                It seems like you are creating a problem that's just not there.
                                Given the definitions, of course it is not as efficient. I never said efficient, I said effective.

                                I think you are assuming teams rebound like the Pacers, watching a bricked jumper go over their heads or to the other side of the rim. Watch the effective 3-pt teams and watch how well they rebound their misses. They have put time into that exact topic of what happens from a missed shot - essentially, if your team retains possession you get another shot clock and are (in my opinion) in a much better position to reset from a long rebound than from a rebound while smothered under the basket. This all leads to my feeling that the 3-pt shot actually reduces overall scoring because unless you are rifling a 3 as soon as you reach the line you are stretching out possessions.

                                Let me go back to some first principles.

                                I think we can all agree that the most effective thing for a team is to have one or two of the greatest all-round players on your team. When that happens, your style of play is wrapped around them, no question.

                                Ultimately, I think the league would prefer if fans just focused on those stars and forgot about the whole "team" concept. Hype the stars, go see them when they play, watch the games on national TV, buy their merch, let everyone else be placeholders.

                                Since there aren't 30+ of those players to go around, teams without them have to figure out how to be relevant because to a certain extent local teams have different goals from the league as a whole. The ones without hyped stars have to fight to sell tickets (and sponsorships and TV contracts) in order to survive. How do they do that? Again, I think that we can all agree that the idea is to get people to want to see the games - and for some, that means better basketball, while for others that means more "exciting" basketball. The two are not necessarily the same.

                                We've called Atlanta's 3-pt shooting focus a "gimmick", and yet here they are in the conference finals against one of those very Great Player Hype teams. We have seen the same sort of thing out West as well. No, not every team is abusing the 3 point shot, but if the teams who do consistently find themselves in the upper echelons of the playoffs then you can bet your butt more teams will be focusing on it. JOB's call for Josh to practice his 3s seems more and more prophetic all along.

                                Having the GOAT (or even the GOTE - greatest of the era) will always be a ticket to the late rounds of the playoffs. So will having multiple guys with multiple all-star appearances. But most teams won't have that and they need to figure out something else. At one point, the way it was done in the East was with smothering defense. As Peck has pointed out, that has been taken away to some extent, and the 3-pt shot is also extremely difficult to defend when you have more than one player on the floor capable of hitting at a good clip. That also pushes the 3 as a preferred strategy.

                                This is why I don't think this is a "solution in search of a problem". I think we are at the point where the success of the 3-pt shooting teams and the focus of so many wings coming out of AAU on the 3 will make it explode - which means now is the time to consider the impact on the game, whether the direction is the right one, and how to rebalance it if it is not.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X