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

Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

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

  • Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

    I couldn't find an article from the '90s where Larry Brown said this, but I've read/heard for years that Larry Brown referred to the three point shot as 'fool's gold.'

    Without a direct source telling me when he said it, and knowing I heard it from Pacer fans, I'm making what I think is a fair assumption that he probably said this while he was the coach of the Pacers.

    He started coaching the Pacers in the fall of 1993.

    I went back and looked at the league-average three point field goal percentage, year by year, from the time the line was brought into the NBA (the 1979-1980 season) through last year (2012-2013), and I thought this was pretty interesting.

    Here are the league averages from '92-'93 back to '79-'80:

    92-93 .336
    91-92 .331
    90-91 .320
    89-90 .331
    88-89 .323
    87-88 .316
    86-87 .301
    85-86 .282
    84-85 .282
    83-84 .250
    82-83 .238
    81-82 .262
    80-81 .245
    79-80 .280

    Overall average: .293 (eFG% 44%)

    Yuck, right? I mean by the end of this era it was starting to get respectable, but by and large the league was not very good at shooting the three point shot (only once did it barely creep above an eFG% of 50%) leading up to close to the time Larry Brown would have declared it fool's gold.

    What's interesting is that look at the averages starting around the time he made that declaration ('12-'13 to '93-'94):

    12-13 .359
    11-12 .349
    10-11 .358
    09-10 .355
    08-09 .367
    07-08 .362
    06-07 .358
    05-06 .358
    04-05 .356
    03-04 .347
    02-03 .349
    01-02 .354
    00-01 .354
    99-00 .353
    98-99 .339
    97-98 .346
    96-97 .360
    95-96 .367
    94-95 .359
    93-94 .333

    Overall average: .354 (eFG% 53%)

    Ironically, right around the time it was being somewhat written off (well, by Brown, at least), the league finally got decent at hitting the three point shot (the worst season had an eFG% of 50%, ever other year was better). Even after the line got closer and then brought back out again (I think it was short for two or three seasons? '95 '96 '97?), it never went back to the sub-.333 regularity we saw prior to the mid '90s.

    It looks to me like Larry Brown was completely justified in saying what he said, when he said it, but ironically it was right around then that the %'s finally went up to a respectable level and in my opinion made it to where the three point line was not, in fact, fool's gold anymore.

  • #2
    Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I couldn't find an article from the '90s where Larry Brown said this, but I've read/heard for years that Larry Brown referred to the three point shot as 'fool's gold.'

    Without a direct source telling me when he said it, and knowing I heard it from Pacer fans, I'm making what I think is a fair assumption that he probably said this while he was the coach of the Pacers.

    He started coaching the Pacers in the fall of 1993.

    I went back and looked at the league-average three point field goal percentage, year by year, from the time the line was brought into the NBA (the 1979-1980 season) through last year (2012-2013), and I thought this was pretty interesting.

    Here are the league averages from '92-'93 back to '79-'80:

    92-93 .336
    91-92 .331
    90-91 .320
    89-90 .331
    88-89 .323
    87-88 .316
    86-87 .301
    85-86 .282
    84-85 .282
    83-84 .250
    82-83 .238
    81-82 .262
    80-81 .245
    79-80 .280

    Overall average: .293 (eFG% 44%)

    Yuck, right? I mean by the end of this era it was starting to get respectable, but by and large the league was not very good at shooting the three point shot (only once did it barely creep above an eFG% of 50%) leading up to close to the time Larry Brown would have declared it fool's gold.

    What's interesting is that look at the averages starting around the time he made that declaration ('12-'13 to '93-'94):

    12-13 .359
    11-12 .349
    10-11 .358
    09-10 .355
    08-09 .367
    07-08 .362
    06-07 .358
    05-06 .358
    04-05 .356
    03-04 .347
    02-03 .349
    01-02 .354
    00-01 .354
    99-00 .353
    98-99 .339
    97-98 .346
    96-97 .360
    95-96 .367
    94-95 .359
    93-94 .333

    Overall average: .354 (eFG% 53%)

    Ironically, right around the time it was being somewhat written off (well, by Brown, at least), the league finally got decent at hitting the three point shot (the worst season had an eFG% of 50%, ever other year was better). Even after the line got closer and then brought back out again (I think it was short for two or three seasons? '95 '96 '97?), it never went back to the sub-.333 regularity we saw prior to the mid '90s.

    It looks to me like Larry Brown was completely justified in saying what he said, when he said it, but ironically it was right around then that the %'s finally went up to a respectable level and in my opinion made it to where the three point line was not, in fact, fool's gold anymore.
    I had a very long conversation with a couple of guys on Twitter Friday afternoon into the night that started with this tweet:




    It eventually led to a discussion of the shorter three (3 season 95 to 97), long 2s, shot selection, etc. It appears that the shorter line did jump start the usage of the three as a standard piece of the offense.

    We poked around a lot of things. I was a pretty interesting conversation. Here are some of the resulting tweets with follow up charts (There were a lot more, and the other guys had some good POVs):










    (corrected)

    Last edited by count55; 09-22-2013, 02:53 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

      Off topic, but I'm not a fan of the arbitrary .44 in TS%. My history on it is fuzzy, but I believe that was a calculation based on old data; shouldn't be use a modern calculation? I want to say that number was to address technicals and flagrants or whatnot, but I could be wrong about that. Furthermore, I'm not a fan of blending FTs with FGA's in general if the point is to see how good someone shoots a jump shot. One can be telling of the other, though not necessarily. I don't see the benefit in blending them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Off topic, but I'm not a fan of the arbitrary .44 in TS%. My history on it is fuzzy, but I believe that was a calculation based on old data; shouldn't be use a modern calculation? I want to say that number was to address technicals and flagrants or whatnot, but I could be wrong about that. Furthermore, I'm not a fan of blending FTs with FGA's in general if the point is to see how good someone shoots a jump shot. One can be telling of the other, though not necessarily. I don't see the benefit in blending them.
        It's not a measure of how well someone shoots a jump shot. It's a scoring efficiency measure - what kind of points do you generate out of scoring opportunities? The 0.44 is meant to account for FTAs that do not reflect "new plays," like And-1s and Technicals. The study indicates that this is a relatively stable number. The study is updated periodically (as I understand), and it's not showing a meaningful, consistent variation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

          I could be wrong and took just a second to really look at it. But it seems that while the league has gotten good at the three, it has lost the midrange game. Which is to say that our defense is designed perfectly against the weakness of the average team in the NBA. But the crux to that is not ever team is your average team three shooting-pentrating team.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

            Of course while you're making threes at a 34% clip and telling yourself that is as good/better than 50% from the field, you're also missing 66% of your shots, and 3's aren't necessarily conducive to offensive rebounds, so you're giving the other team a really nice base for getting out in transition on you. And dunks and layups tend to be better than 50%... let alone the fouls/FT's you give up when you're out of balance and scrambling back on D.

            So there's still a lot of fool's gold in basing an offense around 3 point shots....
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              Of course while you're making threes at a 34% clip and telling yourself that is as good/better than 50% from the field, you're also missing 66% of your shots, and 3's aren't necessarily conducive to offensive rebounds, so you're giving the other team a really nice base for getting out in transition on you. And dunks and layups tend to be better than 50%... let alone the fouls/FT's you give up when you're out of balance and scrambling back on D.

              So there's still a lot of fool's gold in basing an offense around 3 point shots....
              That is assuming what you say is actually true and there is indeed an increase in fast break opportunities now that teams take more threes.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Of course while you're making threes at a 34% clip and telling yourself that is as good/better than 50% from the field, you're also missing 66% of your shots, and 3's aren't necessarily conducive to offensive rebounds, so you're giving the other team a really nice base for getting out in transition on you. And dunks and layups tend to be better than 50%... let alone the fouls/FT's you give up when you're out of balance and scrambling back on D.

                So there's still a lot of fool's gold in basing an offense around 3 point shots....
                Plus the emotions and momentum the other team gets from exciting fast breaks and dunks.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  Plus the emotions and momentum the other team gets from exciting fast breaks and dunks.
                  And then there are the times you need to stop the bleeding as another teams threatens to start pulling away or they are cracking into a precarious lead. Then instead of working the clock for a good high percentage shot (and at least chewing up some time and calming things down), teams that are 3 happy can also be teams that shoot quickly in the clock. And a 34% shot isn't what you want in that situation.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Of course while you're making threes at a 34% clip and telling yourself that is as good/better than 50% from the field, you're also missing 66% of your shots, and 3's aren't necessarily conducive to offensive rebounds, so you're giving the other team a really nice base for getting out in transition on you. And dunks and layups tend to be better than 50%... let alone the fouls/FT's you give up when you're out of balance and scrambling back on D.

                    So there's still a lot of fool's gold in basing an offense around 3 point shots....
                    Who said anything about basing your offense around it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Who said anything about basing your offense around it?
                      Could it be ... SATAN?????
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        Of course while you're making threes at a 34% clip and telling yourself that is as good/better than 50% from the field, you're also missing 66% of your shots, and 3's aren't necessarily conducive to offensive rebounds, so you're giving the other team a really nice base for getting out in transition on you. And dunks and layups tend to be better than 50%... let alone the fouls/FT's you give up when you're out of balance and scrambling back on D.

                        So there's still a lot of fool's gold in basing an offense around 3 point shots....
                        There are two kinds of shots in half court basketball in my mind: close shots (15 feet or closer), and jump shots (16 feet or longer). No one on earth would argue that a three is a better shot than a quality inside look (except maybe Jim O'Brien). Make no mistake - I believe that a team should look for a way to get a close shot on 100% of possessions. The 3 is the best option only in two situations: 1) Defense collapses, leaving a competent shooter wide open from 3, 2) Inside defense is too stout, necessitating a jump shot.

                        Statistically, mid-range shots used to be lumped in with close shots. However, when you separate them out, it becomes clear that 3 point shots are preferable to midrange shots for all but a handful of NBA players.

                        For starters, the NBA collectively shot 35.9% from three last year (per Hick's numbers). Did you know that the NBA collectively shot 38.3% from 16-23 feet last year (per Hoopdata.com)? That is an awful thin margin for a shot that is worth 50% less.

                        A few more facts:

                        - NBA teams rebounded 40% of their three point tries, vs. 33% of their midrange shots. 3 point shots are MORE likely to be rebounded.

                        - The Pacers were 15th in the league in 3 point attempts, but had the best transition defense in 5 years. That isn't the last word on this (I'm hoping someone else can pick up the statistical torch on this), but the best transition defense in recent memory took a good amount of 3 point shots. They didn't have to abandon the 3 to dominate transition defense.

                        - 3 point shots almost never result in free throws, but midrange shots rarely do as well. I don't have to dig up the numbers on that, I don't think.

                        If you are an excellent midrange shooter, that is a tremendous advantage. Steve Nash is a nightmare because of his ability to hit 50% from that distance, and our own David West is a solid 45% shooter that is a crucial element of our spacing as a threat from the elbow. And of course, when there is one possession left in a tie game, you are going to ignore the long term and take the highest percentage shot, regardless of the point value.

                        I am also going to throw in the extra spacing advantage of having your shooters positioned behind the arc instead of inside it. No stats, just basketball.

                        The midrange shot should only be taken by a handful of elite guards (who hit at an elite percentage) and a handful of good big men (who need to establish the elbow jumper as a spacing strategy). In all other situations, when a jumper is the best shot, it should always be a three point shot. The percentages are similar, your team is more likely to get the offensive rebound, and the transition defense sacrifice seems to be a myth.
                        Last edited by FlavaDave; 09-23-2013, 11:05 AM.
                        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                        RSS Feed
                        Subscribe via iTunes

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

                          A superficial dig into 3's vs. transition defense yields this:

                          - Two NBA teams broke the all time record for threes attempted per game: New York and Houston (28.9 3's per game each, per Hoopdata.com). New York was 28th in transition defense, and Houston was 15th (per teamrankings.com).

                          - One team attempted less than half the 3's that these two teams did: Memphis (13.5). They ranked 22nd in transition D.

                          - Overall, the top 5 three point shooting teams shot 25.5 3's a game, with an average transition D rank of 18. The bottom five three point shooting teams averaged 16.06 chucks per game, and their average transition D rank was 19.2. Interesting that both slices had below average TD ranks.

                          Again that is a starting point for this discussion. I didn't dig up any kind of in-depth analysis of this anywhere.
                          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                          RSS Feed
                          Subscribe via iTunes

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Did the 3-ball stop being 'fool's gold' right around the time Larry Brown labeled it as such?

                            That makes some sense combined with Zach Lowe's article on the Pacers and how we were able to both crash the offensive glass and still have a really good transition defense. I think this either/or concept is just not true.

                            I think as long as your offense makes getting the ball near the rim priority #1, and as long as the majority of your threes are smart attempts versus dumb attempts, you're doing it right. Let intelligence dictate when to hold off on the threes (clock, shotclock, score, momentum, fatigue, etc.).

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X