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

Decent article about three point shooting and its impact on the game.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Decent article about three point shooting and its impact on the game.

    https://www.nba.com/bulls/news/how-h...g-changed-game
    HOW HAS THREE-POINT SHOOTING CHANGED THE GAME?

    "THESE DAYS THERE'S SUCH AN EMPHASIS ON THE THREE BECAUSE IT'S PROVEN TO BE ANALYTICALLY CORRECT." GREGG POPOVICH
    Posted: Nov 28, 2018

    By Sam Smith5 MIN READ

    One of the most famous, or perhaps infamous, comments from an NBA player in a league that often features the most outrageous observations was Chicagoan Antoine Walker's unique declaration of independence almost 20 years ago responding to why he shot so many three pointers. Walker said he did so because there were no fours.

    These days in the NBA what seemed outrageous then, especially Walker's propensity for exceptionally long shots in transition accompanied with success by a full body shimmy, has become haute couture as personified by the Golden State Warriors' Stephen Curry. Curry's shooting and swaggering has become one of the the league's most popular attractions.

    Which actually explains Zach LaVine and his attempt at victory against the San Antonio Spurs Monday night. The Bulls lost 108-107 when LaVine's isolation-run-down-the-clock three missed and Ryan Arcidiacono's desperate attempt after a steal came up short. LaVine's shot selection was much questioned, but it's perhaps personified the NBA more than its critics.

    Why it has is probably is a complex and varied combination of AAU prep training, video game lifestyles, NBA rules changes and the desire of most major sports leagues to enhance offense in this era of short attention spans. Walker was joking. The NBA isn't anymore.

    The Bulls should continue to get a personal education this week as they play in Milwaukee Wednesday to begin a four-game road trip and Saturday in Houston. The Bucks are one of the biggest stories of the new season at second in the East, essentially the same players with a new coach and a new offensive philosophy of the three.

    The Bucks average more than 40 three point attempts per game, the only team doing so other than the Houston Rockets, whom the Bulls visit Saturday.
    There were plenty of reasons why LaVine likely attempted that shot, waving off a screen to avoid the double team, surrounded by several players not generally accustomed to taking or making late game shots, running down the clock to go for a rare win, anticipating a crowd at the basket and deciding as the team's leading scorer it was his responsibility. Not unlike James Harden at just about the same time Monday night on the way to 54 points with a bunch of those tightly contested long threes late in the game. True, Harden's team lost also, but who was he throwing it to? P.J. Tucker? Clint Capella?

    Remember when the maxim was you went for the tie at home and the win on the road. Monday trailing by two points in the last seconds, Dwyane Wade passed on a wide open elbow two pointer to pass back to Josh Richardson for a three. That missed. No one seemed too upset. Dwyane knows fashion. And, hey, Jimmy Butler won that game in Philadelphia Sunday with as unlikely a long, step back wing three. Remember, the 76ers also were down one when Jimmy faded back to take that extra long and more difficult three. And Jimmy draws as many fouls as anyone in the NBA.

    The difference? His went in.

    And remember when everyone kept condemning LeBron James for not taking that last shot, driving and passing instead? Isn't that the best player's job?

    Michael Jordan, of course, took a lot of those shots, and most were fearless attacks at the basket. Get to the free throw line. Make the defense commit. Perhaps a better chance for an offensive rebound with a miss. Make it an easier shot. All reasonable ideas.

    It's just not the way the NBA game is played anymore as much as many of us, including Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, don't like it.

    It so happened before Monday's game, Popovich was asked about the curiosity of his Spurs team, a team historically known for its defense, giving up more points than it was scoring. When in his long tenure had that occurred? Never, Popovich as quick to recall. He said he doubted his team could guard me. Nevertheless, I decided not to ask for a jersey.
    "Now you look at a stat sheet after a game and the first thing you look at is the threes. If you made threes and the other team didn't, you win. You don't even look at the rebounds or the turnovers or how much transition D was involved. You don't even care. That's how much an impact the three-point shot has and it's evidenced by how everybody plays." Gregg Popovich
    Not having Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, obviously, had something to do with that. Though with now a .500 team that only has a chance to make the playoffs, Popovich also acknowledged the inevitable evolution of the game that seems to be chasing out the strategies of he and many of his contemporaries.

    He hates it, by the way, in case you were wondering.

    "The inside game is kaputski," Popovich explained without helping with the spelling.

    "You've got to have downhill players, you've got to have people that can penetrate and kick, you've got to have people who can switch, you've got to have big guys who can play little guys," he said.

    And mostly you have to have players who can shoot the three.

    He really doesn't with a team 28th in attempts. They shoot them pretty well, but with a core of LaMarcus Aldridge, DeMar DeRozan and Rudy Gay, they don't often try. Which accounts to being a .500 team.

    Popovich, arguably the greatest coach of his era and one of the most celebrated in NBA history, admitted it's difficult to even defend these days the way the NBA has both emphasized three-point shooting while enforcing touch fouls and a lack of physical play on the perimeter. The league is averaging 110 points per game this season. In 2000-01, for example, the ball movement Kings led the league in scoring at 101.7 per game. Four teams averaged more than 100 points. Walker, by the way, attempted 603 threes to lead the NBA that season, almost 100 more than the second most. He was considered out of step. If he were a free agent today at 6-8 and a ball handler, he'd be the most sought after player in the league. Consider when Walker in the early 2000s was averaging more than 600 threes per season for about three seasons, the entire Bulls team was averaging about 900. Several teams barely averaged more per season than Walker alone. Everyone agreed you couldn't win that way. It would always be about defense.
    "These days there's such an emphasis on the three because it's proven to be analytically correct," Popovich Monday offered with what appeared to be a sneer. "Now you look at a stat sheet after a game and the first thing you look at is the threes. If you made threes and the other team didn't, you win. You don't even look at the rebounds or the turnovers or how much transition D was involved. You don't even care. That's how much an impact the three-point shot has and it's evidenced by how everybody plays."

    "I hate it, but I always have," Popovich said even as he's adjusted over the years. "I've hated the three for 20 years. That's why I make a joke all the time (and say) if we're going to make it a different game, let's have a four-point play. Because if everybody likes the three, they'll really like the four. People will jump out of their seats if you have a five-point play. It will be great. There's no basketball anymore, there's no beauty in it. It's pretty boring. But it is what it is and you need to work with it."

    So we all need to understand Zach.

    He's with the times; we're just behind. Like it or not, and many of us certainly do not. But I suspect most of us are not in that marketing demographic all the marketers like so much.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Great article. It is comforting that the greatest and most knowledgeable coach in the NBA agrees today’s game is trash and expresses that so perfectly.
    • 1 like

    Comment

    • #3
      The 3 point shot would be at the top of my list of things I'd change about basketball.

      Sure, they're fun when your team is draining them right and left. But how often is that really?

      They're fun when you're down 3 at the end of the game and need one to tie, so make or miss you have a chance to extend the game.

      Of course they are fun when you nail a game winning 3 when you were down 1 or 2 points. But of course it sucks when your team misses, and even moreso if a better shot was available but one that only would've netted two points.

      But they absolutely suck the life out of a defense. "Lucky 3's" are just demoralizing when you play solid defense and someone bombs up a prayer that goes in when they were off balance and out of position.
      If you're the trailing team, making a bit of a comeback so you get the lead to under double-digits and have some budding momentum on your side, and then the opposition pulls up for a 3 and you're down 11 or 12 points in a heartbeat so that is demoralizing to the team and fans. If you don't score yourself on the next possession, you could be down 14-15 points even with the great defense if all it does is cause the other team to bomb a 3 at the end of the shot clock.

      Then there's the fool's gold of the 3's... Your team is bombing away, good or bad shots, and missing... and the other team is getting the long rebounds and off to the races in transition for easy layups. Well, in the old days it would be easy layups. Now they might be pull up 3's in transition, and if they are falling, your hole just gets deeper and deeper.

      And much of this doesn't have a solid response. The shot clock means you can't slow the game down much. You can't dig in necessarily on defense in the styles of the past. These days, protecting the paint and forcing long shots is fine with the opposition. Especially on a good shooting night for them.
      You can't focus on getting to the rim yourself like you might've done a few years ago to get easy buckets, collect some fouls, and maybe score 3 the old-fashioned way.

      There was a beauty, a poetry of motion, to the game when all baskets were worth the same and everyone was trying to get open, close shots and the defense was trying to stop that. But this era of bombs away has taken that away.

      I don't have an answer. I just don't like it.
      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
      • 1 like

      Comment

      • #4
        Have said it before and gotten torched on here but take away the corner three and it changes the whole geometry of the court for the defense. It also regulates the statistical imbalance of the 50% premium for a shot that is far from 50% harder to execute.

        I don't think it will ever happen as the casual NBA fan loves the video game, empty the clip aspect the overuse of the 3-ball brings to the game......

        Comment

        • #5
          Agree that it's nice to know the game's greatest coach agrees with many of us here that the three has ruined the game. It's also depressing. We're right.

          And I don't see it changing. It's like asking a bunch of guys to return to the book club that evening that they left for the strip club.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment

          • #6
            I think I've got a different perspective on this from a lot of people here, not having grown up in the 70s-80s. My basketball life started with Reggie and the 3 was always a major weapon and coupled with Slick's "BOOM BABY" on the radio, it was a huge entertainment factor as well. Of course, the game has changed in recent years and it's become far more extreme than Reggie ever was. Curry is going to blow every 3-pt record out of the water if he continues on his current pace.

            I'd be in favor of some rule changes to restore some defense and make teams earn their 3's a bit more, but the idea of eliminating it is absurd to me. It's just the progression of the game, not any different than the way ball-handling has evolved over the generations.

            That said, there's no excuse for what Lavine did the other night. It was a stupid play by a young guy trying to be the hero. This article was written as a defense of Lavine. It's a "don't blame the poor kid, blame society!" defense of a stupid play.

            And on a larger scale, if launching 3's was the way to win a title, the Rockets would have won the last 3. The Cavs might've stood a chance last year. But that's not the only requirement. The Warriors are dominant because they can score in so many ways and they have three of the best 3-point shooters in history on one team, plus a few really strong defenders. But as we've seen recently, Curry is really the engine driving that ship, and there's only one Steph Curry. Anyone that tries to emulate that team will fall short because they won't have Curry, let alone Durant, Klay, or Draymond, or Kerr. So even though the NBA's current dynasty is an offensive machine like we've never seen before, and more teams are launching more threes, it still takes some "real basketball" and team play and defense and rebounding and transition offense and strategy to win.
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment

            • #7
              I think if a team has capable 3 point shooters they should use that to their advantage. When the Lakers had Shaq back in the day and no one in the league could stop him, I remember thinking how unfair it is to have such an unstoppable force.

              The problem I have is that it seems like the rules of the game have been changed to where you can hardly defend the 3 point shot anymore. Defense is just as much as the part of the game as offense, and just watching a glorified game of HORSE takes away from the sport of the game.
              • 2 likes

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                It's just the progression of the game.
                It started out as a gimmick in the ABA just to be different from the NBA and to draw in more fans. Just like the red-white-blue ball.

                The 3 should have gone the way of the ball.

                Teams don't get extra runs for a 450' homer as opposed to a 380' one. No bonus points for a 58 yard FG. 3 points - just like a 30 yard one. And so on . . . . .
                • 2 likes

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  There was a beauty, a poetry of motion, to the game when all baskets were worth the same and everyone was trying to get open, close shots and the defense was trying to stop that. But this era of bombs away has taken that away.
                  I think you are forgetting that it often became get the ball to the guys under the basket and have a rugby scrum. Jump shots became devalued and your success was often determined by how many big guys you could cram at the rim.

                  The 3 point shot opened up the floor, but I agree that it has become in its way just as damaging because now instead of anything taking place inside the arc everyone lets fly from outside. So it needs another change, but completely eliminating it is not the solution.

                  I join with all those who want to eliminate the corner three by extending the arc to the sideline. The transition pull-up will still be in effect, but it will eliminate the kick out to the corner for the higher percentage 3-point shot.
                  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...
                  • 1 like

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BillS View Post

                    I think you are forgetting that it often became get the ball to the guys under the basket and have a rugby scrum. Jump shots became devalued and your success was often determined by how many big guys you could cram at the rim.

                    The 3 point shot opened up the floor, but I agree that it has become in its way just as damaging because now instead of anything taking place inside the arc everyone lets fly from outside. So it needs another change, but completely eliminating it is not the solution.

                    I join with all those who want to eliminate the corner three by extending the arc to the sideline. The transition pull-up will still be in effect, but it will eliminate the kick out to the corner for the higher percentage 3-point shot.
                    Exactly. It will also be easier to defend without having to worry about the corner 3.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      I still like the idea I proposed a few weeks ago: make it a 2.5 point shot.

                      Because of all that has happened, it will be very difficult to change much. Eliminating corner threes will mean that future stars will not be compared to Reggie and Steph. Fans want to see this damn three ball. Students of the game want to return to some sanity. Pop made the point: statistically, analytically, mathematically (very begrudging hat tip to Sideburns) the three point shot is the right play. My solution makes it not so much of an objective, mathematical necessity.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      • 1 like

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        If a team shoots 100 shots at this year's fg percentage rate (.458) they score 91 points.
                        If a team shoots 100 threes at this years 3fg rate (.350) they score 105 points.
                        If a teams were to shoot 100 "distance" shots at 2.5 each they would score 87 points.

                        Problem solved!
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        • 1 like

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          Eliminating corner threes will mean that future stars will not be compared to Reggie and Steph.
                          Adding the 3 has already changed comparing stars. You can not compare Reggie or Steph with Jerry West because there was not a 3 point shot in West's day. Same with Oscar, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe and any of those other great players of the 1940's-1970's.

                          • 1 like

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sav View Post

                            Adding the 3 has already changed comparing stars. You can not compare Reggie or Steph with Jerry West because there was not a 3 point shot in West's day. Same with Oscar, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe and any of those other great players of the 1940's-1970's.
                            Agreed. It's a travesty in every way.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            • 1 like

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

                              Agreed. It's a travesty in every way.
                              Same as the travesties of widening the lane and adding the shot clock. How are we supposed to compare anyone to George Mikan any more? Shameful.
                              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...
                              • 2 likes

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X