NBA has changed
January 16th, 2020 at 10:37 AM ^
By improvement, you mean, teams score more points than they did 20 years ago.
If you like step back threes, the NBA is awesome. If you are a fan of really anything else, not much to see there.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:18 AM ^
There is much more to the NBA than stepback 3's. The ONLY person that consistently takes stepback 3's is James Harden. It seems like a fairly "boomer" argument that the only way you can like the NBA is if you like stepback 3's.
Because of analytics, shooting capabilities, and better athletes, the NBA today is MUCH better than the NBA 20-30 years ago. You'd have to be very biased and hold a high disdain for the style of play today to not recognize these three things. Of course, there are other factors, such as less of a willingness to play defense, and officiating "softness," but the three things I mentioned hold true as a fact. The NBA today has improved analytically, which greatly improves offensive efficiency, in shooting capabilities, which goes hand in hand with efficiency, and with better athletes, which you can see with the naked eye.
The argument for better analytics has been made by the OP, I would think that fans now understand why a 3 pointer, or shot at the rim, is much better than a two pointer from anywhere else. The argument for better shooting can be made in a variety of ways, but here's how I'll argue it: Larry Bird, "the greatest shooter ever" to some, shot two 3's per game. Currently, there are SIXTY TWO NBA PLAYERS who have a better 3 point percentage than Larry Bird's career average, and ALL OF THEM shoot more than Larry Bird did. This is not to discredit Larry, but to highlight how amazing today's shooters are. The argument for better athletes, again, can be seen with the naked eye. I'm not just talking about Giannis or LeBron, I'm talking about across the board. The fact that there are better athletes cancels out a bit of the unwillingness to play defense in the modern day, it's just that this part isn't very apparent.
All in all, I think it's pretty ignorant to say not only that the only way you're able to enjoy the NBA is if you like stepback threes, which only one player does significantly, and also ignorant to a lesser extent, to say that the NBA has not improved.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:25 AM ^
Dude, you cannot prove that the NBA, itself, is objectively “better” through analytics. You can prove that some percentages have gone up, other down, but you can’t prove the product is “better” by way of them. That is a completely subjective thing.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:39 AM ^
We know that because of analytics, 3 point shooting and around-the-rim finishing have gone up, and mid-range attempts have gone down. Are you asking me to explain to you why that improves the quality of offense? Or do you understand it, and you're unwilling to give into the idea that mid-range shots, unless you're crazy good at them, are inefficient? This is not to say that mid-range shooting is dead, it is very much necessary in the case that your offense isn't executing, or for a last second shot, as we saw with Kawhi and the Raptors throughout last year's playoffs.
Sure it's not 100% objective, but not really anything is 100% objective. I won't use the word objective, but it's moreso "obvious" that just the rise of analytics has improved basketball. It goes back to my original point, things don't just "change" for the sake of "changing." Modern basketball analytics wasn't invented because it just happened to be invented, it was invented because it improved basketball teams in the NBA by, simply putting it, what was a good shot and what wasn't a good shot. If analytics didn't improve the NBA, analytics would not be a thing.
And once again, analytics is only a part of the whole equation; 3 point shooting and athleticism have improved as well. Sure it's an "opinion," and not "objective," but but benefits of analytics in itself is generally well understood with a large number of basketball fans, especially of the up-and-coming variety. MGoBoard is probably the worst demographic to share a post like this.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:43 AM ^
You seem upset.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:51 AM ^
Lol huh?
I've made a few well thought out comments and I was looking forward to a response from what I believe is fellow basketball fan. You came back with "Dude..." and "You seem upset."
All I gotta say.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
You're saying: offense is more efficient this way and teams are doing it to win
He's saying: Ok, I agree. that doesn't objectively make games better for fans
January 16th, 2020 at 12:03 PM ^
Thanks for pointing that out. If that's what he's saying, then of course I can't argue that. It's 100% subjective.
However, my original post had nothing to do with the enjoyment for fans, so I can only assume that when he disagrees about "improvement" of the NBA or "making the NBA better" like I did, he's referring to the same thing as I am.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:29 PM ^
I also do not think the nba today is better than in 2002.
January 16th, 2020 at 2:15 PM ^
Very smart. The notion that the NBA now is unwatchable is mostly posited by oldsters who don't actually watch the NBA. Does anyone remember the NBA during the Bad Boys era? The game was a giant slugfest, a slog. Today's game is fast, dynamic, and prizes skill over brute strength. Defense still matters, especially in the playoffs. I think this board is probably skewed toward Pistons fans, who rightly don't want to watch a sludge-fart of a team. But that's because this team hasn't caught up with the era.
January 16th, 2020 at 10:38 AM ^
Straw poll: Which era did you enjoy watching more?
I'd say I enjoyed watching 01-02 more.
January 16th, 2020 at 10:48 AM ^
As a Grizzlies/Pistons fan, I love good defense.
...but watching the Grizzlies play in 2019-2020 vs. the great playoff years of 2010-2017 is like night and day. Ja Morant and Jaren Jackson Jr. are so fast and the team's overall tempo/shooting is truly great to watch. Unloading Zach Randolph, Marc Gasol, and older Mike Conley for this new team direction is invigorating.
January 16th, 2020 at 10:38 AM ^
Rule change proposal:
Points in the paint = 1 point
Midrange between the key and the arc = 2 points
Beyond the arc = 3 points
Half court = 4 points
January 16th, 2020 at 10:42 AM ^
Would be a lot of reviews.
January 16th, 2020 at 10:56 AM ^
Rule proposal #2:
Ban replay reviews.
January 16th, 2020 at 10:57 AM ^
Bam. I'm sold.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:58 PM ^
Yea - it's screaming for a change. I think moving the 3pt line back a foot and eliminate the corner 3 would also be an option.
January 16th, 2020 at 10:44 AM ^
A very good change in terms of smarter basketball. Mid-range shots are simply not worth taking, with the deep 2 pointers being almost worthy of an auto-benching for bad shot selection...either drive/shoot in the paint for a high percentage shot (and potential foul) or back up another foot and turn that low-quality 2 point shot into a much more valuable 3 pointer.
I think, however, that the game has been moving this way for longer than just the past 20 seasons, but since the 80's. It is just now that the 3 has been fully weaponized and all positions can shoot the 3 that the shot chart has finally arrived where it is today.
One of my favorite aspects of all this, however, is watching the big men strive to add the 3 to their game. The Gasols both added it, Aldridge added it, hell, even Dwight F'n Howard is hitting a few 3s now - a guy that lived in the paint for the first 15 years of his career. Really, if you can't shoot 3s at this point, you have a severe ceiling on your career - like Ben Simmons. If he had a semi-reliable shot, he would be MVP every year for the next decade. He is an elite PG with incredible athleticism, DPOY defensive skill, and is unguardable at his size. Yet, because he relies solely on driving to the paint, teams can load the paint on the 76ers or play a simple zone D and they will fall apart.
Similar to this chart, I would love to see a rebound location chart showing where the average guard pulls down their rebounds. The insane rise in triple-doubles over the last 6-7 years can largely be attributed to guards being expected to rebound more to initiate the offense as fast as possible, and I think seeing a chart like this would be very interesting.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:31 PM ^
The three doesn’t just add offensive power to the big man; it affects other people on the team, too. When the 5 is chained to the paint, his defender provide help defense on the drives of other players. That, in turn, allows perimeter defenders to play tighter at the 3-point line.
Post-ups still happen, but they’re much more concentrated with the best players (just like ISO’s with guys like Harden). So a big whose post-up game isn’t elite needs to provide something else of value.
Its hilarious that Rasheed Wallace, whose three-point shooting was considered a selfish distraction by more than a few, turned out to be ahead of his time.
January 16th, 2020 at 1:04 PM ^
Yup.
...And a Rasheed with a commitment to long-range in today's game combined with his underrated passing would be nasty in 2020.
January 16th, 2020 at 10:46 AM ^
Rip Hamilton looks at this chart with a tear running down his face. That dude was money with his mid-range game.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:00 AM ^
I'll never forget him running circles around an aging Reggie in 04.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:16 AM ^
True but couldn't hit 3s to save his life. The dude was nails from 18-20 feet and lost behind the ark.
I never understood why that seemingly short distance made such a difference in his accuracy but it sure did.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
For the most part you are correct. He wasn't a great 3 point shooter. But keep in mind Richard Hamilton lead the league in 3 point field goal percentage in 05-06.
55/120 - .4583
He only averaged 1.5 attempts per game that year but he made them count.
January 16th, 2020 at 1:13 PM ^
Muscle memory is a finely tuned thing. 4 or 5 feet difference in shot distance from what you've trained yourself over the course of years and decades is a big deal.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:00 AM ^
Eliminate the three-point line and the shot clock.
Game would be more fun to watch and play.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:06 AM ^
Kirk Goldsberry suggested adding a 3 second violation for standing in the corner. This would increase movement and decrease spacing, making a variety of shots more viable. I don't think it's wise to implement that in HS or below, but would make for some interesting changes in college and pros.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:09 AM ^
Dunks and 3's. Just like an adult rec league.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:15 AM ^
This is awful and ruining basketball.
I think basketball rules need to ponder the idea that for each team, there should be a limit on either the amount of 3 point attempts or maybe makes per quarter.
Of course, you can shoot them all you want, but after a certain defined point, they are only worth 2 points.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:47 AM ^
This is awful and ruining basketball in the way that de-emphasizing the fullback is awful/ruining football...
January 16th, 2020 at 12:04 PM ^
You don’t know anything about football then.
A FB is equivalent to “shots at the rim” in basketball.
The modern NBA when compared to football is all 40 yard throws down the field or fullback plunges for 2 yards and nothing in between.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:38 PM ^
A rules fix is premature; the game is evolving very fast right now. The 20-year comparison is interesting, but 3-point shooting went through the roof with the advent of the fully weaponized splash brothers Warriors. We’re talking about major, fundamental changes in less than 10 years. (Remember the classic Kobe/Carmelo elbow jumpers? Not that long ago!)
And that was extremely attractive, team-oriented basketball. One of the best things about the Curry-led Warriors was how beautiful their style of play was.
Subsequent developments have been less attractive. The last few years have seen iso-ball re-emerging with James Harden.
But this is happening extremely fast. Just passing rules as soon as a trend emerges that we don’t like isn’t wise. Let things settle in. Perhaps it will be defensive innovation, or a unique player, or a team that succeeds in an unusual way, but things will change again.
January 16th, 2020 at 1:10 PM ^
I think the comment about iso coming back with Harden is a bit premature. He has been in the league for over a decade and has been playing the same style of ball since at least 2012. If anything, him and Westbrook are outliers.
...speaking of which, watching them play together is just an assault on the eyes.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:29 AM ^
I mean it makes sense. As time has gone on, especially over the last 20ish years or so, athletes across all sports have gotten bigger, faster, stronger, and more athletic. Athletes can simply "do more" now, and fill a lot of different needs. Instead of the big, tall, but gangly and unathletic big men of yesteryear who couldn't do anything but hang around the basket, pull down rebounds and hit easy layups, you've got guys who can still play down low but also come outside and shoot the three. Maybe not as well as a guard, but they can still do it. They've added more to their arsenal because their bodies allow them to do so. The athletic training and science behind it is lightyears ahead of where it was 20-30 years ago, and its only getting better. Pretty soon you're going to have a bunch of Captain Americas running around the court. Men who have literally hit the peak of human potential.
I don't really watch or care for the NBA. Never grew up with a team, and this era of superteams makes me feel a tad disillusioned with the sport. But I can certainly understand why the sport feels more exciting now to those who watch it. Offense sells tickets, and apparently in this sport, it wins you championships too.
January 16th, 2020 at 4:49 PM ^
Today’s big men are more talented than Kareem, Malone, Walton and Olajuwon? You need to take a trip to YouTube. The best sports viewing of my lifetime was the Lakers/Celtics battles of the 80s, which involved great players playing a game that had a much better flow. If you want to talk about athletes, what Magic was able to do at 6’9”/235 has never been equaled, 6’9” James Worthy filled a fast break lane as well as anyone his size ever has, McHale had post moves no one today can match, Bird’s combination of skills made him a bigger and much better version of what Doncic dreams of being and Kareem was the most unstoppable offensive player the game has ever seen.
January 16th, 2020 at 11:34 AM ^
I've never been a huge analytics fans, in particular with the "Only 3s and layups strategy". This sort of approach mirrored the rule changes that were implemented in response to a desire for more "entertaining" basketball (basically open-gym).
The analytics approach typically holds true during the regular season (when NBA officials call the games per the letter of the law), but not so much during the playoffs (when NBA officials let the game get physical).
At the highest levels, you absolutely need an Iso guy that can hit midrange jumpers off the bounce. In fact, its almost mandatory these days. Officials allow the defender to contest 3s in the playoffs so creating separation off 1-2 dribbles then getting a clean pull-up (basically Kobe Bryant) is such a luxury. 
January 16th, 2020 at 12:36 PM ^
I don't think that's what the data is saying. Open layups and 3s are still the best shots in the playoffs (that's not arguable, it's just math) - if you can get them. And it's harder to get open 3s and layups in the playoffs, as you said. That doesn't mean that they're not the best shots and what you should be trying to get. GS and Toronto still shot 30+ 3s in every game in the Finals last year. But the teams that advance in the playoffs are typically going to be the teams that are still very good at getting open 3s and layups, as well as stopping them. So when you get the good teams playing against each other, you need someone or someones that can get you shots in different ways. Your points are true except for saying that the strategy of trying to get 3s and layups is bad.
January 16th, 2020 at 1:02 PM ^
Never once claimed the analytics strategy is bad, just that I’m not a fan of it.
The overall point I’m trying to convey sort of tags off what you referenced, NBA officiating in the playoffs allows a more physical brand of ball, in tandem with high level defenses taking away 3s and layups.
Basic takeaway is that you likely need an iso superstar to take midrange pull-ups or dominant post player to win a title at the NBA Level.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:11 PM ^
It may be smarter basketball to only shoot 3s or layups, but IMO, it is much less interesting/entertaining to watch. There's just so much less variety in offensive strategies and shot techniques. Remember how awesome it was to watch Hakeen Olajuwon's turn-around jump shots? Or Rip Hamilton's mid-range shots? Or Kareem's sky hooks? Nobody does that anymore. It's either a 3 or a layup/dunk. It's just very boring to me (and I'm not a "boomer", I'm 36).
January 16th, 2020 at 12:41 PM ^
Time to bring back hand checking and move the 3 point line back even more. Everything is a foul now, allowing players to get uncontested layups. Shooters have become too elite, to the point where you have 6'11 centers putting up more 3's than 2's.
Elite shooters like Curry, Harden, Lillard would continue to hit 3's given their absurd range, but watching Brook Lopez shoot 7 spot up 3's a game is boring.
January 16th, 2020 at 12:47 PM ^
I saw this on my Twitter feed a few days ago. It really angered me seeing that. I cannot stand how obsessed with the three shot players are now. This goes across all levels of basketball. Everyone wants to be a jump shooter now.
January 16th, 2020 at 1:31 PM ^
Never watch it..its BORING
January 16th, 2020 at 3:20 PM ^
Officiating makes it too difficult to defend the paint because any sort of contact will get a defensive foul called. Offenses know this and never settle for the mid-range shot any more.