If 3-point line removed, drive-and-kick becomes worthless, post-ups return

[3ball]

Post and mid-range were used in the 80's because 3-point shooting didn't exist to make drive-and-kick a more viable option, not because the appropriate defensive tactics didn't exist to stop them.

So people should stop saying that today's defensive tactics reduced post play - it's just not true.. The continued increase in 3-point shooting and corresponding increase in drive-and-kick efficiency is the reason post play has been phased out.. If you removed the 3-point line in TODAY'S game, the efficiency of drive-and-kick would plummet the same way, and teams would go back to post/mid-range again.

However, the removal of 3-pointers would hurt today's player because 3-pointers provide spacing that spreads the defense thinner, including weakside spacing.. Weakside spacing and the resulting fewer strongside defenders forces today's defenses to pick their poison on every play: allow the penetrator to face less strongside defenders by NOT flooding anyone over from the weakside, or leave someone open on the weakside by flooding someone over.

Otoh, teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's, so there was no spacing or weakside spacing.. Without weakside spacing, defenders could remain on the strongside, thus eliminating the need to make any decisions about whether to flood.. Flooding isn't necessary when the lack of weakside spacing leaves all all 5 defenders (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11128077&postcount=21) on the strongside.

These fully-flooded strongsides were a product of no-spacing and represented the "advanced" version of the game that included hand-checking, higher physicality, and legal paint-camping - these things required more sophisticated 2-point shooting ability.

This is a stark contrast to today's weakside spacing and resulting porous strongsides, including 1-defender strongsides (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=377570) - this is basically the "beginner" version of the game that includes spacing and less strongside defenders, no hand-checking, no paint-camping, and no physicality.. The highest levels of offensive sophistication (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11534471&postcount=108) simply aren't needed for today's beginner version of the game.
.

[Cocaine80s]

Agreed, also dunks should count as 3 points instead and eliminate free throws

[Akrazotile]

Honestly, they should stop keeping score and just have the fans vote on who wins.

[HighFlyer23]

You have a lot of time on your hands man

[Lensanity]

OP likes to come up with extremely obvious things and write it out in paragraphs to make himself look like a genius. In reality, this is no shit obvious.

[And1AllDay]

OP likes to come up with extremely obvious things and write it out in paragraphs to make himself look like a genius. In reality, this is no shit obvious.

My thoughts too

[Timmy D for MVP]

http://media.giphy.com/media/1ZkMDj88mQ1rO/giphy.gif

[Nikola_]

strong side trolling

[RidonKs]

Honestly, they should stop keeping score and just have the fans vote on who wins.
this would be amazing :lol

[kshutts1]

Post and mid-range were used in the 80's because 3-point shooting didn't exist to make drive-and-kick a more viable option, not because the appropriate defensive tactics didn't exist to stop them.

So people should stop saying that today's defensive tactics reduced post play - it's just not true.. The continued increase in 3-point shooting and corresponding increase in drive-and-kick efficiency is the reason post play has been phased out.. If you removed the 3-point line in TODAY'S game, the efficiency of drive-and-kick would plummet the same way, and teams would go back to post/mid-range again.

However, the removal of 3-pointers would hurt today's player because 3-pointers provide spacing that spreads the defense thinner, including weakside spacing.. Weakside spacing and the resulting fewer strongside defenders forces today's defenses to pick their poison on every play: allow the penetrator to face less strongside defenders by NOT flooding anyone over from the weakside, or leave someone open on the weakside by flooding someone over.

Otoh, teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's, so there was no spacing or weakside spacing.. Without weakside spacing, defenders could remain on the strongside, thus eliminating the need to make any decisions about whether to flood.. Flooding isn't necessary when the lack of weakside spacing leaves all all 5 defenders (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11128077&postcount=21) on the strongside.

These fully-flooded strongsides were a product of no-spacing and represented the "advanced" version of the game that included hand-checking, higher physicality, and legal paint-camping - these things required more sophisticated 2-point shooting ability.

This is a stark contrast to today's weakside spacing and resulting porous strongsides, including 1-defender strongsides (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=377570) - this is basically the "beginner" version of the game that includes spacing and less strongside defenders, no hand-checking, no paint-camping, and no physicality.. The highest levels of offensive sophistication (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11534471&postcount=108) simply aren't needed for today's beginner version of the game.
.
:biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[sdot_thadon]

You're still confusing strategy and personnel with rules. Teams didn't take as many 3's in the 90's because coaches wanted their players practicing and taking shots closer to the hoop, including in the post. The Bulls were perfectly capable of loading up on 3-point shooters and spacing the court, allowing MJ to drive and kick all game. There was nothing in the rules that would have stopped teams from using this strategy. In fact, go watch some clips of my Warriors in the 90's, and you'll see a team that looks a lot like a modern NBA team.

The reality is that coaches didn't want their teams taking a lot of 3-pointers, because they felt, and rightfully so, that scoring from the post and mid-range was a more efficient way of scoring, and a more effective way to win games. Now, the rule that really effected the offensive focus of coaches was the removal of hand-checking. Once penetration became the primary scoring method, it was in direct conflict with post-scoring. If your strategy is to get to the hoop (or FT line), the last thing you want is an offensive player standing under the basket. So what did coaches do? They adjusted their strategy and personnel by prioritizing the 3-point shot, to create more space on the court for their primary offensive strategy; slashing to the paint (FT line).

The truth is, as I said earlier, it's easier to double-team the post with modern rules, because you are allowed to double the post player before the ball arrives. The reason it may be more dangerous to double the post today has nothing to do with the defensive rules (unless you want to talk about hand-checking), and everything to do with the personnel on the court (more 3 point shooters). Trust me, if prime Shaq was playing in the modern league, he would be doubled before he caught the ball every time down the court, and the team he played for would lead the league in 3-point shooting (imagine Dwight Howard's Orlando Magic on steroids).

It's actually the ease of doubling the post, combined with the ease of slashing to the paint, that has led to the homogenization of offensive strategies in the NBA. It's simply far too efficient to spread the court and play high P&R to do anything else. There are maybe a handful of teams in the league that don't use a similar offensive strategy, and most of them aren't any good. The Grizz are probably the only team that successfully and consistently play through the high and low post... and did you see what happened when my Warriors finally decided to double the post? The Grizz had to bench their best perimeter defender to insert a better 3-point shooter. :oldlol:


If you want a good example of how easy it is to shut down the post with modern NBA defenses, go watch Al Jefferson in both Charlotte and Utah. Just watch the 1st half of the games, and you'll see how modern defenses are able to pick and choose when they want to shut down a low-post scorer. With the efficiency that teams are able to score with using the FT line and 3-point shot, you can see teams literally bait Al's teams into playing through the post.
Got wrecked in the other thread and left to make a new one. I'll just leave this here.

[r15mohd]

Got wrecked in the other thread and left to make a new one. I'll just leave this here.

nothing new from 3ball...how many times are we going to see a "spacing" thread from him, and each time he's shut down in them.

why is he not banned by now is beyond me :facepalm

[senelcoolidge]

Well of course without the 3 point line you would have more driving and post play. That's the way the NBA was like before. I wish someone would experiment with this. Eliminating the 3pt field goal for a season. Players would have to make big adjustments. Plus I agree spacing would be reduced. Of course fans wouldn't want this.

[DMV2]

If they did this in 2013 then LeBron would be 1/6.

[r15mohd]

Well of course without the 3 point line you would have more driving and post play. That's the way the NBA was like before. I wish someone would experiment with this. Eliminating the 3pt field goal for a season. Players would have to make big adjustments. Plus I agree spacing would be reduced. Of course fans wouldn't want this.


the game becomes slower, and less entertaining. the 3pt line was introduced just for that reason, and because of it, it has brought some of the most exciting plays we've seen in the NBA.

Ray Allen's game 6 dagger, Kerr and Paxson's 3pt-ers, Horry's endless run of clutch 3's, LJ's 4pt play against the Pacers, Reggie's comeback in minimal seconds against the Knicks...and countless others.

no post up or mid-range could provide this level of entertainment IMO

[r15mohd]

If they did this in 2013 then LeBron would be 1/6.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

actually Lebron would be more golden if the 3pt was non-existent. he'd be forced to play more aggressively down low where he's beastly, as seen the past 4-5yrs. nice try though :cheers:

[ImKobe]

http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.com/files/2014/11/14/635515964280865297-8886480_michaelscott10.gif

[QuebecBaller]

Post and mid-range were used in the 80's because 3-point shooting didn't exist to make drive-and-kick a more viable option, not because the appropriate defensive tactics didn't exist to stop them.

Otoh, teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's, so there was no spacing or weakside spacing..


Do you know the 80's were not in 1970?

Poor Larry Bird... he won the Two-Points Contests and not the Three-Point Contests :(

[iznogood]

Got wrecked in the other thread and left to make a new one. I'll just leave this here.
You're still confusing strategy and personnel with rules. Teams didn't take as many 3's in the 90's because coaches wanted their players practicing and taking shots closer to the hoop, including in the post. The Bulls were perfectly capable of loading up on 3-point shooters and spacing the court, allowing MJ to drive and kick all game. There was nothing in the rules that would have stopped teams from using this strategy. In fact, go watch some clips of my Warriors in the 90's, and you'll see a team that looks a lot like a modern NBA team.

The reality is that coaches didn't want their teams taking a lot of 3-pointers, because they felt, and rightfully so, that scoring from the post and mid-range was a more efficient way of scoring, and a more effective way to win games. Now, the rule that really effected the offensive focus of coaches was the removal of hand-checking. Once penetration became the primary scoring method, it was in direct conflict with post-scoring. If your strategy is to get to the hoop (or FT line), the last thing you want is an offensive player standing under the basket. So what did coaches do? They adjusted their strategy and personnel by prioritizing the 3-point shot, to create more space on the court for their primary offensive strategy; slashing to the paint (FT line).

The truth is, as I said earlier, it's easier to double-team the post with modern rules, because you are allowed to double the post player before the ball arrives. The reason it may be more dangerous to double the post today has nothing to do with the defensive rules (unless you want to talk about hand-checking), and everything to do with the personnel on the court (more 3 point shooters). Trust me, if prime Shaq was playing in the modern league, he would be doubled before he caught the ball every time down the court, and the team he played for would lead the league in 3-point shooting (imagine Dwight Howard's Orlando Magic on steroids).

It's actually the ease of doubling the post, combined with the ease of slashing to the paint, that has led to the homogenization of offensive strategies in the NBA. It's simply far too efficient to spread the court and play high P&R to do anything else. There are maybe a handful of teams in the league that don't use a similar offensive strategy, and most of them aren't any good. The Grizz are probably the only team that successfully and consistently play through the high and low post... and did you see what happened when my Warriors finally decided to double the post? The Grizz had to bench their best perimeter defender to insert a better 3-point shooter.


If you want a good example of how easy it is to shut down the post with modern NBA defenses, go watch Al Jefferson in both Charlotte and Utah. Just watch the 1st half of the games, and you'll see how modern defenses are able to pick and choose when they want to shut down a low-post scorer. With the efficiency that teams are able to score with using the FT line and 3-point shot, you can see teams literally bait Al's teams into playing through the post.
I don't agree with you on hand-checking rule being the rule that allowed more penetration. Once the player you're guarding gains a bit of advantage you're not allowed to use your hand to check him and it was the same in the 80s, it would be called a pushing foul. The interpretation of the rules that really changed and affected the initial penetration were the rules regarding ball handling and also the fact that the players improved on their ability to shoot 3 pointers, so they had to be guarded closer, which makes breaking down your defender much easier.

[3ball]

nothing new from 3ball...how many times are we going to see a "spacing" thread from him, and each time he's shut down in them.


Can you ****ing read?

This thread states mathematical fact - if you removed the 3-point line from today's game, the efficiency of drive-and-kick would plummet and teams would have no choice but to start posting up and using mid-range again.

This proves that post play hasn't declined due to defensive tactics, since post play would insta-comeback if the 3-point line were removed.

It also proves that if Lebron or ANYONE from today's game played in the 80's when they didn't shoot 3-pointers, they wouldn't be able to drive-and-kick, so they'd have to score via post and mid-range just like everyone else.. We know for a fact that Lebron sucks at both, so he would be half the player in previous eras.

Not a single person itt has refuted one iota of this.... because it CAN'T be refuted - it's mathematical fact that drive-and-kick is gone without the 3-point line, and the only thing left is post, mid-range, off-ball and isolation.

[DaOldLion]

thats true

[Lensanity]

Can you ****ing read?

This thread states mathematical fact - if you removed the 3-point line from today's game, the efficiency of drive-and-kick would plummet and teams would have no choice but to start posting up and using mid-range again.

This proves that post play hasn't declined due to defensive tactics, since post play would insta-comeback if the 3-point line were removed.

It also proves that if Lebron or ANYONE from today's game played in the 80's when they didn't shoot 3-pointers, they wouldn't be able to drive-and-kick, so they'd have to score via post and mid-range just like everyone else.. We know for a fact that Lebron sucks at both, so he would be half the player in previous eras.

Not a single person itt has refuted one iota of this.... because it CAN'T be refuted - it's mathematical fact that drive-and-kick is gone without the 3-point line, and the only thing left is post, mid-range, off-ball and isolation.

Quit pretending to be a ****ing genius. You basically just made a thread filled with your explanation of how and why 2+2=4. You are like 13 or at least have a 13 year olds brain so I know this is the most intelligent basketball analysis you can come up with but please just shut the **** up.

[3ball]

in today's game, you're allowed to double a post player before the ball arrives.


Doubling the post before the ball gets there is an extremely obvious move that leaves someone wide open - it prevents a post player from catching it, but that's only a consideration in today's game because the spacing gives players too much time and room to operate once they catch it... The spacing and further distance of help defenders makes today's post players too dangerous when they catch the ball.

Otoh, when there isn't spacing and help defense is much closer, a team is better off NOT compromising their defense by doubling early and leaving someone wide open.. The lack of spacing made previous eras better-equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

I know you think doubling before the ball gets there reduces ACTUAL post scoring - it's meaningless because it doesn't reduce post scoring nearly as much as no-spacing and legal paint-camping... Remember, teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's - instead, coaches foolishly positioned players closer to the basket, which activated the league's legal paint-camping provision... Legal paint-camping reduces scoring in the paint more than ANY defensive tactic... It's amazing you could argue anything related to today's paint defense when defensive 3 seconds keeps the paint clear at all times, while previous eras had legal paint-camping.. It's ridiculous.





my post didn't mention spacing even 1 time - spacing doesn't exist to me


As you can see, spacing puts defenses in a "pick your poison" situation: allow a post player to catch the ball and have a ton of time/room to operate, or double early and leave someone wide open?.. Defenses in previous eras didn't have this problem because the lack of spacing made them better equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

Spacing puts defenses in a similar quandry regarding flooding - weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders, so defenses must chose: allow the penetrator to face less strongside defenders by NOT flooding, or flooding and leaving someone open on the weakside?.. Again, defenses in previous eras didn't have to worry about flooding because without weakside spacing, defenders were already on the strongside.
.

[GIF REACTION]

Not necessarily

Teams are still free to play however they want defensively

Now if they got rid of the 3 point line and brought back illegal defense, then post ups would return

It's not the 3 point usage increase that has lead to less post ups. The 3 increase is simply an offensive strategy counter to the abolition of the illegal defense rules (Abolished in 2001) and more stringent hand checking interpretations (2005).

[3ball]

Now if they got rid of the 3 point line and brought back illegal defense, then post ups would return

It's not the 3 point usage increase that has lead to less post ups. The 3 increase is simply an offensive strategy counter to the abolition of the illegal defense rules (Abolished in 2001) and more stringent hand checking interpretations (2005).


Your post makes zero sense - the 3-point shot was not introduced along with the new rules in 2001 or 2005..

Otoh, my post was a mathematical fact:

Without 3-pointers, the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets and is not worthwhile compared to post, mid-range, off-ball or isolations.

If you removed the 3-point line from today's game, teams would NOT drive-and-kick anywhere NEAR like they do now - anyone saying they would, is a liar or dumb or both.. Teams would have no choice but to return to post and mid-range play - this proves the defensive tactics have nothing to do with it.
.

[NustABut]

If one team scores more than the other, that team wins.

[sdot_thadon]

So, let's get rid of the 3 point line? Why not get rid of dribbling? Better yet the ball? Mj would still lead the league because we all know he can score without the ball.....:rolleyes:

[3ball]

Teams didn't take as many 3's in the 90's because coaches wanted their players practicing and taking shots closer to the hoop.


Don't act like coaches COULD have made their players take 22 threes per game like today if they wanted to... That's horseshit.. The personnel didn't exist for any team to go from 6 attempts per game in 1991 (league average), to 22 per game like today.

Teams didn't shoot threes in the 90's because the 3-point line was just introduced in 1983 - it was still considered a novelty... This is common knowledge - coaches didn't understand the benefits of 3-point shooting and weren't aware they should take more.





The Bulls were perfectly capable of loading up on 3-point shooters and spacing the court


Complete BS - the Bulls attempted 5 threes per game in 1991 - they did NOT have the personnel, capability or understanding to take 22 threes per game like today's teams.

It's ridiculous to say they did.. The 3-point shot was a novelty back then - this is common knowledge.. But keep trying to rewrite history to your liking - It's pathetic however.






In fact, go watch some clips of my Warriors in the 90's, and you'll see a team that looks a lot like a modern NBA team.



Oh yeah bud.. I'll do that right away.

You said the 90's Warriors play like today's teams.... but the Warriors attempted 9 threes per game in their peak 1992 season.... How does that compare to today's teams taking 22 per game?... This is the third response in a row where I have to say you're wrong/lying.. But you want me to check something out on youtube?... GTFO.





The truth is, as I said earlier, it's easier to double-team the post with modern rules, because you are allowed to double the post player before the ball arrives.


Doubling the post before the ball gets there is an extremely obvious move that leaves someone wide open - it prevents a post player from catching it, but that's only a consideration in today's game because the spacing gives players too much time and room to operate once they catch it... The spacing and further distance of help defenders makes today's post players too dangerous when they catch the ball.

Otoh, when there isn't spacing and help defense is much closer, a team is better off NOT compromising their defense by doubling early and leaving someone wide open.. The lack of spacing made previous eras better-equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.





It's actually the ease of doubling the post


I just murdered this lie in the previous response... As you can see, spacing puts defenses in a "pick your poison" situation: allow a post player to catch the ball and have a ton of time/room to operate, or double early and leave someone wide open?.. Defenses in previous eras didn't have this problem because the lack of spacing made them better equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

Spacing puts defenses in a similar quandry regarding flooding - weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders, so defenses must chose: allow the penetrator to face less strongside defenders by NOT flooding, or flood and leave someone open on the weakside?.. Again, defenses in previous eras didn't have to worry about flooding because without weakside spacing, defenders were already on the strongside.

I know you think doubling before the ball gets there reduces ACTUAL post scoring - it's meaningless because it doesn't reduce post scoring nearly as much as no-spacing and legal paint-camping... Remember, teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's - instead, coaches foolishly positioned players closer to the basket, which activated the league's legal paint-camping provision... Legal paint-camping reduces scoring in the paint more than ANY defensive tactic... It's amazing you could argue anything related to today's paint defense when defensive 3 seconds keeps the paint clear at all times, while previous eras had legal paint-camping.. It's ridiculous.






combined with the ease of slashing to the paint, that has led to the homogenization of offensive strategies in the NBA. It's simply far too efficient to spread the court and play high P&R to do anything else.



You slipped up here - you just stated my point in the bolded above - the court must be SPREAD for the drive-and-kick.. You said it yourself.

But this is already mathematical fact - the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets without 3-pointers... If you removed the 3-point line from today's game, teams would be forced to return to post-ups - no defensive tactic would stop today's teams from posting up in the absence of drive-and-kick.

The reality that post-ups would return to today's game in the absence of drive-and-kick PROVES that fewer post ups isn't due to defense.. You haven't refuted this one iota because the reality of 3-pointers and drive-and-kick is mathematical fact - instead, all you've done is make stuff up that didn't happen (i.e. the Bulls were capable of shooting 22 threes per game like today, etc.)





The Grizz are probably the only team that successfully and consistently play through the high and low post...


It's no surprise that the Grizzlies can't win by posting up, when 3-point shooting and the resulting spacing makes drive-and-kick more efficient.. There's nothing noteworthy here.. No surprise that they lost.

But if the 3-point line was removed from today's game, the Grizz win the championship - no defensive tactic from today's game would stop teams from going back to post-ups if the removal of the 3-point line took their drive-and-kick away.. :confusedshrug:





If you want a good example of how easy it is to shut down the post with modern NBA defenses, go watch Al Jefferson in both Charlotte and Utah.


The elite post percentages of today's inferior bigs provides more proof that today's defensive tactics do nothing to slow down post players.

Al Jefferson is the perfect example - he posts up at an 80's frequency - twice as much as the other post-up leaders in today's game, yet he still achieves an elite post PPP:

http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&sort=PPP&CF=Poss*GE*200&Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

If guys like Valcunious, Marc Gasol, Montejunas, and Al Jefferson can get an elite 1.00 PPP on the post in today's game, then you know the superior bigs from let's say 1997 would do MUCH better: Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Alonzo, Sabonis, Karl Malone, Barkley, Webber, and Kemp (also Vin Baker, Dino Radja, Derrick Coleman and Vlade Divacs).

a very satisfying copy and paste

[kshutts1]

Post and mid-range were used in the 80's because 3-point shooting didn't exist


Teams didn't shoot threes in the 90's because the 3-point line was just introduced in 1983
Maybe you should copy/paste less and do more research?

[GIF REACTION]

Not necessarily

Teams are still free to play however they want defensively

Now if they got rid of the 3 point line and brought back illegal defense, then post ups would return

It's not the 3 point usage increase that has lead to less post ups. The 3 increase is simply an offensive strategy counter to the abolition of the illegal defense rules (Abolished in 2001) and more stringent hand checking interpretations (2005).

[GIF REACTION]

All removing the 3 point line would do is pack the paint even more as a shot from 20ft is worth the same as a shot from 5ft.

It's the removal of illegal defense in 2001 that slowly started the decline in posting up, and the handcheck rule in 2005 further affected that decline.

[kshutts1]

Not necessarily

Teams are still free to play however they want defensively

Now if they got rid of the 3 point line and brought back illegal defense, then post ups would return

It's not the 3 point usage increase that has lead to less post ups. The 3 increase is simply an offensive strategy counter to the abolition of the illegal defense rules (Abolished in 2001) and more stringent hand checking interpretations (2005).
You, literally, already posted this. And 3ball literally already responded.

Either respond to his response, or don't post the same thing. You trying to be 3ball lite?

[GIF REACTION]

You, literally, already posted this. And 3ball literally already responded.

Either respond to his response, or don't post the same thing. You trying to be 3ball lite?
It's 3ball bro

Just using his own tactics against him. He likes to delete posts and repost them to bump threads, shift comments in threads, etc. It'd be justice if someone posted an extremely large image in each and every one of his threads. Someone should make an alt called the 3ballkiller. Every time he makes a thread, shut it down with a huge image.

It's a simple answer, which I am 100% right. We all know his game.

[Smoke117]

1-9

[sdot_thadon]

Maybe you should copy/paste less and do more research?

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[GIF REACTION]

Incorrect response 3ball,

You don't get addition by subtraction. Teams will go from drive and kicks, to more pick and rolls and passing motion gameplans. Pick and roll is pretty much drive and kicks. You'd get less shooters and more rebounders, but post ups would still be as hard as it was post 2001/2005. They simply aren't an efficient means to score.

[3ball]

The 3 increase is simply an offensive strategy counter to the abolition of the illegal defense rules (Abolished in 2001) and more stringent hand checking interpretations (2005).



You guys love making stuff up, and then hoping no one will call you on it.

3-point attempts increased gradually every year since the 3-point line was introduced in 1980.. There was no special bump or abnormal increase when the new rules were introduced in 2001 and 2005.. In 2001, teams attempted 13.7 threes per game, which was exactly the same as 2000... Literally zero difference.. In 2005, teams attempted 15.8 threes per game, compared to 14.9 the previous year.

Again - 3-point attempts increased gradually every year since the 3-point line was introduced in 1980.. There was no special bump or abnormal increase when the new rules were introduced in 2001 and 2005.

Otoh, my post was a mathematical fact:

Without 3-pointers, the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post, mid-range, off-ball or isolations... In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy would prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick.

[Trollsmasher]

3p shooting existed

players just weren't skilled enough to utilize it

players became more skilled at 3p shooting because the new defensive schemes and rules forced them to do so, as the defenses became too good

[aquaadverse]

Broken record. Same shit, different day.

[3ball]

kshutts, sdot_thadon - you're getting on me because I mixed up the years?

as long as that's the only thing you disagree with - then that's cool... you agree with everything else?
.

[GIF REACTION]

THREAD CLIFFS:

Not necessarily

Teams are still free to play however they want defensively

Now if they got rid of the 3 point line and brought back illegal defense, then post ups would return

It's not the 3 point usage increase that has lead to less post ups. The 3 increase is simply an offensive strategy counter to the abolition of the illegal defense rules (Abolished in 2001) and more stringent hand checking interpretations (2005).

All removing the 3 point line would do is pack the paint even more as a shot from 20ft is worth the same as a shot from 5ft.

It's the removal of illegal defense in 2001 that slowly started the decline in posting up, and the handcheck rule in 2005 further affected that decline.

You don't get addition by subtraction. Teams will go from drive and kicks, to more pick and rolls and passing motion gameplans. Pick and roll is pretty much drive and kicks. You'd get less shooters and more rebounders, but post ups would still be as hard as it was post 2001/2005. They simply aren't an efficient means to score.

[3ball]

The 3 increase is simply an offensive strategy counter to the abolition of the illegal defense rules (Abolished in 2001) and more stringent hand checking interpretations (2005).



This is FACTUALLY incorrect.. You're statement is false.

3-point attempts increased gradually every year since the 3-point line was introduced in 1980.. There was no special bump or abnormal increase when the new rules were introduced in 2001 and 2005.. In 2001, teams attempted 13.7 threes per game, which was exactly the same as 2000... Literally zero difference.. In 2005, teams attempted 15.8 threes per game, compared to 14.9 the previous year.

Again - 3-point attempts increased gradually every year since the 3-point line was introduced in 1980.. There was no special bump or abnormal increase when the new rules were introduced in 2001 and 2005.

Otoh, my post was a mathematical fact:

Without 3-pointers, the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post, mid-range, off-ball or isolations... In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy would prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick, which proves the fewer post-ups is due to 3-point shooting, not defensive tactics.

[GIF REACTION]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/tumblr_lkn3geyaep1qh3tf2o1_400.gif

[3ball]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/tumblr_lkn3geyaep1qh3tf2o1_400.gif
:wtf:

[3ball]

Broken record. Same shit, different day.
Show me where I've made a thread about this topic before, or stfu

[3ball]

.
THREAD CLIFFS:

In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy would prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick - it's simply a mathematical fact that the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets without 3-pointers.

With drive-and-kick returning to the shadows in favor of post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations, we can say with certainty that Lebron would be half the player without the 3-point line, like in the 80's and 90's when the 3-point shot wasn't used.


http://media.giphy.com/media/qaFduOMYKkmwE/giphy.gif

[sdot_thadon]

.
THREAD CLIFFS:

In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy would prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick - it's simply a mathematical fact that the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets without 3-pointers.

With drive-and-kick returning to the shadows in favor of post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations, we can say with certainty that Lebron would be half the player without the 3-point line, like in the 80's and 90's when the 3-point shot wasn't used.


http://media.giphy.com/media/qaFduOMYKkmwE/giphy.gif
Or, we can expect that he'd adapt to the rules the same way it is assumed most top 10 guys would and he'd be the version of himself he shoulda been all along in that body.....


kshutts, sdot_thadon - you're getting on me because I mixed up the years?

as long as that's the only thing you disagree with - then that's cool... you agree with everything else?
.

See that's not it at all man, you said the 3 point shot was unavailable, as if it didn't exist. When in fact, it did. Being unwilling to adopt it as legit strategy does not mean it didn't exist. And the crazy thing is perhaps it'd be even a more deadly weapon in those days with everyone all standing shoulder to shoulder in the paint every play like you want us to believe wouldn't it?

[3ball]

Or, we can expect that he'd adapt to the rules the same way it is assumed most top 10 guys would and he'd be the version of himself he shoulda been all along in that body.....



This thread considers how the CURRENT, ACTUAL LEBRON would play without the 3-point line and/or in eras that didn't shoot 3-pointers.. That's all people care about - how the current, actual Lebron would do.

No one cares about the countless scenarios of him developing differently - in all likelihood, he would've opted to play football if they had started him out on the post in basketball.






See that's not it at all man, you said the 3 point shot was unavailable, as if it didn't exist. When in fact, it did. Being unwilling to adopt it as legit strategy does not mean it didn't exist.



The bolded is where you went wrong - I've never said 3-point shooting wasn't available due to it not existing - I said it wasn't available because 3-point shooting PERSONNEL didn't exist, in addition to the shot being considered a novelty by everyone.

When contemplating how today's player would fare in prior eras, it's an important reality that teams didn't shoot 3-pointers back then - without teammates that shot 3-pointers, the drive-and-kick wouldn't be a primary weapon and today's player would have to score from the post, mid-range, iso, and off-ball like everyone else.. That would severely hurt players who aren't good in these areas (Lebron).






perhaps it'd be even a more deadly weapon in those days with everyone all standing shoulder to shoulder in the paint...?



Your statement makes no sense - if guys shot 3-pointers back then, defenders would have to GUARD the 3-point line - it's impossible for defenders to "stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the paint" if they have to guard the 3-point line.. :facepalm

But in prior eras, they didn't have to guard the 3-point line, so they could stand bunched up in the paint.. Of course, with no 3-pointers, there was no weakside spacing either, so defenders stood bunched up on the strongside too, eliminating the need or even the NOTION of flooding.
.

[sdot_thadon]

This thread considers how the CURRENT, ACTUAL LEBRON would play without the 3-point line and/or in eras that didn't shoot 3-pointers.. That's all people care about - how the current, actual Lebron would do.

No one cares about the countless scenarios of him developing differently - in all likelihood, he would've opted to play football if they had started him out on the post in basketball.

So we're instead supposed to assume that without a 3 point line, Lebron would wander aimlessly where it used to be looking for it? That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Yeah let's assume we take dribbling away and see what difference it makes to the game.:roll:


The bolded is where you went wrong - I've never said 3-point shooting wasn't available due to it not existing - I said it wasn't available because 3-point shooting PERSONNEL didn't exist, in addition to the shot being considered a novelty by everyone.
More dishonesty, more Goal post shuffling. The personnel definitely existed, the license to shoot them at will didn't. Again a strategy issue. Try another one.


When contemplating how today's player would fare in prior eras, it's an important reality that teams didn't shoot 3-pointers back then - without teammates that shot 3-pointers, the drive-and-kick wouldn't be a primary weapon and today's player would have to score from the post, mid-range, iso, and off-ball like everyone else.. That would severely hurt players who aren't good in these areas (Lebron).
Yeah because all the other facets of the game Lebron excels at would cease to exist without the 3? He's decent in the post moves wise, he's great effectiveness wise. (PPP) are we removing pick and roll too while we're butchering the game in order to find a way for lebron to suck? He's got a decent fade away as well. I don't get what your point is. His passing would be diminished? Maybe so, but he has good enough vision and strength to still make great passes. This is a huge fall bro.




Your statement makes no sense - if guys shot 3-pointers back then, defenders would have to GUARD the 3-point line - it's impossible for defenders to "stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the paint" if they have to guard the 3-point line.. :facepalm

But in prior eras, they didn't have to guard the 3-point line, so they could stand bunched up in the paint.. Of course, with no 3-pointers, there was no weakside spacing either, so defenders stood bunched up on the strongside too, eliminating the need or even the NOTION of flooding.
.
Because you my friend, live in bizarro world. With everyone packed in the paint a shooter would feast. Period. It's not that complicated bro. Then they'd be forced to guard the 3 point line and presto, 2015. Welcome to the present 3ball, We've been expecting you...

[nzahir]

If they did this in 2013 then LeBron would be 1/6.
Nah actually he would be 3/6 b/c the spurs were on FIRE both years from 3. Green set a record in 2013 as well. Nice try though.

[KNOW1EDGE]

So of there was no 3 point line the only field goal attempts would be from within 3 feet and LeBron James would suck at basketball. Got it. It's fuhcking retarded, but I got it.

[3ball]

are we removing pick and roll too



YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought this was obvious - drive-and-kick includes screen-roll.. Heck, in today's game, MOST drive-and-kicks begin with a screen-roll.. But in previous eras, the only team that used screen-roll as a primary offense in previous eras was Utah, and only because of the GOAT ability and chemistry of Stockton-Malone.
.

[sdot_thadon]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought this was obvious - drive-and-kick includes screen-roll.. Heck, in today's game, MOST drive-and-kicks begin with a screen-roll - the spacing provided by 3-point shooting makes screen-roll much more effective today than prior eras.. The only team that used screen-roll as a primary offense in previous eras was Utah, and only because of the GOAT ability and chemistry of Stockton-Malone.

So again, in the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy would prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick - it's simply a mathematical fact that the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets without 3-pointers.

With drive-and-kick returning to the shadows in favor of post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations, we can say with certainty that Lebron would be half the player without the 3-point line, like in the 80's and 90's when the 3-point shot wasn't used.
You should take away Lebron's right hand too or his left if you want to keep it realistic.....:rolleyes:

[3ball]

can i see the thread cliffs again


In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy would prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick - it's simply a mathematical fact that the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets without 3-pointers.

With drive-and-kick returning to the shadows in favor of post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations, we can say with certainty that Lebron would be half the player without the 3-point line, like in the 80's and 90's when the 3-point shot wasn't used.


http://media.giphy.com/media/qaFduOMYKkmwE/giphy.gif

[sdot_thadon]

In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy would prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick - it's simply a mathematical fact that the efficiency of drive-and-kick plummets without 3-pointers.

With drive-and-kick returning to the shadows in favor of post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations, we can say with certainty that Lebron would be half the player without the 3-point line, like in the 80's and 90's when the 3-point shot wasn't used.


http://media.giphy.com/media/qaFduOMYKkmwE/giphy.gif
Thread cliffs
-3ball can't respond to a post yet again. Should be evacuating thread shortly.

[3ball]

Thread cliffs
-3ball can't respond to a post yet again. Should be evacuating thread shortly.
anyone reading this thread can see that i responded to every single point you and everyone else made...

meanwhile, you guys skip all the points i make... anyone reading the thread can see that..

indeed... now i'm vacating the thread like today's defender vacating the paint.

[sdot_thadon]

anyone reading this thread can see that i responded to every single point you and everyone else made...

meanwhile, you guys skip all the points i make... anyone reading the thread can see that..

indeed... now i'm vacating the thread like today's defender vacating the paint.
Nah the last post you pretty much sidestepped. Don't worry everyone here sees how you work bro.

Glad you could discover the present.
Again welcome to 2015 3ball, hope you enjoy your stay.

[nzahir]

Jordan would have 5 rings then without paxsons 3.
Lebron would probably have 4 rings then since there would be no barrage of 3s from the spurs in 2013 or 2014 or the warriors this year. Wow, confirmed 3ball is a jordan hater