Im Still Ballin
09-17-2023, 04:05 PM
Thought this one was hilarious given where the league is at now. People today are saying the same thing but for different reasons.
This is an interesting period of time when the NBA found itself in a bit of a slump. Jordan was gone, a lockout occurred, and the game had become slow, stagnant, and defensive. There were many articles written about the decline of fundamentals and the nostalgia for the free-flowing offenses of the '80s.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.basketball.pro/c/j3yuYLAeVoc/m/-Nqj40FmcjUJ
The easiest way to improve play in the NBA is to abolish the
three-point shot.
The three-point shot makes profitable a shot that only
goes in one of three attempts. Two out of three shots missing,
many not even hitting iron or backboard, leads to an impression
that the players are incompetent despite their playing the
percentages.
The three-point shot encourages players who could become
efficient post-up or driving threats to waste their talents
shooting from long distance. A primary example of this is
the Heat's Jamal Mashburn, ruined starting back in college ball
by Rick Pitino's system at Kentucky. Mashburn has the body and
the quickness to be a dominant offensive star, and the Heat need
such a player desperately to complement Mourning, but Mashburn
just hasn't developed the mentality to be able to carry the team
at crucial times in the playoffs. He's soft, and the three-point
shot made him that way. Another example is Donyell Marshall of
the Golden State Warriors who spent several years lost in a haze
of confusion standing around the three-point arc.
The three-point shot is a coach's tactical dream, which means
that it is against the interests of fans. The three-point shot
rewards having two to three players standing around behind the
arc. These players can then get back quickly to snuff out fast
breaks. And it also encourages coaches to accept running the
clock down because a three-point attempt can bail out the
possession. There are more forced shots, more misses. There are
also fewer possessions, so fewer points than in previous years,
and again a perception of incompetence in current players.
The three-point shot makes more valuable young thugs without
skill because their athleticism is needed to have someone
on defense to recover to challenge the three-point shot. Then
as these thugs get older they learn to hit at least one of
three three-point shots so they have some value on offense.
Of course as they get older they lose some of their athleticism
so they have to be given breaks by the refs to stop their
opponents by clutching and grabbing. And the game continues
to degenerate.
> The three-point shot makes more valuable young thugs without
> skill
i just heard thug, did you just watch the knicks-pacers game ;)
--
Craig Sadler
Defender of the Knicks (except Childs) across Usenet ;)
If I were to buy into your complaint, the answer isn't the 3 point shot
but bad coaching. On one hand, you say he's playing the percentages. On
the other hand, you say he's crippling his own offensive game. One or
the other has to go.
If Mashburn really does have the game to be a dominant offensive player
(I think he could be very good, but not dominant), then it's up to him
and coaches to be smart enough to make him play that game. It's not up
to the NBA to take pity on the unwise of the league by abolishing their
favorite mistake.
And BTW, Jamal Mashburn's 2 pt FG% is barely only a few points higher
than his 3 pt FG%. Looks to me like he's a perfect candidate for
hoisting up more 3s, not fewer.
Vijay R.
Right on the money. It isn't the 3 point shot that is ruining the game:
it is still a positive element. But, the decline in offensive
production league wide is a result of the distance of the 3, and of
course the illegal defense rule. Given that any number of players can be
proficient at the current distance, it becomes sensible to play a two
man inside out game and keep two or three players back at all costs.
They can get the kick out if the main two man game draws the double
team. More importantly, they do not need to be involved in the offense
and there are always two players back on D.
If they moved the 3 back to its original distance, which is appropriate
for the best players in the world, and loosened up on illegal D, then
the percentages will force teams to bring more players into the
offensive flow. The first result will be that fast break opportunities
will increase. (Remember when they used to tout the players as being
the best athletes in the world? There isn't enough flow to a game
anymore to showcase that) The second result will be that teams will be
constructed differently, and players that can shoot the 15 foot jump
shot will become important again.
So don't dump the 3 ball, just stop it from freezing the rest of the
game.
> If they moved the 3 back to its original distance,
Um, you lost me..."original distance"? It *is* at its original distance
now!
If there were no 3 point shots, Lakers would be truly dominant,
imagine that.
The original proposed distance, and I think the distance for the first year or
so of operation, was, I think, over a foot (maybe even 1'9") longer than it is
now. And even if that were not the case, the answer would be to either move
it back or get rid of it. The game has stagnated and fan interest has dropped
dramatically the way it is, and the current three point shot is indeed a
cause.
This is an interesting period of time when the NBA found itself in a bit of a slump. Jordan was gone, a lockout occurred, and the game had become slow, stagnant, and defensive. There were many articles written about the decline of fundamentals and the nostalgia for the free-flowing offenses of the '80s.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.basketball.pro/c/j3yuYLAeVoc/m/-Nqj40FmcjUJ
The easiest way to improve play in the NBA is to abolish the
three-point shot.
The three-point shot makes profitable a shot that only
goes in one of three attempts. Two out of three shots missing,
many not even hitting iron or backboard, leads to an impression
that the players are incompetent despite their playing the
percentages.
The three-point shot encourages players who could become
efficient post-up or driving threats to waste their talents
shooting from long distance. A primary example of this is
the Heat's Jamal Mashburn, ruined starting back in college ball
by Rick Pitino's system at Kentucky. Mashburn has the body and
the quickness to be a dominant offensive star, and the Heat need
such a player desperately to complement Mourning, but Mashburn
just hasn't developed the mentality to be able to carry the team
at crucial times in the playoffs. He's soft, and the three-point
shot made him that way. Another example is Donyell Marshall of
the Golden State Warriors who spent several years lost in a haze
of confusion standing around the three-point arc.
The three-point shot is a coach's tactical dream, which means
that it is against the interests of fans. The three-point shot
rewards having two to three players standing around behind the
arc. These players can then get back quickly to snuff out fast
breaks. And it also encourages coaches to accept running the
clock down because a three-point attempt can bail out the
possession. There are more forced shots, more misses. There are
also fewer possessions, so fewer points than in previous years,
and again a perception of incompetence in current players.
The three-point shot makes more valuable young thugs without
skill because their athleticism is needed to have someone
on defense to recover to challenge the three-point shot. Then
as these thugs get older they learn to hit at least one of
three three-point shots so they have some value on offense.
Of course as they get older they lose some of their athleticism
so they have to be given breaks by the refs to stop their
opponents by clutching and grabbing. And the game continues
to degenerate.
> The three-point shot makes more valuable young thugs without
> skill
i just heard thug, did you just watch the knicks-pacers game ;)
--
Craig Sadler
Defender of the Knicks (except Childs) across Usenet ;)
If I were to buy into your complaint, the answer isn't the 3 point shot
but bad coaching. On one hand, you say he's playing the percentages. On
the other hand, you say he's crippling his own offensive game. One or
the other has to go.
If Mashburn really does have the game to be a dominant offensive player
(I think he could be very good, but not dominant), then it's up to him
and coaches to be smart enough to make him play that game. It's not up
to the NBA to take pity on the unwise of the league by abolishing their
favorite mistake.
And BTW, Jamal Mashburn's 2 pt FG% is barely only a few points higher
than his 3 pt FG%. Looks to me like he's a perfect candidate for
hoisting up more 3s, not fewer.
Vijay R.
Right on the money. It isn't the 3 point shot that is ruining the game:
it is still a positive element. But, the decline in offensive
production league wide is a result of the distance of the 3, and of
course the illegal defense rule. Given that any number of players can be
proficient at the current distance, it becomes sensible to play a two
man inside out game and keep two or three players back at all costs.
They can get the kick out if the main two man game draws the double
team. More importantly, they do not need to be involved in the offense
and there are always two players back on D.
If they moved the 3 back to its original distance, which is appropriate
for the best players in the world, and loosened up on illegal D, then
the percentages will force teams to bring more players into the
offensive flow. The first result will be that fast break opportunities
will increase. (Remember when they used to tout the players as being
the best athletes in the world? There isn't enough flow to a game
anymore to showcase that) The second result will be that teams will be
constructed differently, and players that can shoot the 15 foot jump
shot will become important again.
So don't dump the 3 ball, just stop it from freezing the rest of the
game.
> If they moved the 3 back to its original distance,
Um, you lost me..."original distance"? It *is* at its original distance
now!
If there were no 3 point shots, Lakers would be truly dominant,
imagine that.
The original proposed distance, and I think the distance for the first year or
so of operation, was, I think, over a foot (maybe even 1'9") longer than it is
now. And even if that were not the case, the answer would be to either move
it back or get rid of it. The game has stagnated and fan interest has dropped
dramatically the way it is, and the current three point shot is indeed a
cause.