Yes or no, do you appreciate the game becoming all about the 3-pointer.

[Baller234]

I think the creation of the 3 point shot was a beautiful idea. It's not what Naismith envisioned but you can't deny it opened up the game and made it more appealing to more fans. It also opened the doors for other types of players to thrive even if they couldn't be physically dominant, rewarding their execution and skill instead.

But the reason it worked was because it was considered a high risk shot. Only the best and most gifted shooters in the league were shooting them with confidence. For every other player it was a last ditch hail mary effort.

Today the shot is no longer considered high risk, it's the opposite in fact. The math encourages it. The players are shooting that good. They've been practicing 3's since they were kids. And now we have a game where teams ignore the 2 in favor of the 3. Instead of players running to the basket on a fast break, they dart to the corners.

I'm sorry, but that is not basketball to me. Basketball is about trying to work towards the best possible shot, it's not about gambling on low percentage 3's and hoping the math wins out in the long run. That is a clear sign that something needs to be changed. When Wilt became too physically dominant, the league had no choice but to change the rules because they recognized the game can't just be about physical dominance. I say the game cannot be all about the 3. It's a great feature, but it can't be the primary form of attack. Otherwise all you're watching is two teams chuck 3's all game with every team and every player playing the exact same style.

I propose they move the 3 point line back. It has to be a high risk shot again. I know you can't move the corner 3 back without getting rid of it entirely, so I would even be in favor of expanding the width of the court as well. These guys are bigger and faster anyway and cover way more ground than they used to. If you want things to return to the way it was, expanding the width of the court and moving the 3 back is really the only solution I could muster at this point.

Do you agree or am I just an old man yelling at clouds.

[WhiteKyrie]

I think they should get rid of it as opposed to moving it back

[Baller234]

I think they should get rid of it as opposed to moving it back

I'm curious why.

I'm not saying I'm against it, just want to hear your case.

[tontoz]

SGA made 1st team All-NBA averaging only 1 made 3 per game. Giannis has 2 MVPs and can't shoot 3s at all. Jokic has two MVPs averaging 1 made 3 per game.

Lame thread.

[Baller234]

SGA made 1st team All-NBA averaging only 1 made 3 per game. Giannis has 2 MVPs and can't shoot 3s at all. Jokic has two MVPs averaging 1 made 3 per game.

Lame thread.

I suppose I might be as miserable as you if I were a wizards fan. :oldlol:

Relax breh.

[Xiao Yao You]

the game would be better off without it. Despite ISH thinking guys are more skilled today they are much more limited in their skillsets

[warriorfan]

the game would be better off without it. Despite ISH thinking guys are more skilled today they are much more limited in their skillsets

we need a super packed paint with rudy gobert standing in the middle raising his arms

must see TV

[tontoz]

I suppose I might be as miserable as you if I were a wizards fan. :oldlol:

Relax breh.

I hardly watch them any more. In recent years i have watched a lot of GS and Denver games so the last two years have been good for me lol.

[Xiao Yao You]

we need a super packed paint with rudy gobert standing in the middle raising his arms

must see TV

You're confusing an agile big with Mark Eaton. Gobert might not fair so well in a packed paint. They'd want him to put on weight

[WhiteKyrie]

the game would be better off without it. Despite ISH thinking guys are more skilled today they are much more limited in their skillsets

No, a player is obviously more skilled on average … league wide.

Obviously too.

With that said, it creates confusion in players having discernible roles on teams. So without a clear cut hierarchy and roles equals not as good team basketball as a collective talent as a whole.

Because the vast majority of the league, all the players play the same homogenous way and run the same homogenous stupid AAU type basketball.

Also, players are allowed to do things skill wise that used to be considered highly illegal, also giving the illusion of being way more skilled, in combination with the total lack of physicality to deter the display of said skills. So once again, appearing even more skilled.

That’s why it’s never been a one to one comparison. Back when they called palming and carry, a point guard would have to dribble up the court with his back to a defender, because that person could also put their forearm or grab their hip and dictate movement.

It’s harder to dance and travel, and carry with the ball or shoot, glorified three point shots, wide-open, when somebody can literally hold you. You then have to become more concerned with the physical exertion of just shedding somebody off you before you can even display your skill.

The game has long been evolving from a sport into entertainment. Look at the asinine statistics being put up just last year.

[Xiao Yao You]

No, a player is obviously more skilled on average … league wide.

Obviously too.

With that said, it creates confusion in players having discernible roles on teams. So without a clear cut hierarchy and roles equals not as good team basketball as a collective talent as a whole.

Because the vast majority of the league, all the players play the same homogenous way and run the same homogenous stupid AAU type basketball.

Also, players are allowed to do things skill wise that used to be considered highly illegal, also giving the illusion of being way more skilled, in combination with the total lack of physicality to deter the display of said skills. So once again, appearing even more skilled.

That’s why it’s never been a one to one comparison. Back when they called palming and carry, a point guard would have to dribble up the court with his back to a defender, because that person could also put their forearm or grab their hip and dictate movement.

It’s harder to dance and travel, and carry with the ball or shoot, glorified three point shots, wide-open, when somebody can literally hold you. You then have to become more concerned with the physical exertion of just shedding somebody off you before you can even display your skill.

The game has long been evolving from a sport into entertainment. Look at the asinine statistics being put up just last year.

shooting the 3 better and taking advantage of the current rule isn't more skilled. Rarely do you see guys with basic fundamentals anymore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o1w2wEvRaI

[Jasper]

no

[tpols]

Nah if anything 3pt shooting evened the odds to combat corrupt refereeing. It was too easy to rig games in the past where it was a 2pt battle and they could parade anybody they want to the line for a marginal victory. 3s made it possible you could win as the underdog if you got hot.

[warriorfan]

Nah if anything 3pt shooting evened the odds to combat corrupt refereeing. It was too easy to rig games in the past where it was a 2pt battle and they could parade anybody they want to the line for a marginal victory. 3s made it possible you could win as the underdog if you got hot.

I agree but deeper into the playoffs and especially the finals they let it get pretty grimy with plenty of contact, hand checking, and grabbing even on the perimeter. This environment allows the game to be controlled a lot more by the refs.

[Wally450]

Not really. How many post scorers do we see in the league anymore? How many mid range jumpers are teams taking now a days? You don't really see the little two man game inside the arc anymore. Everything is predicated on the 3 pointer. Analytics say to shoot lots of 3s. It's just a chuckfest instead of good basketball for the most part.

[sdot_thadon]

The game was going this way every since the line was conceived. It's just evolution of the game and yes in alot of ways the game is more skilled now than ever. Just think about jumpshooting in general, it was pretty vanilla before the line. Spot ups and maybe the skilled guys could dribble and pull up and shoot turn around, albeit a small percentage of the league. After the line was created the 3s we see today were basically considered in gamewinner situations and most of the time looked like luck. Other than that? Purely spotting up. Now we have guys driving and pulling up and stepbacks into 3s. A few guys even hit turnaround 3s....on purpose. We have guys shooting with accuracy from mid court. How is this not viewed as being more skilled. Everything stars were doing from mid range in the 90s is being done now at 25 ft out.

[Dbrog]

Ehhh I get what you are saying but I do feel it has more to do with the emphasis on analytics as some others have mentioned here. Some AAU style BS doesn't really belong in the NBA IMO but I get why a lot of bad teams would do it, as you could get hot and overcome talent differential. However, more and more there are examples of very successful teams not being 3-centric (Nuggets, Bucks, etc). Even this past postseason we say the Clippers able to keep games close with the fricken stacked Suns just by looking for the best shot available and flowing through WB. There's a formula there, but a bunch of teams just don't want to follow it. Hoping more and more examples will continue to happen with teams that hammer that Rec league BS with actual fundamentals.

[Phoenix]

Nowadays if a team catches fire from 3 you can more or less balance out being outplayed in terms of those 'keys to the game' X's and O's: controlling the glass, low turnovers and out-assisting your opponent. Now the tug of war coaching chess of yesteryear has been replaced with everyone just running to the 3point line.

[Indian guy]

Hell no. This is far and away the biggest issue with the NBA and has been so for nearly half a decade now. Analytics figured out the most optimal style of offensive basketball, which zapped the league's creativity and has led to a very homogenized product.

It would never happen but games would be so much more fun to watch if they put a cap on 3pters.

[Walk on Water]

Well the truth is the 3 should be worth 2.5. That would solve a lot of issues. But because it would sound funny, it probably won’t happen. A lot of players would still shoot them, but the reward wouldn’t out of proportion.

[Full Court]

Well the truth is the 3 should be worth 2.5. That would solve a lot of issues. But because it would sound funny, it probably won’t happen. A lot of players would still shoot them, but the reward wouldn’t out of proportion.

I'm against half points on principle. Points should always be a whole number.

I think they probably need to move the three point line back so that the average % doesn't make it such a lucrative shot.

[iamgine]

I say the game cannot be all about the 3.

It's not. Players take a lot more 2s than 3s.

[Baller234]

It's not. Players take a lot more 2s than 3s.

But they're still passing up high percentage 2's in favor of gambling on 3's, as illustrated by my fast break example in the OP.

Now players are under the impression that if they're open for a 3, they have to take it no matter what. In fact the whole object of the game is about setting up open 3's.

For me it has to be a high risk shot or it doesn't work. Now that the 3 has been mastered by even the most common players, you can't just reward guys with an extra point on what's considered a run of the mill shot.

[iamgine]

That's exaggeration. There's plenty of fast break 2s.

[Airupthere]

I'm fine with the 3s. It's the soft calls, flopping and travelling that gets to me.

[TheMan]

Not really. How many post scorers do we see in the league anymore? How many mid range jumpers are teams taking now a days? You don't really see the little two man game inside the arc anymore. Everything is predicated on the 3 pointer. Analytics say to shoot lots of 3s. It's just a chuckfest instead of good basketball for the most part.

This

But low IQ dummies like Johnny32 will say, duh moar 3 point shooterz equals moar skills der hur

:facepalm

It irks me to see 2 on 1, 3 on 2 fast breaks end up in a 3 pointer being chucked and having it brick and rebounded by the defense...attack the rim FFS!

[Baller234]

That's exaggeration. There's plenty of fast break 2s.

It's not an exaggeration, it happens multiple times per game.

[mr4speed]

I think the creation of the 3 point shot was a beautiful idea. It's not what Naismith envisioned but you can't deny it opened up the game and made it more appealing to more fans. It also opened the doors for other types of players to thrive even if they couldn't be physically dominant, rewarding their execution and skill instead.

But the reason it worked was because it was considered a high risk shot. Only the best and most gifted shooters in the league were shooting them with confidence. For every other player it was a last ditch hail mary effort.

Today the shot is no longer considered high risk, it's the opposite in fact. The math encourages it. The players are shooting that good. They've been practicing 3's since they were kids. And now we have a game where teams ignore the 2 in favor of the 3. Instead of players running to the basket on a fast break, they dart to the corners.

I'm sorry, but that is not basketball to me. Basketball is about trying to work towards the best possible shot, it's not about gambling on low percentage 3's and hoping the math wins out in the long run. That is a clear sign that something needs to be changed. When Wilt became too physically dominant, the league had no choice but to change the rules because they recognized the game can't just be about physical dominance. I say the game cannot be all about the 3. It's a great feature, but it can't be the primary form of attack. Otherwise all you're watching is two teams chuck 3's all game with every team and every player playing the exact same style.

I propose they move the 3 point line back. It has to be a high risk shot again. I know you can't move the corner 3 back without getting rid of it entirely, so I would even be in favor of expanding the width of the court as well. These guys are bigger and faster anyway and cover way more ground than they used to. If you want things to return to the way it was, expanding the width of the court and moving the 3 back is really the only solution I could muster at this point.

Do you agree or am I just an old man yelling at clouds.


How about this idea = since the corner three is ( I believe) 22 feet vs the 23 feet and nine inches where the line is curved, so we widen the court 1 foot and nine inches so the corner three is exactly the same distance from all spots on the court. I would think the corner shot % would then drop a bit and the corner spacing would be the same to the out of bounds line as it is today. Perhaps the overall % would drop a bit and more 2 point shot strategy would resurface? Maybe try this for a measured period of time and see what transpires?

[Xiao Yao You]

How about this idea = since the corner three is ( I believe) 22 feet vs the 23 feet and nine inches where the line is curved, so we widen the court 1 foot and nine inches so the corner three is exactly the same distance from all spots on the court. I would think the corner shot % would then drop a bit and the corner spacing would be the same to the out of bounds line as it is today. Perhaps the overall % would drop a bit and more 2 point shot strategy would resurface? Maybe try this for a measured period of time and see what transpires?

the court won't be widened. Too much money in those seats

[tontoz]

This

But low IQ dummies like Johnny32 will say, duh moar 3 point shooterz equals moar skills der hur

:facepalm

It irks me to see 2 on 1, 3 on 2 fast breaks end up in a 3 pointer being chucked and having it brick and rebounded by the defense...attack the rim FFS!



Yeah the most efficient shots are at the rim. It seems like players have forgotten that. Passing up a layup to take a 3 is just dumb unless you need a 3 at the end of the game.

What is really embarrassing is at the end of a game when a guy jacks up a bad 3 when they are down 1. :facepalm

[warriorfan]

Yeah the most efficient shots are at the rim. It seems like players have forgotten that. Passing up a layup to take a 3 is just dumb unless you need a 3 at the end of the game.

What is really embarrassing is at the end of a game when a guy jacks up a bad 3 when they are down 1. :facepalm

Happens so much now adays too it feels like

[Xiao Yao You]

Yeah the most efficient shots are at the rim. It seems like players have forgotten that. Passing up a layup to take a 3 is just dumb unless you need a 3 at the end of the game.

What is really embarrassing is at the end of a game when a guy jacks up a bad 3 when they are down 1. :facepalm

for a lot of players that's their best shot. Layups are an adventure for many that have grown up shooting nothing but 3's. Mid range is a no no so a lot of them aren't comfortable there either

[TheMan]

Yeah the most efficient shots are at the rim. It seems like players have forgotten that. Passing up a layup to take a 3 is just dumb unless you need a 3 at the end of the game.

What is really embarrassing is at the end of a game when a guy jacks up a bad 3 when they are down 1. :facepalm

Yep

[iamgine]

It's not an exaggeration, it happens multiple times per game.

Free throws also happen multiple times per game. Does the game becoming all about free throws?

[nayte]

I don't mind it. I would like seeing a few less but that's how the game revolves so ehh

[GimmeThat]

lacks texture

[Full Court]

lacks texture

Lacks tenure too.

:roll:

[Smook A.]

I don't. It takes away some of the joy we used to see before the league became so 3-pointer focused. Players used to have more of a mid-range game, post-game, and it would look harder to score a bucket. Nowadays, it's normal to see big-men take three pointers. Teams are scoring 110+ with ease and multiple players are capable of averaging 30 ppg. Before, it was a luxury to even have a player scoring 23-25 ppg on your team. Now it seems like every team has at least 1 player who scores that much, and a big part of that reason is because of the combination of more three pointers, faster pace, and weaker calls.

[Axe]

SGA made 1st team All-NBA averaging only 1 made 3 per game.
Said guy was said to bring the thunder somewhere to the 4th-6th seed last season. :oldlol:

[tontoz]

Said guy was said to bring the thunder somewhere to the 4th-6th seed last season. :oldlol:

Who was predicting that? You or some other 'tard?

Las Vegas predicted 26 wins.


Oklahoma City went 40-42 in the last year, taking down he Pelicans in the opening round of the NBA Play-In before falling to the Minnesota Timberwolves. Coming into the season, OKC was projected to win only 26 games.


https://www.si.com/nba/thunder/news/predicting-the-thunders-win-total-for-2023-24-season

[Xiao Yao You]

I don't. It takes away some of the joy we used to see before the league became so 3-pointer focused. Players used to have more of a mid-range game, post-game, and it would look harder to score a bucket. Nowadays, it's normal to see big-men take three pointers. Teams are scoring 110+ with ease and multiple players are capable of averaging 30 ppg. Before, it was a luxury to even have a player scoring 23-25 ppg on your team. Now it seems like every team has at least 1 player who scores that much, and a big part of that reason is because of the combination of more three pointers, faster pace, and weaker calls.

but they are so much more skilled!

[Baller234]

a few games into the season i think i have reached a conclusion. the 3pt shot does more harm than good. this isn't just a hot take either.

what we are watching is not basketball the way it was meant to be played. the object of each possession is to try and take the highest percentage shot available at the given time, not gamble and chuck up low percentage 3's hoping the numbers even out in the long run. it's ugly basketball. players passing up wide open lanes for long 3's on a fast break? sorry that's not basketball.

a touchdown is worth 6 points no matter where you score it from, whether it's a 70 yard pass or a 5 yard run. that is because the goal is to get into the endzone by any means. the same applies to basketball. the goal is to put the ball in the hoop. you shouldn't be rewarded an extra point just because you're shooting further away from the basket. players with limited skill sets are having their values severely inflated because they can make what has become a routine long range jumpshot. remove the 3 point line and how many of these guys would truly be able to hang in the league 20 years ago. look at the miami heat roster that made the finals last year for god sakes.

if you enjoy basketball more this way then all power to you. but at the very least we should acknowledge we are watching an entirely different game.

[Full Court]

shooting the 3 better and taking advantage of the current rule isn't more skilled. Rarely do you see guys with basic fundamentals anymore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o1w2wEvRaI

This.

I reject the notion that players today are more skilled. They are not. They can do certain things better because they train to them. Players in past eras could do other things better.

[90sgoat]

It's all about the defensive 3 seconds.

Take that away and 3 point spamming goes down a lot.

[Baller234]

It's all about the defensive 3 seconds.

Take that away and 3 point spamming goes down a lot.

how?

defenses have no incentive to clog the paint anymore.

[90sgoat]

how?

defenses have no incentive to clog the paint anymore.

If there's a center in the key, that removes the need to overcommit from a help defender.

NBA runs one play and only one play:

High PnR with illegal moving screen
Fake towards the basket
See which side help commits
Pass to that corner
Shoot or swing
(shoot or swing)

This is literally every single play.

With a center in the key, the help defender doesn't have to commit because the center is there to take care of the drive.

Just watch FIBA basketball and see how the americans can't hit anything when they're not get wide open looks.

[Baller234]

If there's a center in the key, that removes the need to overcommit from a help defender.

NBA runs one play and only one play:

High PnR with illegal moving screen
Fake towards the basket
See which side help commits
Pass to that corner
Shoot or swing
(shoot or swing)

This is literally every single play.

With a center in the key, the help defender doesn't have to commit because the center is there to take care of the drive.

Just watch FIBA basketball and see how the americans can't hit anything when they're not get wide open looks.

interesting, never thought of it like that.

defensive 3 seconds doesn't make sense to begin with. i can understand why the offense isn't allowed to live in the paint but the defense naturally has to be positioned closer to the basket. the whole goal is to keep the other team away from the basket. it seems unfair to penalize them. it would be like penalizing a goalie for standing too close to the net.

[3ba11]

There was a point in time where 3's added a diversity to the game that added to the game, but now the hyper-focus and super-spacing creates crappier iso players that aren't used to heavy traffic or shooting contested 2-pointers, or having the quicker instinct that heavier traffic requires.. This weaker instinct and scoring touch gets exposed in international play when vastly less athletic teams trounce us routinely

[elementally morale]

I would add a chess element to it.

Each team has 24 available attempts per game. Use it wisely.

At the end of quarters I'd allow 1 extra end at the end of the game, last two minutes and overtime you can shoot as many as you want. But basically 24 attempts per team per game. Open threes you would still take but contested ones not so much. Fast break 3 on 2... just go for the **** layup.

[Baller234]

There was a point in time where 3's added a diversity to the game that added to the game, but now the hyper-focus and super-spacing creates crappier iso players that aren't used to heavy traffic or shooting contested 2-pointers, or having the quicker instinct that heavier traffic requires.. This weaker instinct and scoring touch gets exposed in international play when vastly less athletic teams trounce us routinely

yea, when it was considered a high risk shot. the concept of the 3 doesn't work if it's mathematically advantageous to shoot them at the expense of 2's.

when physical freaks like wilt became too physically dominant, the league had to adjust and change the rules accordingly. the powers that be decided it wasn't good for the game if someone really tall and really strong could just live under the basket and wait for the ball, so they widened the lanes.

we have reached the point where the shooters have become too good at the 3, which means it's no longer a high risk shot. that to me suggests it is time to adapt. either expand the width of the court and move the line back or get rid of it entirely. because by exploiting the 3 these teams have fundamentally changed the game and i'm not sure if it's for the better.

[tpols]

Bobby Knight gave an interesting position on the 3pt shot.



Letterman: Now what do you think about the 3point play?

Knight: Well we actually won the championship with it. But I really don't like it. It's like if you hit a 450 foot home run you oughta get 2 runs for it. And if you throw a 40 yard touchdown pass you get 9 points. I don't really like it.



https://youtu.be/RIh3hyFFqAQ?si=5ySrQvW5107H_LJT

[Goldrush25]

I don't think the game is all about the 3-pointer. It's about getting the most efficient shot. Just so happens that the two most efficient shots are the layup and the 3-pointer. The most efficient is the layup, hence why there are still far more shots around the rim than there are 3-pointers.


Basketball is about trying to work towards the best possible shot, it's not about gambling on low percentage 3's and hoping the math wins out in the long run. That is a clear sign that something needs to be changed.

You're contradicting yourself sir. "Gamble" is relative to the skill level of the person taking the shot. A 3-pointer is a gamble if I take it. It's not a gamble if Steph Curry takes it. In fact his expected value for thos shots probably dictates that he take more of them than he does. There is no hoping the math works out. If a player has demonstrated a certain level of skill the math is bound to work out in the long run.

I do agree that too many people shoot 3s but that's because there's a bunch of guys that shouldn't be shooting them at all. There is no such thing as too many if you're making them. The change that needs to happen is coaches telling sorry 3-point shooters to stop. If only the players who should be taking the shots were taking the shots, this wouldn't be a topic. Coaches, like in every other sport, try to fit square pegs into round holes, and elite athletes think that they're better than they really are. There aren't enough elite shooters to go around, so they try to fit guys into those roles that don't belong there, instead of building around their strengths. But I don't think penalizing the truly elite guys is the answer, nor is it fair to them.

And why would we want things to return to the way they were? Did you watch some of the basketball of the 90s? I lived through it, it was too much back to the basket, backing down boring style of play, because no one could really shoot 3s. That's what you want to bring back? Even with the proliferation of 3-point shots, there's more variety to the game today.

But pushing the three-point line back would just make the layup all the more valuable, particularly because the layup converts more reliably to another efficient shot, the free throw. I don't think we'd see more mid-range game because we have the data now. The mid-range has its place but it's not going to make a huge comeback no matter what they do to the rules.

[Baller234]

I don't think the game is all about the 3-pointer. It's about getting the most efficient shot. Just so happens that the two most efficient shots are the layup and the 3-pointer. The most efficient is the layup, hence why there are still far more shots around the rim than there are 3-pointers.



You're contradicting yourself sir. "Gamble" is relative to the skill level of the person taking the shot. A 3-pointer is a gamble if I take it. It's not a gamble if Steph Curry takes it. In fact his expected value for thos shots probably dictates that he take more of them than he does. There is no hoping the math works out. If a player has demonstrated a certain level of skill the math is bound to work out in the long run.

I do agree that too many people shoot 3s but that's because there's a bunch of guys that shouldn't be shooting them at all. There is no such thing as too many if you're making them. The change that needs to happen is coaches telling sorry 3-point shooters to stop. If only the players who should be taking the shots were taking the shots, this wouldn't be a topic. Coaches, like in every other sport, try to fit square pegs into round holes, and elite athletes think that they're better than they really are. There aren't enough elite shooters to go around, so they try to fit guys into those roles that don't belong there, instead of building around their strengths. But I don't think penalizing the truly elite guys is the answer, nor is it fair to them.

And why would we want things to return to the way they were? Did you watch some of the basketball of the 90s? I lived through it, it was too much back to the basket, backing down boring style of play, because no one could really shoot 3s. That's what you want to bring back? Even with the proliferation of 3-point shots, there's more variety to the game today.

But pushing the three-point line back would just make the layup all the more valuable, particularly because the layup converts more reliably to another efficient shot, the free throw. I don't think we'd see more mid-range game because we have the data now. The mid-range has its place but it's not going to make a huge comeback no matter what they do to the rules.

you are only proving my point.

the 3 point shot was not intended to be an "efficient" shot. it was an intended to be a high risk shot. if it's just another efficient shot, it fundamentally changes the approach to the game. as we've seen.

i do believe that if they pushed the 3pt line back, you would see the return of the mid range game. teams would have no choice.

[Axe]

A tall role player who's slow, heavy and cannot shoot threes is kind of useless on offense these days.

[jayfan]

No.


.

[Axe]

Just think about it. Shooting beyond the arc has become so common these days that even big guys with traditional roles do more so as well compared to those who played in the past generations. Thus, the ones who are good in that will often be valuable on the floor.

Using an interesting analogy, it's like current smartphones that can do a lot more than take pictures instantly yet that doesn't mean most people wouldn't see how good they are without considering the qualities of their built-in cameras and/or how they capture shots.

That's what's happening today more or less.