The pros and cons of the current product

[Baller234]

PROS:

- Very intense fast paced action
- You get to witness some really excellent shooting
- Emphasis on depth which means you can still win without your best player
- More teams have a chance to win

CONS:

- Zero variety in the style of play
- You get to witness some really horrendous shooting
- Less individual expression in the game
- The team that wins is usually just the team that hits the most 3's


Where do you stand?

What do you add?

[3ba11]

Honestly, now that the media realizes that Lebron is DONE, everything is fine... I see the coverage returning to a non-biased "balls and strikes" coverage - the fraud or manufacturing of 1 player's career appears to be over... We're finally getting back to true competition, so things are looking good now that the colluder is no longer relevant.

[FKAri]

Agreed with literally everything.

I think some these things are inevitable and would have happened anyways while others are a result of rule changes, systemic changes, etc.

- There's more skill and athleticism on display today but the game allows for more of that so it's a feedback loop.
- There's less individuality due to everybody trying to play the same way. I think that's just due to the internet and the fact that resources are so accessible and centralized. Also, guys games are developed in drills more so than in the playground. That has it's pros and cons. You learn better fundamentals but you also don't learn how to use your unique body. Your game sense is worse because of less reps in actual games(crucial at a young age for development). This is also a feedback loop because scouts are looking for the template of a baller. They are less interested compared to years past in how good you are at your level of competition. That has had its influence.

- Despite us being in a position-less era of basketball, pros are more specialized and less complete in terms of what they can do on the court(except bigs where the opposite is true). In years past guards off the bench were more well rounded and could play in many systems, the ability to run point was much more valued. Whereas modern bench guards have fewer tools but the tools they do have are much better. Be it shooting, defending, slashing, whatever. In the right place they can really shine and in the wrong place they can't play.

[warriorfan]

PROS:

- Very intense fast paced action
- You get to witness some really excellent shooting
- Emphasis on depth which means you can still win without your best player
- More teams have a chance to win

CONS:

- Zero variety in the style of play
- You get to witness some really horrendous shooting
- Less individual expression in the game
- The team that wins is usually just the team that hits the most 3's


Where do you stand?

What do you add?

Rockets, Golden State, Boston, Magic, Indy all have different play styles.

Rockets only attempted 18 3’s in game 7. But I don’t think it really improved the aesthetics of their game.

[90sgoat]

There's a few teams that have distinct play styles now, much better than a few years ago:

Nuggets - all time great Jokic and their Princeton-like high post offense

Clippers - Kawhi operating as a Kobe/MJ in midrange with solid backup

OKC - a modern version of Pistons with Shai being the Rip Hamilton

Knicks - flashback to early 00s small comboguard teams

Wolves - very athletic physical and Ant when good, drives a lot

Warriors - Curry

As long as I don't have to watch teams such as Pacers, Cleveland, Boston, which are the death of basketball.

I can only watch OKC to marvel at how efficient Shai is from midrange. Most teams are like this nowadays, they might have one player you want to watch, but the team is overall boring, similar to Knicks and Brunson.

Only Nuggets is a team I want to watch consistently or Luka led teams.

[Baller234]

Agreed with literally everything.

I think some these things are inevitable and would have happened anyways while others are a result of rule changes, systemic changes, etc.

- There's more skill and athleticism on display today but the game allows for more of that so it's a feedback loop.
- There's less individuality due to everybody trying to play the same way. I think that's just due to the internet and the fact that resources are so accessible and centralized. Also, guys games are developed in drills more so than in the playground. That has it's pros and cons. You learn better fundamentals but you also don't learn how to use your unique body. Your game sense is worse because of less reps in actual games(crucial at a young age for development). This is also a feedback loop because scouts are looking for the template of a baller. They are less interested compared to years past in how good you are at your level of competition. That has had its influence.

- Despite us being in a position-less era of basketball, pros are more specialized and less complete in terms of what they can do on the court(except bigs where the opposite is true). In years past guards off the bench were more well rounded and could play in many systems, the ability to run point was much more valued. Whereas modern bench guards have fewer tools but the tools they do have are much better. Be it shooting, defending, slashing, whatever. In the right place they can really shine and in the wrong place they can't play.

It has everything to do with analytics. When they introduced the 3pt line they never imagined that players would be able to shoot it at such a high percentage. Once someone figured out the math could be exploited, it forever changed the game.

I maintain that what we're witnessing now isn't really a true evolution of the game, but rather a totally different game altogether. You had the 2ball era all the way until the merger. Then post merger you had the 2ball with 3's era where 2's were still the name of the game and 3's were seen as high risk high reward, with the 3 becoming more prevalent over time.

Sometime after the Warriors run the league transformed into what we see today, which I would call the 3ball era. In this era hunting for 3's is the name of the game and is equally if not more important to these teams than chasing high percentage 2's.

3ball is a totally different game than 2ball. The assets and skills we used to value in a player don't matter in 3ball.

[FKAri]

It has everything to do with analytics. When they introduced the 3pt line they never imagined that players would be able to shoot it at such a high percentage. Once someone figured out the math could be exploited, it forever changed the game.

I maintain that what we're witnessing now isn't really a true evolution of the game, but rather a totally different game altogether. You had the 2ball era all the way until the merger. Then post merger you had the 2ball with 3's era where 2's were still the name of the game and 3's were seen as high risk high reward, with the 3 becoming more prevalent over time.

Sometime after the Warriors run the league transformed into what we see today, which I would call the 3ball era. In this era hunting for 3's is the name of the game and is equally if not more important to these teams than chasing high percentage 2's.

3ball is a totally different game than 2ball. The assets and skills we used to value in a player don't matter in 3ball.

3's are to basketball what the home run is to baseball. It took years to realize their value and how good players could become at them. The emphasis on both have made their respective games more boring. The only reason it didn't happen sooner was ignorance. Yes the 3 rules have made 3ptrs easier to come by but they were still undervalued in the past. For example, conventional wisdom was that long shots led to long rebounds which led to fast breaks the other way. So missing a 3 was very costly. They've developed techniques over the years to fix this problem.

[Baller234]

3's are to basketball what the home run is to baseball. It took years to realize their value and how good players could become at them. The emphasis on both have made their respective games more boring. The only reason it didn't happen sooner was ignorance. Yes the 3 rules have made 3ptrs easier to come by but they were still undervalued in the past. For example, conventional wisdom was that long shots led to long rebounds which led to fast breaks the other way. So missing a 3 was very costly. They've developed techniques over the years to fix this problem.

I understand why the 3pt line was introduced but I am at the point where I would be okay with getting rid of it. I don't see the NBA doing that any time soon but maybe an upstart rival league might have the courage to test it out. It would be something they could really use to distinguish themselves from the NBA. Ironically enough it was a rival league that normalized the 3pt shot in the first place.

I'm just not sure if it's fair to add more value to a shot just because it's further away. Should a 50 yard field goal be worth more than a 20 yard field goal? Should a 50 yard touchdown be worth more than a 20 yard touchdown? If not then why is a 23 foot shot worth more than an 18 foot shot?

When basketball was conceived I imagine the goal was for the offense to work towards getting the highest percentage shot they can and for the defense to force the lowest percentage shot they can. That makes sense to me. That to me sounds like basketball the way it was intended to be played. If you're going to introduce a shot worth more points then it can't just be a routine shot everyone and their grandmother could make with ease.

Shooting is absolutely a valuable skill but it is not the only skill. The 3pt shot really inflates the value of guys who can shoot well but can do hardly anything else. Fans of the modern game often criticize the players of the past and insist they couldn't hang in today's game but the opposite is also true. Most of the guys in today's league wouldn't be able to cut it back then either, ESPECIALLY in a time before the 3pt line was introduced.

[ShawkFactory]

Don't disagree with the general points but I think that nostalgia is always going to play way to big of a part in these things. Which is completely natural. I do it too.

Just because something is different doesn't make it worse. For every 3 minute stretch where everyone is doing nothing but jacking 3's, you also had the same in the 90s with dumping the ball down to centers and letting them back people down for 15 seconds before taking a clunky 8 foot hook shot or turnaround. From someone who didn't grow up watching it, I can appreciate it because I love basketball but I'm not just like "wow, how much more aesthetic this is!" either. But of course if that's what you knew and fell in love with then that's a different story.

Where I DO give previous eras more credit is the grit factor. Showing up and playing in the regular season unless you're completely unable to, not having stars exclusively hunting fouls and just playing. This is a bigger one for me and I'd bet a bigger factor for most.

The reason why the league isn't what it once was though is those nostalgic folks are starting to not watch as much anymore and the younger kids are too preoccupied with other shit to care about it like kids did 20-30-40 years ago. I don't think it really has anything to do with the playstyle with them.