"Back in the 90's, the game was more tough and physical"

[QUOTE=Micku]On b-ball reference, you can just multiple the % by the number of FGA to get the number of long 2s attempted. But I think every site do the long range 2 a bit inaccurately. None of them are 100% correct, but you still see a correlation.


There is another site that tells you the number.
[url]http://www.hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx?yr=2007&type=pg[/url]

You can see in 07:
the 16-23 ft was 21.2 attempts. While the 3pt shot is 16.9 attempts.

While the gap of attempts differs between sites, you still see the long 2 steadily going down. Even with the 98-04 era, the 3pt shot was steadily going up.[/QUOTE]

Rate is probably better to use as pace skews attempts per game unless pace is very similar.

I posted the numbers for the early 00's above for him. Teams were taking more long 2's than 3's...

And, I can't belive anyone would argue that is optimal.

[QUOTE=Micku]You can see it various spots in the video. 2:43 with the forearm. 3:15 with Tony trying to put the pressure GP, but GP did a quick spin move. Another touch by Tim Duncan at 7 min mark. 8:15 with GP back to the basket. Another form of GP putting his back to the basket at 11:03. Tony Parker stopping Fisher momentum to the basket at 17:46 with a forearm, but also had back up blocking. Hand checking at the 29 min mark. George handchecking on turkoglu at the 35:55 min mark. Slowing down and dictating where he would the drive. Etc, etc, etc. This whole game was full of them.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kZaY74jFM[/url][/quote]

I don't think any of the moments you mention would be called fouls today. Maybe the handcheck at 29, but the one that might be called a foul I can't really see because a body is in the way. There are two others on that play that wouldn't be called today. What Duncan does at the seven mark is nothing compared to what guys get away with today. When players get into the post they are often bulldozed away from the basket by the defender. Look at the following video from the Lakers/Clippers game this year. Lots of handchecking going uncalled.

[url]https://youtu.be/dX-aL7IKBG8[/url].

It is far more common in today's game than people seem to realize. A guy getting handchecked when his back is to the basket is normal. Guys usually won't handcheck when the offensive player faces up, because they're worried about the rip through or shot foul, not the handcheck foul.

[quote]But the biggest thing is the lack of spacing and the big men. Shaq isn't even really guarding his man. He is just stalking. Waiting until the perimeter player get into the paint. The physical defense and bumping and such is something you don't really see anymore.

There are a few. Like you can check out the Pacers vs Bulls in 98. 89 Pistons vs Bulls. Rodman or Joe Dumars on MJ. Handcheck him to dictate where he would go. Trying to get him to go left. Sometimes slapping his hand away.

Let me make one thing clear once again. Hand checking isn't the sole reason why defense was tougher. But the lack spacing. The paint was crowded. So you had to have a solid midrange game to score because the 3pt shot was frown upon by coaches.

Whatever hand checking and other rule changes like defensive 3 sec could slow down make playmakers less efficient at creating open 3pt shot , eh, I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Make sense on paper but even back then the % wasn't really significant. If the driving was less, it could've been done in a different way.

Either way, I don't think the long 2s are coming back regardless if the rule would change back. Why would players step inside for the 2 when they could shoot the 3? The only time I feel they should step inside is for certain instances.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree that inside spacing was bad then. But I think it was primarily due to offenses being singularly focused on getting inside shots. If that's the only look your offense wants then it makes things easy on the defense. They can just collapse because they're not made to pay for not defending the perimeter. It's an offensive choice that creates the issue, more than it being something defense and physicality in particular forced.

Check out the first quarter of the [url=https://youtu.be/E7lZYgXHdQw]2004 Nets/Pistons series[/url]. A few things jumped out at me from that. Like there's a moment where Billups takes a pull up three early in the possession at 19:30. Coach gets pissed and announcers are talking about how he should try to make something happen inside instead of taking that shot early in the clock.

Basically every ball handler in the league takes that shot now. That in turn opens thing up inside. But they wouldn't take that shot then and it made things easier on defenses.

It's also funny to hear the announcers complaining about flopping. Happens in the first quarter, but I didn't note where.

The spacing inside though except maybe in transition wasn't there. It was a crowded paint. Despite that, both teams were trying to force it in instead of leveraging the power of the three. That's the issue. Offenses just had the wrong mindset.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Rate is probably better to use as pace skews attempts per game unless pace is very similar.

I posted the numbers for the early 00's above for him. Teams were taking more long 2's than 3's...

And, I can't belive anyone would argue that is optimal.[/QUOTE]
Ok so again i already said tbat in general it wasnt optimal. More often than not a 3 is better than a long 2 or even the rest od the mid range for that matter although the closer you get the more that changes. All i said is its situational. The league always adapts. Even in an era where perimeter defence is much more difficult because of the rules. Teams are are recognizing how much of a weapon the three is now so they are trying to run guys off the line more. This is why i say its situational and gave you the scenario i gave you earlier about when a long 2 or mid range may be a better option. Here is an article on the warriors that discusses it further. [url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mid-range-jumper-is-the-nbas-worst-shot-except-for-the-golden-state-warriors-1521557144[/url]
this is the warriors were talking here. The team thats light years ahead of everyone else and who has won more chips than anyone since Houston has taken the 3ball to all time high numbers. Unlike houson though they are actually reverting back a little to shooting the midrange because the 3 ball is getting harden to get off as teams adjust.

Now bring back the old rules and the the three ball gets even harder to get off and smart teams that want to win chips would have to adjust even more and revert back to the mid range and post. Now would it go back to 5 or even 15 shots a game from three? No but it woukd certainly go down to the twenty somethings as i stated earlier. Maybe a little higher than the low 20's 5hat i suggested but it woukd definitely be in the 20's somewhere.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok so again i already said tbat in general it wasnt optimal. More often than not a 3 is better than a long 2 or even the rest od the mid range for that matter although the closer you get the more that changes. All i said is its situational. The league always adapts. Even in an era where perimeter defence is much more difficult because of the rules. Teams are are recognizing how much of a weapon the three is now so they are trying to run guys off the line more. This is why i say its situational and gave you the scenario i gave you earlier about when a long 2 or mid range may be a better option. Here is an article on the warriors that discusses it further. [url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mid-range-jumper-is-the-nbas-worst-shot-except-for-the-golden-state-warriors-1521557144[/url]
this is the warriors were talking here. The team thats light years ahead of everyone else and who has won more chips than anyone since Houston has taken the 3ball to all time high numbers. Unlike houson though they are actually reverting back a little to shooting the midrange because the 3 ball is getting harden to get off as teams adjust.

Now bring back the old rules and the the three ball gets even harder to get off and smart teams that want to win chips would have to adjust even more and revert back to the mid range and post. Now would it go back to 5 or even 15 shots a game from three? No but it woukd certainly go down to the twenty somethings as i stated earlier. Maybe a little higher than the low 20's 5hat i suggested but it woukd definitely be in the 20's somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and when you have Durant/Dirk/Kobe/CP3/Garnett/Bird/Jordan/Leonard...etc....taking mid-range 2's makes a lot more sense.

What you don't want, however, is guys like Ariza and PJ Tucker taking long 2's...

Of course it is situational and of course the rules impact it.

But, again, I gave you the breakdown for the era you are talking about...and even then teams were shooting more long 2's than 3's...so your claim about the teams then "having it right" is not true...according to what you just wrote.

That is all we are saying...and the impact of teams being stupid enough to take that many long 2's...is that defenses have it easier. It is inherently easier to guard teams that take way too many of the "worst shots in basketball"

Neither of us know the proper ratio, but we both know the optimal ratio sure as shit isn't more long 2's than 3's...

Not sure why you can't just say you agree and that while defense was clearly better at times in the past...offenses, on the whole, made their jobs easier than the offenses do currently. These are really just facts...

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yep, and when you have Durant/Dirk/Kobe/CP3/Garnett/Bird/Jordan/Leonard...etc....taking mid-range 2's makes a lot more sense.

What you don't want, however, is guys like Ariza and PJ Tucker taking long 2's...

Of course it is situational and of course the rules impact it.

But, again, I gave you the breakdown for the era you are talking about...and even then teams were shooting more long 2's than 3's...so your claim about the teams then "having it right" is not true...according to what you just wrote.

That is all we are saying...and the impact of teams being stupid enough to take that many long 2's...is that defenses have it easier. It is inherently easier to guard teams that take way too many of the "worst shots in basketball"

Neither of us know the proper ratio, but we both know the optimal ratio sure as shit isn't more long 2's than 3's...

Not sure why you can't just say you agree and that while defense was clearly better at times in the past...offenses, on the whole, made their jobs easier than the offenses do currently. These are really just facts...[/QUOTE]
I agreed a bunch of times about the long two's vs the threes other than certain situations at times.

And i said maybe im off as far as early 2000 numbers of low 20's but i do think it be somewhere in the 20's while it sounds like you and the other dude were saying mid to high 30's or more is more likely.

Anyway I guess we'll never know because i dought they'll ever bring the old rules back.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]I agreed a bunch of times about the long two's vs the threes other than certain situations at times.

And i said maybe im off as far as early 2000 numbers of low 20's but i do think it be somewhere in the 20's while it sounds like you and the other dude were saying mid to high 30's or more is more likely.

Anyway I guess we'll never know because i dought they'll ever bring the old rules back.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking percentage of shots or number of attempts?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Are you talking percentage of shots or number of attempts?[/QUOTE]
Number of shots.

I agree there are times where teams should be looking for something other than threes. One example is in the waning seconds when you don't need three points. Let's say you're up two with 30 seconds to go. Now the best shot is probably the highest percentage shot you can get, not the three. I'd rather see a 48% midrange than a 35% three, even though the three yields more points in the long run. (105 per 100 for the three, 96 per 100 for the two) In that instance you don't have enough chances to get value out of that lower percentage about.

Your also see teams who have two on one's at the basket on a breakaway kicking out for threes instead. That's generally the wrong play. 80% from 2 yields more than 50% from three so why kick it out there. Plus you might draw a foul which is even better.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie]I agree there are times where teams should be looking for something other than threes. One example is in the waning seconds when you don't need three points. Let's say you're up two with 30 seconds to go. Now the best shot is probably the highest percentage shot you can get, not the three. I'd rather see a 48% midrange than a 35% three, even though the three yields more points in the long run. (105 per 100 for the three, 96 per 100 for the two) In that instance you don't have enough chances to get value out of that lower percentage about.

Your also see teams who have two on one's at the basket on a breakaway kicking out for threes instead. That's generally the wrong play. 80% from 2 yields more than 50% from three so why kick it out there. Plus you might draw a foul which is even better.[/QUOTE]
Yeah those are definitely some examples. The other i gave mavs was basically what the article i sent him was about concerning the warriors use of the midrange. In an efforr to reduce the amount of threes the warriors shoot teams focus on crowding the warriors at the three point line in an effort to run them off it into the paint to where the defence is waiting to collapse. In an effort to do this teams are basically gifting them the mid range to which the warriors often oblige. It would be stupud of them to just force a tough contested three when they can get an open midrange. Yeah All things being equal a three is better than a midrange but a contested three is not better than an open midrange. This is one of the reasons why houston cant win a chip. While the warriors have adapted over the years and started taking more midrange shots houston seeks hell bent on proving there point of the more threes the better.

That said i already agreed that more often than not a three is better than a long 2. We just disagree on how many would be smart in era where the rules allow for more physical play which would allow teams to contest threes even better. I think teams would adobt an approach more similar to the warriors and it seems like you and mave would more or less take the houston approach.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Number of shots.[/QUOTE]

Well, nobody would be arguing high 30's...because that is even higher than it is now.

The average team attempts 33.5 threes now....so saying we are arguing for high 30's is not in line with any of my arguments at all. Not only was the defense better back then, but the pace was much lower...taking high 30's back then would be absurd.

Percentage is much better...and I'd argue that taking below 25% threes was for sure suboptimal...especially if the alternative is a lot of long 2's...which is what was happening at the time you are referencing.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Well, nobody would be arguing high 30's...because that is even higher than it is now.

The average team attempts 33.5 threes now....so saying we are arguing for high 30's is not in line with any of my arguments at all. Not only was the defense better back then, but the pace was much lower...taking high 30's back then would be absurd.

Percentage is much better...and I'd argue that taking below 25% threes was for sure suboptimal...especially if the alternative is a lot of long 2's...which is what was happening at the time you are referencing.[/QUOTE]
Ok well i guess that was the main problem with our differences. Id pretty much agree with that. I think we still disagree a bit on mid range vs threes. I think i think the situation can call for a midrange over a three more than you do but for the most part i think we agree.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Ok well i guess that was the main problem with our differences. Id pretty much agree with that. I think we still disagree a bit on mid range vs threes. I think i think the situation can call for a midrange over a three more than you do but for the most part i think we agree.[/QUOTE]

So you agree that the early 00's had it wrong then...correct?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]So you agree that the early 00's had it wrong then...correct?[/QUOTE]
Well i said pretty they much had it right. They were shooting in the low 20's in attempts then and pretty much getting right could be anywhere between that and mid high 20's. So no i wouldn't say they had it wrong. You guys were saying threes should be in the 30 plus or more. So no i think the number would be closer to the early 2000's than where its heading now. At the very least it would probably be somewhere in the middle of where were both saying it would be so at best this argument is a wash.

How was 5"2 120 pounds Mugsey Bogue's able to average a double double in such a physical era :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Well i said pretty they much had it right. They were shooting in the low 20's in attempts then and pretty much getting right could be anywhere between that and mid high 20's. So no i wouldn't say they had it wrong. You guys were saying threes should be in the 30 plus or more. So no i think the number would be closer to the early 2000's than where its heading now. At the very least it would probably be somewhere in the middle of where were both saying it would be so at best this argument is a wash.[/QUOTE]

Again, percentage is what matters...because pace influences this stuff.

How could they "pretty much have it right" if you agree that taking more long 2's than 3's was bad?

Let me be clear. I'm saying the early 00's absolutely did not have it right. They were taking way too may long 2's over 3's...

Everytime I say this...you agree, but then go back to saying they had it right in the early 00's.

Both can't be true...so which is it?

Also, I'm not sure where you are even getting your per game attempts from.

00 - 14
01 - 14
02 - 15
03 - 15
04 - 15

Where are you getting the idea that they were taking over 20 threes a game in the early 00's?????