Kirk Goldsberry's Piece on 3-Point Shooting

[PhoSita]

Bring back hand-checking. See how the 3PT% changes when players have someone all over them. See if 3PT% is still so efficient relative to closer 2PT%.

I mean, presumably this doesn't help with respect to the way teams value threes versus mid-range shots.


If you just make all jumpshots harder (by allowing more physical defense), then all you'll do is force teams to hammer the paint a lot more.  Plenty of teams have already decided mid-range jumpers are basically worthless.

My fear then is if we make all jumpers harder, we end up with teams that try to do Houston minus the threes, or in other words, nothing but layups and free throws.



Seems to me what we need is rules that encourage teams to make use of the entire court.

[Walker Wiggle]

I finally read this article. I didn’t agree with many of the prescriptions — namely, teams determining their own court’s 3 point distance or allowing goaltending on 3s — but otherwise I thought it was brilliant.

I have felt for a long time that the charging call has gotten out of control. Similarly, the defender’s right to go straight up and hammer a driving player with the body without a defensive foul call is equally destructive to the game. (“Rule of verticality”, as it is called.) Guys don’t drive hard to the hole anymore, because you’re either turning the ball over or you’re going to have to convert a difficult shot after getting hammered, with little chance for an and-one. As a result, players aren’t going hard to the hold and nobody is getting dunked on, at least not the way it used to be. Guys posterizing their opponents was a big part of the game years ago. Players like Jordan, Drexler, Wilkins — heck, Rex Chapman — became legends this way, and it was arguably the most exciting play in the game.

Think back to the game we just witnessed. Rozier is on a fast break and sees Hayward trailing. He makes an awkward, telegraphed pass. Hayward catches it and is called for the offensive foul after the defender steps in front... WITHOUT HAYWARD EVER PUTTING THE BALL ON THE FLOOR. No one bats an eyelash.

Anyway, you get the point. Find a way to reward the players driving to the hoop and finishing — that is, give them more free throws and make it harder for that kind of play to result in a charge — and that will start looking more attractive to offenses relative to jacking up 3s.

[Walker Wiggle]

I finally read this article. I didn’t agree with many of the prescriptions — namely, teams determining their own court’s 3 point distance or allowing goaltending on 3s — but otherwise I thought it was brilliant.

I have felt for a long time that the charging call has gotten out of control. Similarly, the defender’s right to go straight up and hammer a driving player with the body without a defensive foul call is equally destructive to the game. (“Rule of verticality”, as it is called.) Guys don’t drive hard to the hole anymore, because you’re either turning the ball over or you’re going to have to convert a difficult shot after getting hammered, with little chance for an and-one. As a result, players aren’t going hard to the hold and nobody is getting dunked on, at least not the way it used to be. Guys posterizing their opponents was a big part of the game years ago. Players like Jordan, Drexler, Wilkins — heck, Rex Chapman — became legends this way, and it was arguably the most exciting play in the game.

Think back to the game we just witnessed. Rozier is on a fast break and sees Hayward trailing. He makes an awkward, telegraphed pass. Hayward catches it and is called for the offensive foul after the defender steps in front... WITHOUT HAYWARD EVER PUTTING THE BALL ON THE FLOOR. No one bats an eyelash.

Anyway, you get the point. Find a way to reward the players driving to the hoop and finishing — that is, give them more free throws and make it harder for that kind of play to result in a charge — and that will start looking more attractive to offenses relative to jacking up 3s.

I forgot to mention: Making it harder to get the charge call will also provide an incentive for guys to go up and try and block shots, rather than sit still and let a guy run through them. Which would you rather see?

[Somebody]

To me bringing back the illegal defense rule would incentivise isos and midrange jumpshots. Since defenses will have to either commit to a double team or have to guard man to man, this would increase the value of traditional bigs/forwards who have a 1 on 1 game, and would cause three point specialists who can't really create their own offense to become less valuable.

[maklin]

they should allow the game to be a bit more physical again... for me, the whining and flopping is far worse than all of the outside shooting.
(that said... Goldsberry is right. outside shooting has become to easy - thats why it is done exessively. I wouldn't mind moving the line further out.)
 
aaaand guys doing the rip-through should be t'ed!

[Big333223]

I do kind of hate the way chargers are called. I think it's an important rule to have in place but allowing defenders to scurry in front of a player who has already picked up his dribble and then pretend to get bowled over doesn't feel like real basketball. But I think two things, though:

1. Less leeway should be given to the defender who is attempting to establish position. If the defender is trying to take a charge that way, he really has to be in the player's path and not jump into it once that path has already been established.

2. Less leeway also has to be given to offensive players who are lowering their shoulders and just trying to shove defenders out of the way both on drives and in the post. I never understood why it would be ok for an offensive player in the post to just move his defender out of the way by throwing his shoulder into him.

[johnnygreen]

I finally read this article. I didn’t agree with many of the prescriptions — namely, teams determining their own court’s 3 point distance or allowing goaltending on 3s — but otherwise I thought it was brilliant.

I have felt for a long time that the charging call has gotten out of control. Similarly, the defender’s right to go straight up and hammer a driving player with the body without a defensive foul call is equally destructive to the game. (“Rule of verticality”, as it is called.) Guys don’t drive hard to the hole anymore, because you’re either turning the ball over or you’re going to have to convert a difficult shot after getting hammered, with little chance for an and-one. As a result, players aren’t going hard to the hold and nobody is getting dunked on, at least not the way it used to be. Guys posterizing their opponents was a big part of the game years ago. Players like Jordan, Drexler, Wilkins — heck, Rex Chapman — became legends this way, and it was arguably the most exciting play in the game.

Think back to the game we just witnessed. Rozier is on a fast break and sees Hayward trailing. He makes an awkward, telegraphed pass. Hayward catches it and is called for the offensive foul after the defender steps in front... WITHOUT HAYWARD EVER PUTTING THE BALL ON THE FLOOR. No one bats an eyelash.

Anyway, you get the point. Find a way to reward the players driving to the hoop and finishing — that is, give them more free throws and make it harder for that kind of play to result in a charge — and that will start looking more attractive to offenses relative to jacking up 3s.

I forgot to mention: Making it harder to get the charge call will also provide an incentive for guys to go up and try and block shots, rather than sit still and let a guy run through them. Which would you rather see?

I think the league should get rid of the charging call altogether. At a bare minimum, the NBA needs to get serious about the flopping culture they have allowed for so long. It’s beyond embarrassing and obvious. Maybe call a foul on the player that flopped or just start suspending guys after a certain number of warnings.

I absolutely miss the art of driving to the basket and seeing a defender try to block a dunk attempt. I’m tired of seeing drive attempts and then looking to the refs because a defender ran and stopped in front of the offensive player. Then we look at replays to see where the defender’s feet were in regards to the circle and if he was moving.

[gift]

they should allow the game to be a bit more physical again... for me, the whining and flopping is far worse than all of the outside shooting.
(that said... Goldsberry is right. outside shooting has become to easy - thats why it is done exessively. I wouldn't mind moving the line further out.)
 
aaaand guys doing the rip-through should be t'ed!

yeah, 3 pointers alone don't bother me so much. i love the ball/player movement that it takes to creates an open 3. but the lack of physicality combined with the volume of 3's makes for a very loosely contested jump shooting contest. too many times this year i've felt like what determines a good basketball team is a little too "randomized" based on who's hitting their 3's.

[angryguy77]

Bring it make to how it was meant to be played....

BTW, doesn't Rambis look like Charlie Brown missing the football?

[fairweatherfan]

Bring it make to how it was meant to be played....

BTW, doesn't Rambis look like Charlie Brown missing the football?

I've often said the problem with today's game is guys don't club each other in the throat enough.

[fairweatherfan]

I agree that I'd rather have too many spot up guys than too many large uncoordinated stiffs.

My feeling is the game should always reward talent, skill, and creativity and allow more limited players to be exposed or exploited.

Goldsberry is right to point out that the current state of affairs unduly rewards a type of shot that is very low difficulty while making almost obsolete an entire section of the floor that used to be the site of some of the most interesting individual plays.

I love the 3 pt shot because it moved the game from one where all else equal closer shots are always better to a more complex picture - with motives to get the ball closer and farther away, and the tension between the two shaping strategy. And I 100% agree about preferring movement and skill to bulk/size.

The problem is it's too easy to make relative to its pt value. Mathematically it's be better if 2s and 3s were say 3s and 4s and the ratio shrinks enough, but that's never happening of course. I'd love to see them widen the court and back up the line a bit - add some more baseline space to operate. Problem is that pushes back the lucrative front row(s) seating and gives the teams less of them to sell without some remodeling. So I'm not sure if THAT ever happens either.

The mid-range shot though, that's never coming back. It's just not a good shot outside of small doses to open up better ones.

[PhoSita]

I agree that I'd rather have too many spot up guys than too many large uncoordinated stiffs.

My feeling is the game should always reward talent, skill, and creativity and allow more limited players to be exposed or exploited.

Goldsberry is right to point out that the current state of affairs unduly rewards a type of shot that is very low difficulty while making almost obsolete an entire section of the floor that used to be the site of some of the most interesting individual plays.

I love the 3 pt shot because it moved the game from one where all else equal closer shots are always better to a more complex picture - with motives to get the ball closer and farther away, and the tension between the two shaping strategy. And I 100% agree about preferring movement and skill to bulk/size.

The problem is it's too easy to make relative to its pt value. Mathematically it's be better if 2s and 3s were say 3s and 4s and the ratio shrinks enough, but that's never happening of course. I'd love to see them widen the court and back up the line a bit - add some more baseline space to operate. Problem is that pushes back the lucrative front row(s) seating and gives the teams less of them to sell without some remodeling. So I'm not sure if THAT ever happens either.

The mid-range shot though, that's never coming back. It's just not a good shot outside of small doses to open up better ones.

Contested pull up mid range jumpers, I agree.

I don't think it's far fetched to imagine a league in which a wide open 10-15 footer is valued similarly to a somewhat contested above the break three.

Some of the problem in that regard, though, is that players entering the league now have always been discouraged from taking those shots, so they haven't practiced them.  Not much we can do about that.


NBA offenses are more interesting, in my opinion, when they are designed to generate open shots from a variety of spots on the floor.  What you want is for teams to have an incentive to press one advantage and then switch the emphasis when the defense adjusts.  The best offense should be able to create good shots from almost anywhere, and do so regularly.

[Big333223]

Bring it make to how it was meant to be played....

BTW, doesn't Rambis look like Charlie Brown missing the football?

I've often said the problem with today's game is guys don't club each other in the throat enough.

The "it was better when it was more physical" complaints feel a lot, to me, like the way people talk about New York City being better in the 70's when it had "more character". In reality, "more character" means it was much more dangerous and an objectively worse place to live. As iconic of a moment as the McHale foul is, the game is significantly improved for not allowing that kind of thing anymore. It's not basketball.

It's been said about the NYC thing, things weren't really better then, it's just that the people who were around then were younger and liked that better. They don't miss the old NY, they miss being young. That might also apply to the nostalgics who think they prefer basketball players with fewer basketball skills. The game wasn't really better then, but you were younger and that was better.

[fairweatherfan]

Bring it make to how it was meant to be played....

BTW, doesn't Rambis look like Charlie Brown missing the football?

I've often said the problem with today's game is guys don't club each other in the throat enough.

The "it was better when it was more physical" complaints feel a lot, to me, like the way people talk about New York City being better in the 70's when it had "more character". In reality, "more character" means it was much more dangerous and an objectively worse place to live. As iconic of a moment as the McHale foul is, the game is significantly improved for not allowing that kind of thing anymore. It's not basketball.

It's been said about the NYC thing, things weren't really better then, it's just that the people who were around then were younger and liked that better. They don't miss the old NY, they miss being young. That might also apply to the nostalgics who think they prefer basketball players with fewer basketball skills. The game wasn't really better then, but you were younger and that was better.

I understand the context and everything but it's just wild to me how some parts of our fanbase venerate what is objectively an extremely dirty play. If someone did that exact thing to say Tatum we'd be calling for them to catch a major suspension and rightfully so.

I'm old enough to have watched 80s ball as a kid and it was really fun! The game did decline in my opinion for awhile as defensive schemes got much more sophisticated and ball-control iso-heavy offense was popular, turning games into sluggish rockfights, but it picked back up in the mid-2000s and it's better now than it was then. I think the advantage the 80s had was that in addition to the iconic stars and great Cs teams and the "things were better before" mindset some aging people get, the game was a little more naive, sort of. You could get uncontested shots more often, play in the paint was sloppier, defensive rotations were simpler and more basic and the 3 hadn't taken off so most guys were still attacking the rim or making high skill moves to get mid-range looks. It hadn't been gamed out so thoroughly but was just starting to, so it had a wilder feel to it. Including of course things like our friend Kevin endangering an opponent.

[MichiganAdam]

I do kind of hate the way chargers are called. I think it's an important rule to have in place but allowing defenders to scurry in front of a player who has already picked up his dribble and then pretend to get bowled over doesn't feel like real basketball. But I think two things, though:

1. Less leeway should be given to the defender who is attempting to establish position. If the defender is trying to take a charge that way, he really has to be in the player's path and not jump into it once that path has already been established.

2. Less leeway also has to be given to offensive players who are lowering their shoulders and just trying to shove defenders out of the way both on drives and in the post. I never understood why it would be ok for an offensive player in the post to just move his defender out of the way by throwing his shoulder into him.

i certainly agree with #2.  1 not as much.  There certainly needs to be a dis-incentive for the offensive player to generate the contact through his actions.  I frankly could care less whether the guys feet are set.  If the offensive player jumps into the path the defender is taking then that is a charge.  Guys like KI and tatum use misdirection and fakes to get a defender moving one way and then go the other.  That should be rewarded.  A player who pushes off to generate space for a fall away should be hit with the foul.  The player who takes 20 steps needs to be called for traveling.  Harden, giannis, etc get away with murder with all of these.  Phantom foul calls, running the length of the court without dribbling, and pushing off to gain space would make them a JAG if called fairly. 

I think just push the 3 pt line back a few feetat the top of the key and make the same all around, removing the corner three entirely, and then the centers would be even less likely to shoot those outside shots.  Allow for the true inside to outside game I miss so much.  McHale, Parish, Kareem, etc were very fun to watch...