Lakers Thread

Like real basketball, as well as basketball video games? Talk about the NBA, NCAA, and other professional and amateur basketball leagues here.

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:05 am

Who do they think they are, Manute Bol?

phpBB [video]
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Topics: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Topics: NBA 2K19 | NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
The One Admin
Administrator
 
Posts: 106055
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:02 pm

Brook is just playing the role he's been asked to play. If Brook is dominating inside, as much as I want him to as well, it gives Randle less space to operate in.

That's why I'm hoping Brook decides to come back at a reasonable rate. You need to pair Randle with a big who is a wing on offense but can still guard the opposing teams centers. Randle can do it in stretches, but he can't sustain it and it might lead to injuries as well. The staff just needs to find a healthy balance with Brook playing inside out, he's more than capable.

That is unless Randle really adds to his offensive game this off season by expanding his range. Perhaps the Lakers are also banking on Thomas Bryant heavily given he is capable of shooting the three as well. Let's see.

Unfortunately the Lakers have been eliminated from playoff contention this year, but hopefully they make it next year.

Also regarding George, it's still not a bad move and shouldn't hinder Ingram at all given the move towards positionless basketball. Brook-Randle-Ingram-George-Ball is a more than competent line up. Even though KCP has picked it up post all star break, I don't think he'll be getting big bucks from the Lakers if George is willing to switch teams. Ingram is going to be a star for a long time to come, still believe heavily in that kid. Hopefully recovers fast and this team can continue to improve this coming year.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14858
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby shadowgrin on Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 am

Ingram doesn't use alt accounts, he's already better than Durant.


Image

Image
HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin
Doesn't negotiate with terrorists. NLSC's Jefferson Davis. The Questioneer
 
Posts: 23114
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:21 am
Location: In your mind

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:54 am

Sleepy Hollow isn't about that double life. He's a real OG.

Heck, the Slim Reaper nickname would've even fit him if KD hadn't rejected it to be called "The Servant". Bitch-ass KD.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14858
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:18 am

Regarding Brook Lopez, 3 point shooting at .346 equals 1.038 points per shot attempt. 2 at .466 equals 0.932 points per shot attempt. If he earnt all his free throws from his 2 point game, his 2 point efficiency rises to 0.98. For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family. It's taken the idiots in the league 40 years to figure out, and they still haven't given the 3 point shot its due. My prediction is that 3 point shots will eventually be so abundant they will practically destroy the game as an entertainment. Something will eventually need to be done to counteract it and bring back diversity. I'm not confident enlarging the 3 point line would do that (most shooters these days shoot several feet behind the line already). Besides, you'd probably also need to enlargen the court sideways to counteract the side 3's. You'll probably just make it a guard dominant game with shots still raining from 3. There is a possibility 3 point shooting is less consistent than 2 point shooting (probably closer than you imagine), so 2's may still have some value even if they aren't as efficient on the average.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:46 am

Yeah but your data and points per shot don't mean much if you need a single bucket to break a cold streak or just need a bucket at the end of the game. I still prefer the higher percentage shot. You might get more points per shot, but at the end of the day, that shot has to go in for you to get the points

It's very frustrating as only 42.2% of his shots come within 10 ft of the basket when he's shooting 73% from 3 ft and in and also a solid 51% from 3-10 ft
What a waste of abilities
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 13289
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:19 am

That is where advanced stats fail, Dwayne2005. Him shooting three's on the break, and shooting a ton of threes isn't what hes best at, and it's certainly not best for the team. As Q mentioned, he shoots 73% from 3ft in and 51% from 3-10 ft.

I also disagree about the league being stupid for 40 years and finally figuring it out..... Another point I disagree on is that at some point the 3 point shot will ruin the league. I honestly think we are seeing the 3 Point shot at a usage that may be around for a long time now. I don't see it going much further up from here on out.

Again, Brook is best close/around the basket. Him taking 3's on the fastbreak or early in the offense is not his specialty, and I strongly believe that it's not the best for the team. Lopez looks absolutely dominant around the basket at times (When he is on).

For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family.


I mean, is it? For most players? I disagree with this strongly, I believe the average for 3 point percentage in the league is like .360%, like right around that number. That is roughly the same percent as it was 20 years ago. The tweener game, post game, etc will always have a place, the size of that place has dwindled a bit, but it's still in the game. Look at the way Portland still uses Nurkic to dominate games (especially at home where he is at his best), look at Julius Randle, look at the work a lot of the big guys still do within that 3PT Line. There will always be a demand for players who can get easy buckets around the hoop at a 60-80% clip, as opposed to taking a shot 23-25 ft away from it at a .30-40% clip.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby NovU on Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:36 am

dwayne2005 wrote:Regarding Brook Lopez, 3 point shooting at .346 equals 1.038 points per shot attempt. 2 at .466 equals 0.932 points per shot attempt. If he earnt all his free throws from his 2 point game, his 2 point efficiency rises to 0.98. For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family. It's taken the idiots in the league 40 years to figure out, and they still haven't given the 3 point shot its due. My prediction is that 3 point shots will eventually be so abundant they will practically destroy the game as an entertainment. Something will eventually need to be done to counteract it and bring back diversity. I'm not confident enlarging the 3 point line would do that (most shooters these days shoot several feet behind the line already). Besides, you'd probably also need to enlargen the court sideways to counteract the side 3's. You'll probably just make it a guard dominant game with shots still raining from 3. There is a possibility 3 point shooting is less consistent than 2 point shooting (probably closer than you imagine), so 2's may still have some value even if they aren't as efficient on the average.

But it's been a lot of trials and error to get to this stage of 3pt shooting era with accumulated data supporting the cause and change.

Perhaps Mike D'Antoni and Steve Nash woke up the league. They found 3s are awesome and way more efficient than bang and grind. So it began, spacing war, to get as many shooters on the floor as possible and take open 3s at all chances, if not attack the opened up lane(clogging paint is the worst way to defend now because of sharp shooters). This worked so well for many teams that eventually changed the way of playing the ball game.




More than ever, shooting 3s has become such an important asset to have for players. Although fans don't like Cousins or Brook taking 3s, if they are effective and able to win more games that way than not, why the fuck not. Who cares if it's a bad entertainment. Ball game is sports first.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11220
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:50 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:30 pm

66% of teams shot attempts come from 2 point range this season. Those shots fall at a .510% clip.

34% of teams shots this season come from 3 point range. Those shots fall at a .360% clip.

Teams are taking about 60 two pointers a game out of about 90 shot attempts. I don't see the gap getting much larger, and that means that a team MUST succeed within the 3 point line as almost 70% of the field goals taken are in that area.

When teams are still shooting almost 70% of those shots, there will always be a demand and room for those guys who can flat out get buckets below the 3pt line. Lopez. Who shoots .34% from three this year (2% under the league average), could absolutley be taking higher percentage shots.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:40 pm

It comes down to good decision making, really. Stephen Curry pulling up for a three-pointer on a 2-on-1 break? He makes that work a lot of the time. Brook Lopez stopping and popping in the same situation? Obviously he can knock them down, but not necessarily the look you want.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Topics: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Topics: NBA 2K19 | NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
The One Admin
Administrator
 
Posts: 106055
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:41 pm

I feel bad for Rick Carlisle and Dirk. Mavs are tanking so hard. I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about players, but I have literally never heard of any of the 5 guys they have on the floor

Edit: never mind, I remember Harrison from college. One half of the twins. I guess they just signed him to a 10 day
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 13289
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 9:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby NovU on Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:38 pm

The Mavericks are bad unintentionally this season. There were high hopes for the roster with players returning healthy and Barnes in his prime. Turns out grandpa Dirk still is the better player than Barnes and Matthews combined. At this point, Harrison Barnes signing is looking like a major disappointment. He got paid for potential and he'll never live up to it.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11220
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:50 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:50 pm

He got the Trevor Ariza Deal after the Warriors' 73-9 season, and title the year before.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Topics: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Topics: NBA 2K19 | NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
The One Admin
Administrator
 
Posts: 106055
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:34 am

[Q] wrote:Yeah but your data and points per shot don't mean much if you need a single bucket to break a cold streak or just need a bucket at the end of the game. I still prefer the higher percentage shot. You might get more points per shot, but at the end of the day, that shot has to go in for you to get the points

It's very frustrating as only 42.2% of his shots come within 10 ft of the basket when he's shooting 73% from 3 ft and in and also a solid 51% from 3-10 ft
What a waste of abilities


I made a logical error, anyway. I do that a lot! I should have measured his 2 point shooting percentage, not field goal percent. He is way more efficient from 2 point range than 3, at .606 and 1.212 points per shot attempt, not even counting those earned from the foul line. Sometimes I don't know where my brain is at...

I'll have to run the numbers for the league at some point.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby NovU on Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:17 am

Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:

Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411

BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want


Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11220
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:50 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:31 am

NovU wrote:Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:

Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411

BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want


Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.


My eyes probably tracked the wrong box at Basketball Reference or something, though I am mystified where since I can't see any confusable 60% boxes. It wouldn't be the first time. It was Basketball Reference I was looking at. Maybe I had two players up in two tabs and looked at the wrong tab? I ran the numbers through my program and last night came up with:

League wide, up to the all-star break, 3 point shooting was 1.08 points per shot (or 36% average; (PL3PM/PL3PA)*3) while 2 point shooting (this time discounting the threes from the equation) counts as 1.02 points per shot (or 51% average; ((PLFGM-PL3PM)/(PLFGA-PL3PA))*2).

On the other hand, if you count all the free throw shots as relating to the 2 point game, 2 point shooting becomes worth 1.13 points per shot ((PLPTS-(PL3PM*3))/(PLFGA-PL3PA+(0.44*PLFTA))). So by that measure, 2 point shooting is more efficient than 3 on the average for the league by 0.05 points per attempt (almost the same as the difference between 3 point shooting and 2).

Interestingly, up to the all-star break, Stephen Curry saw a dramatic increase in efficiency by this measure. He is 1.24 from 3, 1.19 from 2 and 1.43 from 2 point range plus free throws. Obviously, he is getting fouled because he can shoot whether or not it is coming from 3 point range. maybe partly for fear that he is go out and shoot a 3? So it brings into question assigning all the value of free throws to the 2 point game, especially as it is increasingly linked with 3 point shooting the more 3 point shots start to equal the number of 2 point shots. Brook Lopez was 1.03 from 2 point range, 1.00 from 3 point range and 1.10 from 2 point range plus free throws.

Manute Bol was way more efficient not shooting 3's (0.59 vs 0.87 and 0.92 when adding free throws). He got extremely lucky in one game in particular where he pledged to donate to charity for every 3 he scored or something (if I recall correctly). It is probably more proof of the existence of God than it is of Manute Bol's 3 point shooting (and I'm an atheist).
Last edited by dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:55 am

dwayne2005 wrote:
NovU wrote:Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:

Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411

BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want


Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.


My eyes probably tracked the wrong box at Basketball Reference or something, though I am mystified where since I can't see any confusable 60% boxes. It wouldn't be the first time. It was Basketball Reference I was looking at. I ran the numbers through my program and last night came up with:

League wide, up to the all-star break, 3 point shooting was 1.08 points per shot (or 36% average; (PL3PM/PL3PA)*3) while 2 point shooting (this time discounting the threes from the equation) counts as 1.02 points per shot (or 51% average; ((PLFGM-PL3PM)/(PLFGA-PL3PA))*2).

On the other hand, if you count all the free throw shots as relating to the 2 point game, 2 point shooting becomes worth 1.13 points per shot ((PLPTS-(PL3PM*3))/(PLFGA-PL3PA+(0.44*PLFTA))). So by that measure, 2 point shooting is more efficient than 3 on the average for the league by 0.05 points per attempt (almost the same as the difference between 3 point shooting and 2).

Interestingly, up to the all-star break, Stephen Curry saw a dramatic increase in efficiency by this measure. He is 1.24 from 3, 1.19 from 2 and 1.43 from 2 point range plus free throws. Obviously, he is getting fouled because he can shoot whether or not it is coming from 3 point range. maybe partly for fear that he is go out and shoot a 3? So it brings into question assigning all the value of free throws to the 2 point game. Brook Lopez was 1.03 from 2 point range, 1.00 from 3 point range and 1.10 from 2 point range plus free throws.

Manute Bol was way more efficient not shooting 3's (0.59 vs 0.87 and 0.92 when adding free throws). He got extremely lucky in one game in particular where he pledged to donate to charity for every 3 he scored or something (if I recall correctly). It is probably more proof of the existence of God than it is of Manute Bol's 3 point shooting (and I'm an atheist).


Ugh,

None of this really means anything, literally the 2 point shot is a higher percentage shot by 15% for the season by a league average. Lopez has a much higher percentage below the 3pt line, so logically those are better shots for him, and higher percentage shots for him.

Acting like teams should be taking even more threes because the league was stupid for 40 years and finally figured it out, really loses me. We are talking about an average percentage from three at .360%, and an averaged .510% from two, with teams shooting roughly 70% of the fields goals per game from two point range. While 3's are being taken more, the insides game and mid range game is still a major part of each game (about 70% of shots taken, to be honest).

This is where the advanced stats are silly to me. Finding a way to justify Brook Lopez jacking up threes on the break or early in the offense (which he has been doing often) by doing formulas and using advanced stats.

No, bottom line: the dude shoots about .34% from three, and .510% from 3-10 ft, and over 70% within 3 ft. Where as a coach do I want Brook when I need a bucket? Oh yeah, on the block. Am I cool with him taking an open three every now and than? Sure. Not the way he has been taking them.

Teams are also not hitting threes at a higher percentage as they did 20 years ago, go look on basketball reference, that are just taking more. So here we are, 20 years later, and we don't have better shooters.... we have players just shooting more. In order for 3 pointers to truly take over the league, you would need better shooters to make that decision a rational one. So far, that's not the case.

In 99-00, the league average for 3P% was .353... almost identical to this season. The myth that the league is loaded with shooters, or loaded with 3pt shooters, is just that... a myth. And while the floor is stretched more, the 3P percentage on a league wide average hasn't really changed.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:03 am

The context of the 'league is stupid' remark that you keep honing in on was that the NBA very, very slowly embraced the 3 point shot over the first decade in particular when it was clear that there was strides to make in terms of efficient scoring, which is what the bottom line is. You want to score my points per shot, but the NBA treated the 3 point line as a boogeyman largely because they were still stuck in conventional mindsets that grew up on a pre-1979 NBA game. It may appear more of a minor detail comparing the NBA today to the NBA of the 1990s, but it is still part of a historical trend: originally they just didn't shoot them because it wasn't the way it should be done, according to them. As for when the game is on the line in the crunch, it depends on scoreline but broadly you may be correct: the higher percentage, more reliable shots are the best to take. If a game is down double digits with 1:30 remaining, good luck bringing back the game swapping 2 for 2. A lot of comebacks depend on someone catching fire scoring that extra 1 point per shot (and hoping the other teams does not). Not to mention you are looking for 3's when the game is much closer with much less time on the clock because you are going to be fouling sending them to the line for an assured 2 points.
Last edited by dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:10 am

dwayne2005 wrote:The context of the 'league is stupid' remark that you keep honing in on was that the NBA very, very slowly embraced the 3 point shot over the first decade in particular when it was clear that there was strides to make in terms of efficient scoring, which is what the bottom line is. You want to score my points per shot, but the NBA treated the 3 point line as a boogeyman largely because they were still stuck in conventional mindsets that grew up on a pre-1979 NBA game. It may appear more of a minor detail comparing the NBA today to the NBA of the 1990s, but it is still part of a historical trend: originally they just didn't shoot them because it wasn't the way it should be done, according to them. As for when the game is on the line in the crunch, it depends on scoreline but broadly you may be correct: the higher percentage, more reliable shots are the best to take. If a game is down double digits with 1:30 remaining, good luck bringing back the game swapping 2 for 2.


But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.

And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.

Christ, in 91-92 the 3P% average for the league was .33%. The way people act about the 3 point shooters in the NBA now, you would think that the team 3P% shot up like 20% over the last 30 years. Literally a 3% difference in almost 30 years? Let's not act like the league is full of juggernaut shooters (not saying that to you specifically, just a statement).

And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.

By the way, that Manute Bol game was hilarious. All of the threes came at the top of the key, he sling shot ted them. Watching the reactions of the players is priceless.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:20 am

But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.

And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.


They had a reason to be reluctant to shoot the 3's early on. Largely cultural. There is no reason why they would be shooting so many 3's now in contrast besides the fact that they are realizing now that it is efficient (albeit maybe not entertaining) basketball.

And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.


I made an ammendment to my post before seeing yours that addresses this:

Not to mention you are looking for 3's when the game is much closer with much less time on the clock because you are going to be fouling sending them to the line for an assured 2 points.

If the scoreline keeps coming back down to 3 or under, your point makes sense. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two, but teams do depend on that 3 point shot down the line. It is not always a matter of the highest percentage shot in the crunch especially if the other team is not cold. If the other team are ahead 4-6, it is probably more frequent than 1-3 anyway. In any event, the highest percentage shot is not exclusively utilized in the crunch.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:31 am

dwayne2005 wrote:
But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.

And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.


They had a reason to be reluctant to shoot the 3's early on. Largely cultural. There is no reason why they would be shooting so many 3's now in contrast besides the fact that they are realizing now that it is efficient (albeit maybe not entertaining) basketball.

And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.


I made an ammendment to my post before seeing yours that addresses this:

Not to mention you are looking for 3's when the game is much closer with much less time on the clock because you are going to be fouling sending them to the line for an assured 2 points.

If the scoreline keeps coming back down to 3 or under, your point makes sense. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two, but teams do depend on that 3 point shot down the line. It is not always a matter of the highest percentage shot in the crunch especially if the other team is not cold. If the other team are ahead 4-6, it is probably more frequent than 1-3 anyway.



Clearly the 3 is still an option. But most teams go for that quick two, that's all I'm saying. And why? Because it's absolutley a higher percentage shot. If they can get that quick two, and under pressure the opposing team misses a free throw, they are in a primed position to shoot a higher percentage shot to tie the game and send it into overtime. It also gives them the opportunity to show 2, and get an open 3 for the win.

My whole point is, not only are twos still relevant. They are still the most common attempt by almost 70%, meaning that a team must succeed below the 3pt line. The league will not be destroyed by the 3 point shot, like I said before, I strongly think we are almost at or at the peak of the two point and three point attempt ratio.

The percentages in the league are not going up, like I stated above. In 91-92 the team 3 point average was .33%, a 3% increase in almost 30 years doesn't scream revolution. The league may be shooting more, but they really are not converting at a higher percentage.

Nice to see hybrid bigs though that still know how to work the block. Embiid being one of them, he will hit the three, but his work on the block is what makes him truly special.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:42 am

I'm not saying based on present stats 2 point shots have no role. Right now, assuming that this idea that all free throws should be awarded to the 2 point game is bogus and that it is not 50:50 (it makes sense for bigs, but how about shooters like Stephen Curry?), there is reason to argue that they aren't shooting enough 3's. That they should be taking even more than they are now. If the 3 point shooting percentages you cited continue to rise, then you can argue they should be shooting even more than whatever the number they are lagging behind today is. Eventually, as I said I predict it will destroy the game as an entertainment. It's not that I don't feel shooting can be entertaining basketball. I don't drool over dunks, I am well passed that. There is something ASMR about shots going in nothing but net. Like hot knives cutting through butter. It is the fact that diversity makes for entertainment, it always has and always will and I envision a time where the balance will begin to be tilted too much in favor of the long range game that something will need to be done (maybe a clock).
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:46 am

dwayne2005 wrote:I'm not saying based on present stats 2 point shots have no role. Right now, assuming that this idea that all free throws should be awarded to the 2 point game is bogus and that it is not 50:50 (it makes sense for bigs, but how about shooters like Stephen Curry?), there is reason to argue that they aren't shooting enough 3's. That they should be taking even more than they are now. If the 3 point shooting percentages you cited continue to rise, then you can argue they should be shooting even more than whatever the number they are lagging behind today is. Eventually, as I said I predict it will destroy the game as an entertainment. It's not that I don't feel shooting can be entertaining basketball. I don't drool over dunks, I am well passed that. There is something ASMR about shots going in nothing but net. Like hot knives cutting through butter. It is the fact that diversity makes for entertainment, it always has and always will and I envision a time where the balance will begin to be tilted too much in favor of the long range game that something will need to be done (maybe a clock).


So we can agree to disagree. I don't think the trend shows teams should be shooting more 3's, you do. I don't believe the league will eventually be destroyed by it, you do.

No worries, we can move on.

Nice to have Manute Bol's game brought up, props for that.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:11 am

The 3 point shot goes back to a test game in the NCAA in 1944. Then it was implemented by the ABA in 1961, but not the NBA until 1978-79. They were so reluctant to have the line that they enlarged it beyond the confines of the court, creating the kind of cool looking lines at the side because they couldn't stretch it at the sidelines. If it wasn't so awkward to process, they might have awarded it a score of 2.5 instead or some decimal number. They were intent on tweaking it as much as they could until they could no longer tweak it any further. They appear to have been worried about it throwing out the game balance from the outset. They have been happy for 40 years, but there will come a time when those fears are realized, mark my word. You probably have more freedom of choice in the NBA than in any other sport that I know of. You can't choose to slap a shot in from distance in hockey in order to get more points from it. You choose based on strategy, nothing more. Basketball has a potential balancing issue.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:21 am

I think my biggest gripe with the 3 point line was when they moved it in in the mid 90s. I thought that was silly, they tried to create a higher scoring (more exciting) game, only to return the line back to its original distance after only a few years.

My best memory regarding the 3 point line? Probably Watching Curry go nuts a couple years ago vs the Thunder, winning the game on a 35-40 ft three. The players reactions on the opposing bench when they saw he got it off... unblieveable. They knew it was in, even from that distance. Still one of the craziest games I've ever seen.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

PreviousNext

Return to NBA & Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 5 guests