So you're saying nothing would change if you removed the 3 point line? Ok. Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
Printable View
So you're saying nothing would change if you removed the 3 point line? Ok. Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by VObserver
Yeah, basketball would be great againQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesTheJeweler
According to NCAA.com this season 290 teams out of 350 are on average taking 20+ 3 point shots per game. In other words darn near everyone! If I read it correctly, players are making about 35% of them. Must be analytics driving these coaches to rely more and more on 3 pt. shot. Don't know if coaches will agree to getting rid of it, at least make it more challenging.
To me the problem with basketball is we’ve forgotten what a block and a charge is.. at some point along the way offensive players figured out you can run into a defender driving to the basket and 95% of the time you will get a foul called on them. They might as well put shoulder pads and helmets on.
Game was finesse and crisp passing and shooting. Now it’s all penetrate and get fouled or penetrate and dish for a 3 pt shot. And every game with in a 10 point outcome is decided by terrible officiating. It’s become so hard to watch.
That's a good description of the game today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob81
WOW. Blast from the past!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Esqueleto
You can go watch any pickup game and see this for free…without the loud music, screaming PA, cheap ars student giveaways, and BYOB and food a whole lot cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob81
35% on 3's is equal to 52.5% on 2's. In addition, a team typically gets more offensive rebounds on 3's due to long rebounds. This is why you are seeing teams shot more 3's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckster
NBA is worse in adapting the 3 point analytics. Virtually every team tries to get up 40 three point attempts per game. That has had a big impact on the ratings being down in my view. It becomes boring as every team runs the same offense. A simple solution is to eliminate the short corner 3. Make the three point line 30 feet from the basket everywhere. As the sideline is about 24 feet from the basket, a shot there would be only worth 2 points. That would reduce the amount of times players simply run to the corner of the baseline and sideline as a make there would be only worth 2 points. We adhere to that philosophy We have had Garnett running to that spot for 3 years. This year we did not force enough turnovers or get enough rebounds to get many opportunities for that play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckster
A negative to the long rebounds is the opponent getting run outs to the basket on missed threes if you don't gather the offensive board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunfever
35% is better than shooting 50% from 2-point land but with a couple of caveats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunfever
You draw fewer fouls thus less old fashion 3-pointers. Meaning the 50% of 2-point attempts actually has above and beyond potential.
3-point shooting also increases the odds of facing their best players the entire game.
If there are fewer fouls due to shot selection, the opponent will foul out less often.
Those are some good points Turbine. That is why some studies have shown you really need to shoot 38 percent from 3 to equal 50 percent from 2. The fouls issue is a big part of that study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine