Knicks · Nba is becoming a glorified 3 pt shooting contest (page 3)

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Let me guess, some are complaining (Briggs) about three points shots because the Bucks exploited it to come back and win?

What happened to no one likes the Iso game? The stand around and feed the low block game?
May be what one is used to but the three point game has added much more excitement to the game.
You look at Mondays game vs Bucks, without the three point shot, you turn that off midway through the third. Three point shooting also adds more passing, ball movement, off ball movement. Without it, we go back to wings pounding the ball inside and watching ow big man pound the ball and slowly back his defender down. Just a much slower paced game. Not to mention how the three point shot has created much more skilled players. Including big men.

The NEW NBA is much better than old tight short, two hand passing, pound the ball inside basketball.
Are we also going to start complaining about the Alley OOP and 24 second clock?

I would agree, except some of those old Celtics and Lakers ran beautiful sets off of motion. For me, and the Bucks game has nothing to do with this take, the thing is that the game has become sloppy. It's easy to point to the threes, but refs don't seem to call traveling or walking violations anymore. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Also, while there are teams that do run aesthetically pleasing offenses, there are a lot that just run drive and kick offenses that have guys loafing around the three-point line, waiting for the shot. Pretty much the same concept as the post and kick out.

Maybe. Don't think anyone will ever be be happy with everything. Especially if it's not how they vision it. For me, today's NBA is a faster paced game. Exciting. Still feel players can take advantage of mid game. Ie JB, DeRozan, etc. The three point shot mostly increases scoring, ability to comeback being down 17 and takes away 20 ft jumpers. It also expands the floor to create the ability to go to hoop. Think all good things. Of course, in trying to fit the mold, several teams/players adopt a misconceived style in order to take advantage of things mentioned. However, those teams/players do not flourish and quickly realize they need to make adjustments.

BRIGGS wrote:Please change the balance back

100%...it's all gunning now. Need to give the D a chance to re-balance.

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Let me guess, some are complaining (Briggs) about three points shots because the Bucks exploited it to come back and win?

What happened to no one likes the Iso game? The stand around and feed the low block game?
May be what one is used to but the three point game has added much more excitement to the game.
You look at Mondays game vs Bucks, without the three point shot, you turn that off midway through the third. Three point shooting also adds more passing, ball movement, off ball movement. Without it, we go back to wings pounding the ball inside and watching ow big man pound the ball and slowly back his defender down. Just a much slower paced game. Not to mention how the three point shot has created much more skilled players. Including big men.

The NEW NBA is much better than old tight short, two hand passing, pound the ball inside basketball.
Are we also going to start complaining about the Alley OOP and 24 second clock?

I would agree, except some of those old Celtics and Lakers ran beautiful sets off of motion. For me, and the Bucks game has nothing to do with this take, the thing is that the game has become sloppy. It's easy to point to the threes, but refs don't seem to call traveling or walking violations anymore. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Also, while there are teams that do run aesthetically pleasing offenses, there are a lot that just run drive and kick offenses that have guys loafing around the three-point line, waiting for the shot. Pretty much the same concept as the post and kick out.

Maybe. Don't think anyone will ever be be happy with everything. Especially if it's not how they vision it. For me, today's NBA is a faster paced game. Exciting. Still feel players can take advantage of mid game. Ie JB, DeRozan, etc. The three point shot mostly increases scoring, ability to comeback being down 17 and takes away 20 ft jumpers. It also expands the floor to create the ability to go to hoop. Think all good things. Of course, in trying to fit the mold, several teams/players adopt a misconceived style in order to take advantage of things mentioned. However, those teams/players do not flourish and quickly realize they need to make adjustments.

There are extremes on every side, for sure. Do your prefer seeing Jokic spraying cutters from everywhere in the post or do you prefer watching guys stand around while Luka holds the ball for 20 seconds waiting for a PnR? Personally, the James Harden Rockets were not enjoyable at all. Yeah, lots of scoring and pace, but the ball was being dominated by one guy. The Jordan triangle teams had a lot more ball movement despite scoring less per game. And the thing is, you can't say the style of the ball dominant wing isn't flourishing because you seem more and more teams adopting that style.

BigDaddyG wrote:

franco12 wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

franco12 wrote:
The game has changed because the athletes have gotten bigger, taller, faster.

They have not gotten taller for sure, there are stats that say that league heights peaked out in 1987.

https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/average-nba...

People have gotten heavier, more muscular, but how does that help with the 3 point shot?

My point is specific to the size of the court from when the game of basketball started to now. And that goes for just about every sport.

That is an interesting link. I played with it and Centers are getting shorter in the last couple years - probably because teams are emphasizing shooting from distance, ability to pass and space the court.

Would Mark Eaton get minutes in today's game? Would Karl Malone instead be the center? And he would definitely be shooting 3's, likely well and with volume.

Mark Eaton seemed like he was a one trick pony. I just looked at Eaton's stats and I think it says lot that Malone and Stockton were able to have offensive success in spite of have Eaton on the court A more interesting question is how would Shaq do if he played today. Obviously, he's still a starting level player, but would he still be SHAQ!!!?

RIP Mark Eaton

For a center, blocks are a pretty big pony

I also doubt Eaton would be effective in today's NBA. Players are more athletic, at every postion. But back then, he was a good fit. Was a great defensive center in that era.

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:Let me guess, some are complaining (Briggs) about three points shots because the Bucks exploited it to come back and win?

What happened to no one likes the Iso game? The stand around and feed the low block game?
May be what one is used to but the three point game has added much more excitement to the game.
You look at Mondays game vs Bucks, without the three point shot, you turn that off midway through the third. Three point shooting also adds more passing, ball movement, off ball movement. Without it, we go back to wings pounding the ball inside and watching ow big man pound the ball and slowly back his defender down. Just a much slower paced game. Not to mention how the three point shot has created much more skilled players. Including big men.

The NEW NBA is much better than old tight short, two hand passing, pound the ball inside basketball.
Are we also going to start complaining about the Alley OOP and 24 second clock?

I would agree, except some of those old Celtics and Lakers ran beautiful sets off of motion. For me, and the Bucks game has nothing to do with this take, the thing is that the game has become sloppy. It's easy to point to the threes, but refs don't seem to call traveling or walking violations anymore. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Also, while there are teams that do run aesthetically pleasing offenses, there are a lot that just run drive and kick offenses that have guys loafing around the three-point line, waiting for the shot. Pretty much the same concept as the post and kick out.

Maybe. Don't think anyone will ever be be happy with everything. Especially if it's not how they vision it. For me, today's NBA is a faster paced game. Exciting. Still feel players can take advantage of mid game. Ie JB, DeRozan, etc. The three point shot mostly increases scoring, ability to comeback being down 17 and takes away 20 ft jumpers. It also expands the floor to create the ability to go to hoop. Think all good things. Of course, in trying to fit the mold, several teams/players adopt a misconceived style in order to take advantage of things mentioned. However, those teams/players do not flourish and quickly realize they need to make adjustments.

There are extremes on every side, for sure. Do your prefer seeing Jokic spraying cutters from everywhere in the post or do you prefer watching guys stand around while Luka holds the ball for 20 seconds waiting for a PnR? Personally, the James Harden Rockets were not enjoyable at all. Yeah, lots of scoring and pace, but the ball was being dominated by one guy. The Jordan triangle teams had a lot more ball movement despite scoring less per game. And the thing is, you can't say the style of the ball dominant wing isn't flourishing because you seem more and more teams adopting that style.

True. Think with all things, a mixture of different things is always better.
Think all good teams are enjoyable to watch and one can appreciate good basketball. And all have a mixture of both. Bucks showed us a good mix.
Jordan teams still had their times where it was spread the floor for Jordan.
But agree. Good to have all aspects in the game. Disagree with thread topic that the game is mostly just three point shooting. Do think it is an integral part to success today. Both shooting it and defending it.

franco12 wrote:
That is an interesting link. I played with it and Centers are getting shorter in the last couple years - probably because teams are emphasizing shooting from distance, ability to pass and space the court.

Yes, and centers now need to be more mobile to play switch defense and run out to challenge perimeter shooters. So teams are trading height for wingspan, Dray and Bam are now the prototypical centers.

totally disagree... best teams in the standings are the ones who defend every night. The big difference is any team can win any night because you can get hot and light it up from 3.

Knicks have shown many times this year you can shoot it for shit and come away with wins.

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

franco12 wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

franco12 wrote:
The game has changed because the athletes have gotten bigger, taller, faster.

They have not gotten taller for sure, there are stats that say that league heights peaked out in 1987.

https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/average-nba...

People have gotten heavier, more muscular, but how does that help with the 3 point shot?

My point is specific to the size of the court from when the game of basketball started to now. And that goes for just about every sport.

That is an interesting link. I played with it and Centers are getting shorter in the last couple years - probably because teams are emphasizing shooting from distance, ability to pass and space the court.

Would Mark Eaton get minutes in today's game? Would Karl Malone instead be the center? And he would definitely be shooting 3's, likely well and with volume.

Mark Eaton seemed like he was a one trick pony. I just looked at Eaton's stats and I think it says lot that Malone and Stockton were able to have offensive success in spite of have Eaton on the court A more interesting question is how would Shaq do if he played today. Obviously, he's still a starting level player, but would he still be SHAQ!!!?

RIP Mark Eaton

For a center, blocks are a pretty big pony

I also doubt Eaton would be effective in today's NBA. Players are more athletic, at every postion. But back then, he was a good fit. Was a great defensive center in that era.

Rudy Gobert says Mark Eaton would be just fine.

A little tangential but it's mostly because of the 3-ball.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/FredKatz/status/1613190851592654848?s=20

Click here to view the Tweet

The Knicks can’t hold onto a lead. But there’s a greater context to this: neither can the rest of the NBA.

Thanks to The Athletic’s NBA analytics guru, Seth Partnow, who compiled league-wide statistics on blown leads for this story, we now know the Knicks are one of seven teams that have let go of at least seven double-digit advantages in losses this season. Fourteen teams have blown at least six double-digit leads in losses; 21 have blown at least five. Every team has turned at least three double-digit leads into losses — except for the Memphis Grizzlies, who are somehow yet to blow one.

The Portland Trail Blazers have a 14-point comeback against the Knicks, but they’ve also blown double-digit advantages in nine losses this season, the most in the NBA. The Hawks silenced Madison Square Garden when they exited after that 23-point comeback, but they’ve suffered the other side of this, too, giving back double-digit leads in eight of their defeats this season. Dončić shattered hearts with his intentionally missed free throw that he turned into a game-tying floater, but … you can probably guess where this is going; the Mavericks have let go of double-digit leads in eight of their losses.

The reality is that (unless you’re in Memphis) this happens all the time now.

The popularization of the 3-pointer has changed the game. Pump out three straight stand-still looks from the corner, and you’re back in it. If one or two role players get the hot hand, as some Bucks did Monday night, the dynamic flips. Hardships like what the Knicks suffered against Milwaukee occur just about every night in the NBA these days. A losing team has blown a double-digit lead in 26 percent of the games played around the league this season.

And now, as Randle was, head coach Tom Thibodeau is laughing, too.

“I sorta get a chuckle because you guys — no lead is safe in this league. … A 20-point lead with three minutes (remaining), you’re not safe,” Thibodeau said over the weekend. “With the 3, with the way the game is officiated, the thing is you can make up ground quickly.”

Mitch says hello also!
Eaton talents enhanced others.
Mitch this year has been key to Randle, Brunson and RJ’s output.
This was missing for big chunks of last season and he never really got in proper shape.

Also, leads are built from teams getting hot from the 3. It also permits teams to come back.
Blowouts are rating killers. Truth is a good win in a close game is better than a blow out win.
That teams can come back from 17 pt deficits is part of the NBA experience.
Briggs often responds to whats in front of him. He is not alone in distain for the obvious increase in scoring we are seeing these days. And perhaps the NBA further tweeks it. 4 pt line the last 2 min of a game would be exciting. But I doubt NBA starts any of that or moving lines. Bottom line is the team that scores the most points wins.

martin wrote:A little tangential but it's mostly because of the 3-ball.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/FredKatz/status/1613190851592654848?s=20

Click here to view the Tweet

The Knicks can’t hold onto a lead. But there’s a greater context to this: neither can the rest of the NBA.

Thanks to The Athletic’s NBA analytics guru, Seth Partnow, who compiled league-wide statistics on blown leads for this story, we now know the Knicks are one of seven teams that have let go of at least seven double-digit advantages in losses this season. Fourteen teams have blown at least six double-digit leads in losses; 21 have blown at least five. Every team has turned at least three double-digit leads into losses — except for the Memphis Grizzlies, who are somehow yet to blow one.

The Portland Trail Blazers have a 14-point comeback against the Knicks, but they’ve also blown double-digit advantages in nine losses this season, the most in the NBA. The Hawks silenced Madison Square Garden when they exited after that 23-point comeback, but they’ve suffered the other side of this, too, giving back double-digit leads in eight of their defeats this season. Dončić shattered hearts with his intentionally missed free throw that he turned into a game-tying floater, but … you can probably guess where this is going; the Mavericks have let go of double-digit leads in eight of their losses.

The reality is that (unless you’re in Memphis) this happens all the time now.

The popularization of the 3-pointer has changed the game. Pump out three straight stand-still looks from the corner, and you’re back in it. If one or two role players get the hot hand, as some Bucks did Monday night, the dynamic flips. Hardships like what the Knicks suffered against Milwaukee occur just about every night in the NBA these days. A losing team has blown a double-digit lead in 26 percent of the games played around the league this season.

And now, as Randle was, head coach Tom Thibodeau is laughing, too.

“I sorta get a chuckle because you guys — no lead is safe in this league. … A 20-point lead with three minutes (remaining), you’re not safe,” Thibodeau said over the weekend. “With the 3, with the way the game is officiated, the thing is you can make up ground quickly.”

good context. I know a lot of people have screamed blame around here.

I think the Knicks have a good path to fixing this... starting with the bench. McBride is showing more scoring and IQ is breaking out as a starter. If we got real scoring from those two off the bench that could really help buffer the starter's minutes and help with this.

Our starters have been outplaying other team's starters which is a fantastic trend for us. Lots of work but I like where we are in this process

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

franco12 wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

franco12 wrote:
The game has changed because the athletes have gotten bigger, taller, faster.

They have not gotten taller for sure, there are stats that say that league heights peaked out in 1987.

https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/average-nba...

People have gotten heavier, more muscular, but how does that help with the 3 point shot?

My point is specific to the size of the court from when the game of basketball started to now. And that goes for just about every sport.

That is an interesting link. I played with it and Centers are getting shorter in the last couple years - probably because teams are emphasizing shooting from distance, ability to pass and space the court.

Would Mark Eaton get minutes in today's game? Would Karl Malone instead be the center? And he would definitely be shooting 3's, likely well and with volume.

Mark Eaton seemed like he was a one trick pony. I just looked at Eaton's stats and I think it says lot that Malone and Stockton were able to have offensive success in spite of have Eaton on the court A more interesting question is how would Shaq do if he played today. Obviously, he's still a starting level player, but would he still be SHAQ!!!?

RIP Mark Eaton

For a center, blocks are a pretty big pony

I also doubt Eaton would be effective in today's NBA. Players are more athletic, at every postion. But back then, he was a good fit. Was a great defensive center in that era.

Rudy Gobert says Mark Eaton would be just fine.

Mark Eaton makes Rudy Gobert look like prime Iverson speed wise and like Kareem offensively.

Nalod wrote:Mitch says hello also!

Eaton is a big man with a career FG% off 46%. Mitch shoots 72% for his career. I think it's more likely that Mitch is laughing.

Not a lot of centers in Eaton's time who could hit a 3pter. And Eaton would have to defend them. He would probably be a specialist off the bench. The offense doesnt run through the center position nearly as much as it used to. Most teams dont need an old school starting center like Eaton. Mitch/Gobert, are fast, and athletic enough to defend small ball offense,.

I have to assume the great players from the past would have made adjustments. Remember they didn't have the technology, trainers and diet that the players of today have. A guy like Eaton would have at least been as valuable and productive as someone like Gobert imho.

But back to the topic, I like my idea of making the court bigger and extending the corner threes to 23'9. It sometimes feels like coaches and players are cheating by seeking out shots from that spot since it's shorter by a 1'9". By making the court a little bigger you would also eliminate those sideline out of bounce dead plays too. Plus players today are bigger so make the court bigger!

SergioNYK wrote:I have to assume the great players from the past would have made adjustments. Remember they didn't have the technology, trainers and diet that the players of today have. A guy like Eaton would have at least been as valuable and productive as someone like Gobert imho.

But back to the topic, I like my idea of making the court bigger and extending the corner threes to 23'9. It sometimes feels like coaches and players are cheating by seeking out shots from that spot since it's shorter by a 1'9". By making the court a little bigger you would also eliminate those sideline out of bounce dead plays too. Plus players today are bigger so make the court bigger!

I think calling Eaton a great player is an overstatement. I'm open to the idea of a bigger court. I don't think it slows down the three point shooting (Guys are routinely taking threes well beyond the three point line) but it could lead to more space in the foul line extended.

The only thing that will cure the 3 point problem without eliminating the 3 point line is to bring back real defense and hand checking. Hand checking solves a lot but they probably won’t bring it back till Steph curry retires.

fitzfarm wrote:The only thing that will cure the 3 point problem without eliminating the 3 point line is to bring back real defense and hand checking. Hand checking solves a lot but they probably won’t bring it back till Steph curry retires.

what's the problem again?

blkexec wrote:

Vmart wrote:I still believe they should remove the corner three. Line needs to be redrawn.

Who’s responsible for that anyway? I’m assuming when adding the 3pt line they forgot how wide the court was?

https://www.ozy.com/the-new-and-the-next...

This would work for a better entertainment stand point.

fishmike wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:The only thing that will cure the 3 point problem without eliminating the 3 point line is to bring back real defense and hand checking. Hand checking solves a lot but they probably won’t bring it back till Steph curry retires.

what's the problem again?

There is a problem. Watching players jack up threes a problem. You can go to the park and watch people jack up threes. The skill set is becoming weak. Gone are turn around jumpers and post play. Now it’s just step back and Jack a three. Eliminate the corner three and watch how defense picks up to guard the back court. The reason NBA put a three point shot in was to increase entertainment value to end games. Now they just Jack a three to start the game in the middle and in the end. It’s not fun to watch.

Vmart wrote:

fishmike wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:The only thing that will cure the 3 point problem without eliminating the 3 point line is to bring back real defense and hand checking. Hand checking solves a lot but they probably won’t bring it back till Steph curry retires.

what's the problem again?

There is a problem. Watching players jack up threes a problem. You can go to the park and watch people jack up threes. The skill set is becoming weak. Gone are turn around jumpers and post play. Now it’s just step back and Jack a three. Eliminate the corner three and watch how defense picks up to guard the back court. The reason NBA put a three point shot in was to increase entertainment value to end games. Now they just Jack a three to start the game in the middle and in the end. It’s not fun to watch.

all those things still exist. You literally arent watching

38% of NBA shots are from 3. Yeah, that's alot. What is not gone is the post game and attacking the rim. Saying the NBA is like watching kids a park chuck 3s isnt bringing much to the discussion. Its an analytics league. That means high yield shots. That means there's going to be a lot of shots at the rim and from 3.

Many teams have great drive and dish games and quality ball movement. Other's are iso heavy. How's the YMCA squads looking?