Been saying for a while that the “New NBA” has become less appealing.
Started with two on one fast breaks leading to a pass out for deep three.
Every position on the floor having to be able to spread the floor and shoot the three.
Guys being traded or drafted mostly on 3pt percentage.
Solid low block players changing their games to meet the new standards.
After many years of alleged analytics , we are finding out it may not be the best thing after all.
Putting up 40 threes a game may not be the best way to score effectively.
Scoring has not drastically gone up during the implementation of heavy three point shooting.
Something that mostly started from coaches pushing a three point shot over a shot a foot or two inside the three point line. Which most agreed was a sound coaching tip.
Don’t get me wrong, not looking for ISO type offenses but think the soft chucking is not fun to watch either.
The Knicks have some above average mid range shooters.
We have one in KAT, who loves his three point shot, but who I feel is impossible to guard down low. We have Bridges and JB who are mid range machines.
OG, who with his length and ability to finish high, would also be a candidate for high 2pt efficiency.
We can even add MR and Hart in there.
Point is, NBA is starting to find out that high volume inefficient three point shooting may not be the best way to have a high scoring offense. Like we saw last night, Knicks had stretches where they were unstoppable going down low but still chose to shoot 40 threes with low efficiency.
Not saying the NBA will make a drastic change anytime soon. (Considering the droves of youngins being groomed to fit it). but that, imo, this team has the tools to buck the trend and further prove that you can win without counting on the three. basketball more enjoyable.
If anything, Thought it may be an interesting talking point for some here.
Intense battles and heated rivalries ended a couple of decades ago.
Well, except when Embiid is involved.
F*** Embiid.
Might be cyclical. I remember when D'Antoni was the Knicks head coach. Did not care about shot selection. Players would sprint down the court and jack up 3pt attempts in traffic. And MDA would scream "keep shooting!". Didnt turn out as I hoped.
Dont believe moving back the 3pt line would help. Some players are already routinely shooting from that far out. This might encourage more of the same.
The only rule change I can think of is when a player is allowed to shoot a 3.
It’s out of the leagues hands. Moving the line further out or limiting the amount of three’s that a team can take during a game (which is a STUPID idea) will not change anything.
It won’t change until coaches decide to go back to that style of play…which is crazy that they haven’t when 2 of the top 3 scorers this year or mid range, back to basket, players.
They could limit the number of 3 pt shots per quarter
I don’t think counting the number of threes made (or attempted) is the right move.
For every advanced stat, there are 7 others that are kind of ignored.
3 point “new NBA” is just a motion offense that prioritizes 3 * .36 =1.08 over 2 * 45% = 0.9 points per attempt. That math is sound and that logic should be used in determining ideal shot selection. Maximize points per shot.
But league averages aren’t reflected in individual players.
Bridges shoots 37% * 3 =1.11 and 61% * 2 =1.22.
Towns is shooting 44% * 3 =1.32 and 59% * 2 =1.18.
Brunson is shooting 41% * 3 =1.23 and 51% * 2 =1.02.
The Knicks appear to be working on a three level offense.
We can break this down further by sub-zone, but the short answer is a motion offense that puts the team in position to score more points per possession should be a priority.
EwingsGlass wrote:I don’t think counting the number of threes made (or attempted) is the right move. For every advanced stat, there are 7 others that are kind of ignored.
3 point “new NBA” is just a motion offense that prioritizes 3 * .36 =1.08 over 2 * 45% = 0.9 points per attempt. That math is sound and that logic should be used in determining ideal shot selection. Maximize points per shot.
But league averages aren’t reflected in individual players.
Bridges shoots 37% * 3 =1.11 and 61% * 2 =1.22.
Towns is shooting 44% * 3 =1.32 and 59% * 2 =1.18.
Brunson is shooting 41% * 3 =1.23 and 51% * 2 =1.02.
The Knicks appear to be working on a three level offense.
We can break this down further by sub-zone, but the short answer is a motion offense that puts the team in position to score more points per possession should be a priority.
I’m not sure I 100% understand what you are saying but I think it’s spot on.
From an analytics perspective, you need to shoot a certain % level at a particular distance to give you better points per possession that leads to maximized scoring.
Having a center do it will in turn open up court and make the rim and midrange easier to score, and again maximizing those particular areas on court. And the more rim shots you get, the better cause those tend to be very high % shots for every NBA player. Having a historically dominant center shoot the 3ball at high % is NBA analytics heaven.
Thus KAT and Brunson.
If your team can’t shoot the 3point shot at above a certain level, it ain’t gonna work and that’s ugly basketball. Thats the dummies for shooting version, I think.
martin wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I don’t think counting the number of threes made (or attempted) is the right move. For every advanced stat, there are 7 others that are kind of ignored.
3 point “new NBA” is just a motion offense that prioritizes 3 * .36 =1.08 over 2 * 45% = 0.9 points per attempt. That math is sound and that logic should be used in determining ideal shot selection. Maximize points per shot.
But league averages aren’t reflected in individual players.
Bridges shoots 37% * 3 =1.11 and 61% * 2 =1.22.
Towns is shooting 44% * 3 =1.32 and 59% * 2 =1.18.
Brunson is shooting 41% * 3 =1.23 and 51% * 2 =1.02.
The Knicks appear to be working on a three level offense.
We can break this down further by sub-zone, but the short answer is a motion offense that puts the team in position to score more points per possession should be a priority.
I’m not sure I 100% understand what you are saying but I think it’s spot on.
From an analytics perspective, you need to shoot a certain % level at a particular distance to give you better points per possession that leads to maximized scoring.
Having a center do it will in turn open up court and make the rim and midrange easier to score, and again maximizing those particular areas on court. And the more rim shots you get, the better cause those tend to be very high % shots for every NBA player. Having a historically dominant center shoot the 3ball at high % is NBA analytics heaven.
Thus KAT and Brunson.
If your team can’t shoot the 3point shot at above a certain level, it ain’t gonna work and that’s ugly basketball. Thats the dummies for shooting version, I think.
Pretty much. With the addition that the coach can use a motion offense to get specific players specific shots that have a higher percentage per shot.
I went a little off topic by pointing out the three level efficiency the Knicks can achieve.
Make 2 point shots worth 3.
Make 3 point shots worth 4.
Fucks up scoring records, but oh well.
GustavBahler wrote:Might be cyclical. I remember when D'Antoni was the Knicks head coach. Did not care about shot selection. Players would sprint down the court and jack up 3pt attempts in traffic. And MDA would scream "keep shooting!". Didnt turn out as I hoped. Dont believe moving back the 3pt line would help. Some players are already routinely shooting from that far out. This might encourage more of the same.
The only rule change I can think of is when a player is allowed to shoot a 3.
True about Dantoni.
Don’t think a rule change is needed. Although some think they are looking to do so.
https://lastwordonsports.com/basketball/...
More on the side that more teams will come to see that taking more threes and having players that take a lot of threes, does not necessarily improve their scoring.
EwingsGlass wrote:martin wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I don’t think counting the number of threes made (or attempted) is the right move. For every advanced stat, there are 7 others that are kind of ignored.
3 point “new NBA” is just a motion offense that prioritizes 3 * .36 =1.08 over 2 * 45% = 0.9 points per attempt. That math is sound and that logic should be used in determining ideal shot selection. Maximize points per shot.
But league averages aren’t reflected in individual players.
Bridges shoots 37% * 3 =1.11 and 61% * 2 =1.22.
Towns is shooting 44% * 3 =1.32 and 59% * 2 =1.18.
Brunson is shooting 41% * 3 =1.23 and 51% * 2 =1.02.
The Knicks appear to be working on a three level offense.
We can break this down further by sub-zone, but the short answer is a motion offense that puts the team in position to score more points per possession should be a priority.
I’m not sure I 100% understand what you are saying but I think it’s spot on.
From an analytics perspective, you need to shoot a certain % level at a particular distance to give you better points per possession that leads to maximized scoring.
Having a center do it will in turn open up court and make the rim and midrange easier to score, and again maximizing those particular areas on court. And the more rim shots you get, the better cause those tend to be very high % shots for every NBA player. Having a historically dominant center shoot the 3ball at high % is NBA analytics heaven.
Thus KAT and Brunson.
If your team can’t shoot the 3point shot at above a certain level, it ain’t gonna work and that’s ugly basketball. Thats the dummies for shooting version, I think.
Pretty much. With the addition that the coach can use a motion offense to get specific players specific shots that have a higher percentage per shot.
I went a little off topic by pointing out the three level efficiency the Knicks can achieve.
Despite the high efficiency we have, nights like ones against the Wiz puts us in jeopardy of losing a game we should win. But yes , if you have guys that can shoot the three at high clip, then of course it’s a good plan. Keep in mind, our guys are more efficient from mid.
I am talking about the league as a whole. When they first started promoting the three point strategy, they had visions of teams averaging over 140 ppg. Right now, we have over 25 teams averaging over 33 threes per game. Yet only only one team averages over 120 a game.
Bulls put up over 43 and average 117.
Even the Celts, as good as they are are averaging 50 a game and scoring only 119.
Just my opinion, but also less appealing to watch. Regardless of points scored.
HofstraBBall wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:martin wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I don’t think counting the number of threes made (or attempted) is the right move. For every advanced stat, there are 7 others that are kind of ignored.
3 point “new NBA” is just a motion offense that prioritizes 3 * .36 =1.08 over 2 * 45% = 0.9 points per attempt. That math is sound and that logic should be used in determining ideal shot selection. Maximize points per shot.
But league averages aren’t reflected in individual players.
Bridges shoots 37% * 3 =1.11 and 61% * 2 =1.22.
Towns is shooting 44% * 3 =1.32 and 59% * 2 =1.18.
Brunson is shooting 41% * 3 =1.23 and 51% * 2 =1.02.
The Knicks appear to be working on a three level offense.
We can break this down further by sub-zone, but the short answer is a motion offense that puts the team in position to score more points per possession should be a priority.
I’m not sure I 100% understand what you are saying but I think it’s spot on.
From an analytics perspective, you need to shoot a certain % level at a particular distance to give you better points per possession that leads to maximized scoring.
Having a center do it will in turn open up court and make the rim and midrange easier to score, and again maximizing those particular areas on court. And the more rim shots you get, the better cause those tend to be very high % shots for every NBA player. Having a historically dominant center shoot the 3ball at high % is NBA analytics heaven.
Thus KAT and Brunson.
If your team can’t shoot the 3point shot at above a certain level, it ain’t gonna work and that’s ugly basketball. Thats the dummies for shooting version, I think.
Pretty much. With the addition that the coach can use a motion offense to get specific players specific shots that have a higher percentage per shot.
I went a little off topic by pointing out the three level efficiency the Knicks can achieve.
Despite the high efficiency we have, nights like ones against the Wiz puts us in jeopardy of losing a game we should win. But yes , if you have guys that can shoot the three at high clip, then of course it’s a good plan. Keep in mind, our guys are more efficient from mid.
I am talking about the league as a whole. When they first started promoting the three point strategy, they had visions of teams averaging over 140 ppg. Right now, we have over 25 teams averaging over 33 threes per game. Yet only only one team averages over 120 a game.
Bulls put up over 43 and average 117.
Even the Celts, as good as they are are averaging 50 a game and scoring only 119.
Just my opinion, but also less appealing to watch. Regardless of points scored.
I think you are seeing transition on partial math. Cavs habe it right and it shows. They are taking about 55% of their shots from 2 and 45% from three. And converting both at a high rate. If teams are chucking 28 foot 3s without hitting at a high clip, that’s better than chucking 2/ and not hitting them.
My point is not that 3s win. But some bad threes attempts are better than open 2. For instance the 18 foot jumper should just not exist unless there is no time on the clock.
Kenny Atkinson appears to have the Cavs taking shots where the players are most efficient, where each player (not the league average) has each player shooting the odd highest points per attempt.
I think a team needs to continue prioritizing both making their 3s and generating good opportunities. But not at the sake of ignoring the 2. A 33% 3 is not better than a 50% 2.
EwingsGlass wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:martin wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:I don’t think counting the number of threes made (or attempted) is the right move. For every advanced stat, there are 7 others that are kind of ignored.
3 point “new NBA” is just a motion offense that prioritizes 3 * .36 =1.08 over 2 * 45% = 0.9 points per attempt. That math is sound and that logic should be used in determining ideal shot selection. Maximize points per shot.
But league averages aren’t reflected in individual players.
Bridges shoots 37% * 3 =1.11 and 61% * 2 =1.22.
Towns is shooting 44% * 3 =1.32 and 59% * 2 =1.18.
Brunson is shooting 41% * 3 =1.23 and 51% * 2 =1.02.
The Knicks appear to be working on a three level offense.
We can break this down further by sub-zone, but the short answer is a motion offense that puts the team in position to score more points per possession should be a priority.
I’m not sure I 100% understand what you are saying but I think it’s spot on.
From an analytics perspective, you need to shoot a certain % level at a particular distance to give you better points per possession that leads to maximized scoring.
Having a center do it will in turn open up court and make the rim and midrange easier to score, and again maximizing those particular areas on court. And the more rim shots you get, the better cause those tend to be very high % shots for every NBA player. Having a historically dominant center shoot the 3ball at high % is NBA analytics heaven.
Thus KAT and Brunson.
If your team can’t shoot the 3point shot at above a certain level, it ain’t gonna work and that’s ugly basketball. Thats the dummies for shooting version, I think.
Pretty much. With the addition that the coach can use a motion offense to get specific players specific shots that have a higher percentage per shot.
I went a little off topic by pointing out the three level efficiency the Knicks can achieve.
Despite the high efficiency we have, nights like ones against the Wiz puts us in jeopardy of losing a game we should win. But yes , if you have guys that can shoot the three at high clip, then of course it’s a good plan. Keep in mind, our guys are more efficient from mid.
I am talking about the league as a whole. When they first started promoting the three point strategy, they had visions of teams averaging over 140 ppg. Right now, we have over 25 teams averaging over 33 threes per game. Yet only only one team averages over 120 a game.
Bulls put up over 43 and average 117.
Even the Celts, as good as they are are averaging 50 a game and scoring only 119.
Just my opinion, but also less appealing to watch. Regardless of points scored.
I think you are seeing transition on partial math. Cavs habe it right and it shows. They are taking about 55% of their shots from 2 and 45% from three. And converting both at a high rate. If teams are chucking 28 foot 3s without hitting at a high clip, that’s better than chucking 2/ and not hitting them.
My point is not that 3s win. But some bad threes attempts are better than open 2. For instance the 18 foot jumper should just not exist unless there is no time on the clock.
Kenny Atkinson appears to have the Cavs taking shots where the players are most efficient, where each player (not the league average) has each player shooting the odd highest points per attempt.
I think a team needs to continue prioritizing both making their 3s and generating good opportunities. But not at the sake of ignoring the 2. A 33% 3 is not better than a 50% 2.
Totally agree and this speaks to one of my points.
So many teams are forcing players, who were previously efficient and effective from inner areas of the floor, to adapt a three point shot that is not good.
Also important to mention how this mentality has created many players that just don’t have the basketball IQ or patience, like they did, to understand the progression of a simple offensive concept/play. No more pick and rolls that progress to a corner three. Not many drive and kicks. Just lots of step back threes in crowds and one pass possessions for a long three.
Not to agree too much with the OG’s 
but when you look at the 80’s teams, they played D, shot only 4 threes per game and still scored 120. Again, not saying that the three is not a great weapon and fun to watch but, nor that tight shorts, two hand passes and long possessions ending in a sky hook is the way to go, but, to your point, teams need to understand it has to be added within the structure of their roster and potential 2pt efficiency,
Like any strategy that becomes popular. It starts with a winner doing it. Knicks have highly efficient two point shooters. Paired with highly efficient 3pt shooters. My hope, like you said, is that they balance it properly to do something special. Think they can
Match your playing strategy to your personal. If they can’t shoot, make them offensive rebounders and elite rebounders in general.
Stern hated the Knicks and resented us for losing 4 ratings share points in the Finals both years after Jordan retired. Silver is an empty suit commissioner whose only vision is based on stuff Stern told him 20+ years ago much of it was F Dolan and the Knicks. So no. I don’t see the nba pushing us as the new marquee franchise.
If they were smart they would. The MLB treats the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets a certain way and the highest rated baseball game of the past 20 years was the Yankees White Sox field of dreams game in 2021 somehow cell phones and the internet didn’t stop an old school regular season baseball game from getting amazing ratings
Philc1 wrote:Stern hated the Knicks and resented us for losing 4 ratings share points in the Finals both years after Jordan retired. Silver is an empty suit commissioner whose only vision is based on stuff Stern told him 20+ years ago much of it was F Dolan and the Knicks. So no. I don’t see the nba pushing us as the new marquee franchise.
If they were smart they would. The MLB treats the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets a certain way and the highest rated baseball game of the past 20 years was the Yankees White Sox field of dreams game in 2021 somehow cell phones and the internet didn’t stop an old school regular season baseball game from getting amazing ratings
Thats why the knicks have games on National TV this year?
Lakers Have 27, Celtics 26, Knicks and GSW have 24.
Prove that Stern hated the knicks for losing rating share points?
Is that how you digest the reality that was Jordan as a ratings juggernaut?
Why was dolan on the compensation committee up until last year? Not because it was "Fuck Dolan".
Dodgers and Yankee are marquee franchises because they been winning and pull ratings for some time now.
Knicks are a good reliable game now. Did you not notice they got he Christmas game again?
YOu might not agree reality, but there are 29 other teams that don't revolve around your orbit.
The proverbial hill I will die on as it relates to basketball philosophy is that your team has to be able to score at the second level, because in the playoffs tans try to take away the first and third levels
SupremeCommander wrote:The proverbial hill I will die on as it relates to basketball philosophy is that your team has to be able to score at the second level, because in the playoffs tans try to take away the first and third levels
This! Coaches always pushed this to me early on.
You look at the Bulls (one of biggest pro-three systems) game and theY shot 60 threes last night. 60 out of 104 total shots. Scored 115.
Luckily for them, their opponents shot 10 of 43 from three.
For us, OG could only find 3 shots out of 14 to do something besides shoot a three.
We finished with a total of 44 threes but had a decent balance with 54 two’s.
if you want to talk about a rule change to change the way teams play, make shots from inside the lane also worth 3pts.
If you were changing the court lines - I would love to see the court bigger, maybe move that three point line out- make the basket a bit bigger, taller- the 3pt line a 4pt line and that lane basket a 3pt.
Honestly - I think they are trying to change the game with the way they are enabling more contact outside.
