If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wimp) Video Portland Trail Blazers become the first team in NBA history to have two games in one season where they sink more than 20 three-point shots. Because you asked - here are all 21 three-point shots against the Bobcats   (wimp.com) divider line 25
    More: Video, NBA History, Trail Blazers, Blazers, three-point shots, first team, Charlotte Bobcats, nba teams  
•       •       •

273 clicks; posted to Sports » on 04 Jan 2014 at 10:54 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-04 12:03:24 PM  
no one asked
 
2014-01-04 12:14:14 PM  
IMHO, basketball would be more varied and entertaining if the NBA made three-pointers more difficult. As it is, basketball is close to being solved as an almost exclusively three-or-inside game. Ability to excel from 8-20 feet is one of the best measures of a player's basketball talent but it has never been less important to winning success in the NBA. That feels wrong.
/I mean, if one team is making 2s at league average (48%, keeping in mind this includes high % inside shots) and the other is hitting threes at the rate of the worst three point shooting team in the league (the Bulls at 32%), the team hitting the threes wins the math. Why is there are reward for below average play?
// Put another way, Chris Bosh was the most accurate mid-range shooter in the NBA in 2013 hitting 53% of his 2pt field goals from 16-23 feet. But, even at that rate, a three pointer from Jeff Teague (35.8%), J.R. Smith (35.3%) or Antawn Jamison (35.7%) was more efficient. Hell, even Austin Rivers (36.8%) and Blake Griffin (36.8%) this year are more efficient in small samples... In what sane world should Blake Griffin shooting a three point jump shot be rewarded over a Bosh mid-range?

/// If I were commissioner, I'd immediately remove the break (if that means taking the corner three out entirely, so be it) and consider pushing the line back another 2-3 feet
//// I guess you could also widen the court to accommodate also pushing the corner three back 2-3 feet, but I'd just as soon get rid of it entirely
 
2014-01-04 12:25:17 PM  

TeamEd: I mean, if one team is making 2s at league average (48%, keeping in mind this includes high % inside shots) and the other is hitting threes at the rate of the worst three point shooting team in the league (the Bulls at 32%), the team hitting the threes wins the math.


Teams have better offensive rebounding numbers off missed threes than missed twos (longer rebound = more of a tossup), so it's even more severe than that. I do agree that the league needs to move the three point line back by a foot or two, and probably expand the court a little as well. I don't agree with getting rid of the corner three because it's so important for spacing purposes.

It's not all doom and gloom, though. Good defensive teams can chase you off the three-point line, and as good defensive teams tend to make the finals, don't worry about the Finals looking like a hot Blazers team teeing off on Eastern conference road bait.
 
2014-01-04 12:30:22 PM  

Palmer Eldritch: TeamEd: I mean, if one team is making 2s at league average (48%, keeping in mind this includes high % inside shots) and the other is hitting threes at the rate of the worst three point shooting team in the league (the Bulls at 32%), the team hitting the threes wins the math.

Teams have better offensive rebounding numbers off missed threes than missed twos (longer rebound = more of a tossup), so it's even more severe than that. I do agree that the league needs to move the three point line back by a foot or two, and probably expand the court a little as well. I don't agree with getting rid of the corner three because it's so important for spacing purposes.

It's not all doom and gloom, though. Good defensive teams can chase you off the three-point line, and as good defensive teams tend to make the finals, don't worry about the Finals looking like a hot Blazers team teeing off on Eastern conference road bait.


I agree about spacing, I just don't see why one spot on the court should offer a much easier 3pt shot... and I don't see how to address that except expanding the court a ton, which is a non-starter.
 
2014-01-04 12:36:37 PM  
I wouldn't change the rules... I'd change the way teams got in the playoffs. I'd use a media driven polling system and a computer ranking to determine playoff appearances and seedings. Who wants to see Portland with the number one seed? Not anyone. Lakers #1 in the west.
 
2014-01-04 12:43:25 PM  
Why not make a two point shot three points, three point shots four points, and free throws thee points if made, -1 points if missed?
 
2014-01-04 12:49:24 PM  
I dont see why our first thought, when we see something that doesnt "feel right" about a game, is to go for the jugular vein of the rulebook. It seems to me that some fairly minor coaching adjustments will continue to make three point shots the exception and not the rule.Except when you play the Bobcats. but that says more about bad playing than it does about the envelope allowing good play. Its cool if you just like change for chaos sake,though.
 
2014-01-04 12:51:35 PM  
Lets make the basket shrink half an inch in diameter every time the ball is beyond the three point line. We have the technology. Lets use it.
 
2014-01-04 12:55:46 PM  
Lets make layups 1 point and anything 3 and beyond 3 points. but keep track of ball position electronically and use a sliding scoring scale between 1 and three for range. Score can be kept with three decimal places and monitored with four places rounding up at .0006
 
2014-01-04 01:22:05 PM  
For the life of me, I cant explain why Portland is so good.  I keep expecting them to fall off and they don't.  Hope they can keep it up.
 
2014-01-04 05:15:41 PM  

TeamEd: IMHO, basketball would be more varied and entertaining if the NBA made three-pointers more difficult. As it is, basketball is close to being solved as an almost exclusively three-or-inside game. Ability to excel from 8-20 feet is one of the best measures of a player's basketball talent but it has never been less important to winning success in the NBA. That feels wrong.
/I mean, if one team is making 2s at league average (48%, keeping in mind this includes high % inside shots) and the other is hitting threes at the rate of the worst three point shooting team in the league (the Bulls at 32%), the team hitting the threes wins the math. Why is there are reward for below average play?
// Put another way, Chris Bosh was the most accurate mid-range shooter in the NBA in 2013 hitting 53% of his 2pt field goals from 16-23 feet. But, even at that rate, a three pointer from Jeff Teague (35.8%), J.R. Smith (35.3%) or Antawn Jamison (35.7%) was more efficient. Hell, even Austin Rivers (36.8%) and Blake Griffin (36.8%) this year are more efficient in small samples... In what sane world should Blake Griffin shooting a three point jump shot be rewarded over a Bosh mid-range?
/// If I were commissioner, I'd immediately remove the break (if that means taking the corner three out entirely, so be it) and consider pushing the line back another 2-3 feet
//// I guess you could also widen the court to accommodate also pushing the corner three back 2-3 feet, but I'd just as soon get rid of it entirely


Griffin averages 0.5 3FGA a game, Rivers 0.9, Teague actually averages 28% for the year, not 35.8%, and Jamison is shooting 24%. None of the players you've mentioned averages more than 2 3 point attempts per game except for Teague and JR Smith, and Teague is terrible from there and JR Smith is on his way out of the league. So already I can tell you are full of shiat. BTW, who knows anything about basketball has said that the mid-range game is the best measure of a basketball player except for casual Jordan fans who knows jack shiat about basketball? Truly one of the stupidest post on Fark's basketball threads, and that is saying a lot.

Argyle82: For the life of me, I cant explain why Portland is so good.  I keep expecting them to fall off and they don't.  Hope they can keep it up.


They remind me of the Knicks last season. Both live and die by the 3 and play poor defence, and won a lot of games. They are a nice surprise and a story like the Raptors or the Suns this season but I do not expect much out of them.
 
2014-01-04 06:06:15 PM  

Fallout Boy: TeamEd: IMHO, basketball would be more varied and entertaining if the NBA made three-pointers more difficult. As it is, basketball is close to being solved as an almost exclusively three-or-inside game. Ability to excel from 8-20 feet is one of the best measures of a player's basketball talent but it has never been less important to winning success in the NBA. That feels wrong.
/I mean, if one team is making 2s at league average (48%, keeping in mind this includes high % inside shots) and the other is hitting threes at the rate of the worst three point shooting team in the league (the Bulls at 32%), the team hitting the threes wins the math. Why is there are reward for below average play?
// Put another way, Chris Bosh was the most accurate mid-range shooter in the NBA in 2013 hitting 53% of his 2pt field goals from 16-23 feet. But, even at that rate, a three pointer from Jeff Teague (35.8%), J.R. Smith (35.3%) or Antawn Jamison (35.7%) was more efficient. Hell, even Austin Rivers (36.8%) and Blake Griffin (36.8%) this year are more efficient in small samples... In what sane world should Blake Griffin shooting a three point jump shot be rewarded over a Bosh mid-range?
/// If I were commissioner, I'd immediately remove the break (if that means taking the corner three out entirely, so be it) and consider pushing the line back another 2-3 feet
//// I guess you could also widen the court to accommodate also pushing the corner three back 2-3 feet, but I'd just as soon get rid of it entirely

Griffin averages 0.5 3FGA a game, Rivers 0.9, Teague actually averages 28% for the year, not 35.8%, and Jamison is shooting 24%. None of the players you've mentioned averages more than 2 3 point attempts per game except for Teague and JR Smith, and Teague is terrible from there and JR Smith is on his way out of the league. So already I can tell you are full of shiat. BTW, who knows anything about basketball has said that the mid-range game is the best measure of a basketball player except for casual Jordan fans who knows jack shiat about basketball? Truly one of the stupidest post on Fark's basketball threads, and that is saying a lot.

Argyle82: For the life of me, I cant explain why Portland is so good.  I keep expecting them to fall off and they don't.  Hope they can keep it up.

They remind me of the Knicks last season. Both live and die by the 3 and play poor defence, and won a lot of games. They are a nice surprise and a story like the Raptors or the Suns this season but I do not expect much out of them.


Defending myself here.
1. I said success from 8-20 is a good measure of basketball talent. It is. To excell from midrange a player needs to have good handles, play well off the ball and most likely needs to be long and athletic or at least very crafty. I didn't say it was a measure of NBA player value. It isn't. In the current NBA, a player's shooting from midrange has almost no impact on a his value to his team. To me that reality has lead to an unbalanced game.
2. The numbers for Teague, Smith and Jamison are from last year, which I didn't clearly say, I guess. I don't have Bosh's numbers from midrange from this year on hand, so comparing against others from last year is more accurate. From this year I could've compared Salmons, Waiters or Wes Johnson.
2. Griffin and Rivers have decent numbers in small samples. I said that. That's why I put them after the others. They're still notoriously awful jump shooters who have been more efficient from 3pt than Bosh from 2pt.
3. And of course that bunch of players are not good from 3. That's my point. They're bad from three, but last year one of their three pointers was a more efficient shot than a 2pt shot from the best mid-range shooter in the league.

The NBA's current ruleset means that at-rim and three point play are now way, way more important than high-post or midrange play. It's more efficient to have the 75th best 3pt shooter in the league (Salmons this year) shoot a 3 than it is to have the number 1 midrange guy (Bosh) do his thing. To me, that's a sign of a broken ruleset.
 
2014-01-04 06:47:21 PM  

TeamEd: The NBA's current ruleset means that at-rim and three point play are now way, way more important than high-post or midrange play. It's more efficient to have the 75th best 3pt shooter in the league (Salmons this year) shoot a 3 than it is to have the number 1 midrange guy (Bosh) do his thing. To me, that's a sign of a broken ruleset.


That`s on the coaches and players to figure out how to defend the 3 point line better. And you know what, the top defensive teams in the league are very good at it.

There is a cognitive dissonance in your argument on how scrubs shooting 3s are just as if not more efficient than your Kobes and Dirks and Boshs shooting their 2 pointers, yet the latter are much more efficient offensively than the former.
 
2014-01-04 07:05:16 PM  

Fallout Boy: TeamEd: The NBA's current ruleset means that at-rim and three point play are now way, way more important than high-post or midrange play. It's more efficient to have the 75th best 3pt shooter in the league (Salmons this year) shoot a 3 than it is to have the number 1 midrange guy (Bosh) do his thing. To me, that's a sign of a broken ruleset.

That`s on the coaches and players to figure out how to defend the 3 point line better. And you know what, the top defensive teams in the league are very good at it.

There is a cognitive dissonance in your argument on how scrubs shooting 3s are just as if not more efficient than your Kobes and Dirks and Boshs shooting their 2 pointers, yet the latter are much more efficient offensively than the former.


How is it dissonant? Their 3 pointers are more efficient. That's math. I'm not saying they're better players. They're not. They are much less talented, and yeah overall they're way less efficient. Hypothetically though, if they only shot a lot of 3pointers at a league average rate they would be more efficient. Again, that's math.
The way the rules are set up, teams -- all of them -- would do better offensively if they shot more 3pointers, even if those shots are coming from scrubs. Keep in mind, all you need is to shoot 32% on threes to be better then a league average 2. If I'm not mistaken, even the best defense against threes doesn't stop the opposition from hitting at that rate.
 
2014-01-04 07:44:45 PM  

TeamEd: How is it dissonant? Their 3 pointers are more efficient. That's math. I'm not saying they're better players. They're not. They are much less talented, and yeah overall they're way less efficient. Hypothetically though, if they only shot a lot of 3pointers at a league average rate they would be more efficient.


"Math" tells you that 3 is greater than 2.

"Reality" tells you that 2 miles is greater than 3 feet.
 
2014-01-04 10:16:59 PM  

TeamEd: 1. I said success from 8-20 is a good measure of basketball talent. It is. To excell from midrange a player needs to have good handles, play well off the ball and most likely needs to be long and athletic or at least very crafty. I didn't say it was a measure of NBA player value. It isn't. In the current NBA, a player's shooting from midrange has almost no impact on a his value to his team. To me that reality has lead to an unbalanced game.


In the NBA and only in the NBA do we act as though getting as close as possible to the goal when shooting is an example of not having skill. It's not a skill to take a bad-percentage, low-reward shot. It's skilled to get into the paint and take a high-percentage shot or craft your offense to get open looks at threes, and get a scoring bonus for your open shots.

There's nothing stupider than taking a 20-foot jumper (unless time is a factor).
 
2014-01-04 10:53:35 PM  

TeamEd:  I said success from 8-20 is a good measure of basketball talent. It is. To excell from midrange a player needs to have good handles, play well off the ball and most likely needs to be long and athletic or at least very crafty. I didn't say it was a measure of NBA player value. It isn't. In the current NBA, a player's shooting from midrange has almost no impact on a his value to his team. To me that reality has lead to an unbalanced game.


1.  There are plenty of guys who are mid range jump shooters, like pick and pop big men, that don't fit your description.  Those guys don't have crazy handles or speed.
2.  Guys who do fit your description tend to be huge ball hogs.  Ex. Kobe, Melo, Gay
3.  In a vaccum, why should anyone care about mid range shots?  What does it matter if teams are eschewing mid range shots for shots in the paint and beyond the 3?  Why is that detrimental?
4.  Mid range shots have ALWAYS been low value, it's just that NBA teams are finally realizing that and shifting their strategy accordingly.

TeamEd: It's more efficient to have the 75th best 3pt shooter in the league (Salmons this year) shoot a 3 than it is to have the number 1 midrange guy (Bosh) do his thing. To me, that's a sign of a broken ruleset.


And the #1 midrange guy is less efficient than an average shot at the rim.  Should we make shots at the rim worth less or raise the height of the hoop so the mid range guy has the same value? No?  Why are 3s so bad then?  Because the FG% is lower?
 
2014-01-04 11:17:42 PM  

Baryogenesis: And the #1 midrange guy is less efficient than an average shot at the rim.  Should we make shots at the rim worth less or raise the height of the hoop so the mid range guy has the same value?


So many stupid people espouse this idea; don't encourage any of them.
 
2014-01-05 12:07:02 AM  
Had a look at the game stats. It looked like everybody was chucking threes. Even their backup center made two attempts.

Is there really a controversy here? They were making 63% of their attempts. If your team is that on-fire, it's stupid not to keep going.
 
2014-01-05 12:38:28 AM  

Baryogenesis: TeamEd:  I said success from 8-20 is a good measure of basketball talent. It is. To excell from midrange a player needs to have good handles, play well off the ball and most likely needs to be long and athletic or at least very crafty. I didn't say it was a measure of NBA player value. It isn't. In the current NBA, a player's shooting from midrange has almost no impact on a his value to his team. To me that reality has lead to an unbalanced game.

1.  There are plenty of guys who are mid range jump shooters, like pick and pop big men, that don't fit your description.  Those guys don't have crazy handles or speed.
2.  Guys who do fit your description tend to be huge ball hogs.  Ex. Kobe, Melo, Gay
3.  In a vaccum, why should anyone care about mid range shots?  What does it matter if teams are eschewing mid range shots for shots in the paint and beyond the 3?  Why is that detrimental?
4.  Mid range shots have ALWAYS been low value, it's just that NBA teams are finally realizing that and shifting their strategy accordingly.

TeamEd: It's more efficient to have the 75th best 3pt shooter in the league (Salmons this year) shoot a 3 than it is to have the number 1 midrange guy (Bosh) do his thing. To me, that's a sign of a broken ruleset.

And the #1 midrange guy is less efficient than an average shot at the rim.  Should we make shots at the rim worth less or raise the height of the hoop so the mid range guy has the same value? No?  Why are 3s so bad then?  Because the FG% is lower?


The difference is that at-rim shots are are valuable because of their efficiency but very difficult to manufacture while 3pt shots are valuable because of an arbitrary rule and that same rule makes them relatively easy to manufacture at an efficient rate. I simply think that NBA offences would be more varied and interesting if the rules made the 3pt shot was more challenging. As they are, I think the rules make for an unbalanced product. YMMV.
/ There's still no place for low efficiency long-twos in the game. Does anyone think the NBA needs more JR Smiths and Rudy Gays? Wanting to see the midrange game have more value =! wanting to see more chuckers.
 
2014-01-05 12:43:24 AM  

TeamEd: The difference is that at-rim shots are are valuable because of their efficiency but very difficult to manufacture while 3pt shots are valuable because of an arbitrary rule and that same rule makes them relatively easy to manufacture at an efficient rate. I simply think that NBA offences would be more varied and interesting if the rules made the 3pt shot was more challenging. As they are, I think the rules make for an unbalanced product. YMMV.


The only way to make the line further out is to make the courts larger. Corner threes are already shorter than regular threes just so guys can fit their feet in bounds (and have the best percentage of makes).

At least it's not at a joke distance like it was back in Jordan's only good 3-point shooting years or like the NCAA.
 
2014-01-05 12:54:04 AM  
You mean Paul Westhead's Denver Nuggets never accomplished that?  I'm shocked, they should have been rewarded for not playing any defense.
 
2014-01-05 12:57:38 AM  

IAmRight: TeamEd: The difference is that at-rim shots are are valuable because of their efficiency but very difficult to manufacture while 3pt shots are valuable because of an arbitrary rule and that same rule makes them relatively easy to manufacture at an efficient rate. I simply think that NBA offences would be more varied and interesting if the rules made the 3pt shot was more challenging. As they are, I think the rules make for an unbalanced product. YMMV.

The only way to make the line further out is to make the courts larger. Corner threes are already shorter than regular threes just so guys can fit their feet in bounds (and have the best percentage of makes).

At least it's not at a joke distance like it was back in Jordan's only good 3-point shooting years or like the NCAA.


For sure. The NCAA is a joke for the short three.
Personally I'd have no problem with widening the court to 55 ft, not least because IMO it's dumb to have a three from one angle be shorter than one from another.
/ is 55 even enough to get rid of the break?
 
2014-01-05 01:19:24 AM  

TeamEd: Personally I'd have no problem with widening the court to 55 ft, not least because IMO it's dumb to have a three from one angle be shorter than one from another.
/ is 55 even enough to get rid of the break?


Well, it's 23'6" except in the corners, so it should be. But that means you're losing a row or two of courtside seats.

So asking teams to spend money on a new court AND voluntarily give up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a game on those seats...gonna need a hell of an incentive to make that happen.
 
2014-01-05 09:48:21 PM  

TeamEd: I simply think that NBA offences would be more varied and interesting if the rules made the 3pt shot was more challenging.


You must not have been watching basketball recently.  NBA offenses are insanely complex, far more complex than they've been at any other time.  They had to get more complex because NBA defenses got tougher behind the innovations of guys like Tom Thibodeau.  Multiple decoy pick and roles, disguised action on the weak side, increased ball movement and fewer post ups and isolation plays are the offensive adjustments to vastly improved defensive schemes.

NBA offenses are varied and interesting.  Defenses trying to force teams into low value mid range shots and offenses trying to get high value 3s and paint shots make for entertaining basketball.

I imagine making the 3 an equivalent shot to a midrange 2 would have the exact opposite effect you imagine.  The league would get far more stale as defenses don't have to worry about the 3 point line anymore and can just pack the paint like crazy because that's where the value is at.  It's much easier to defend when a team only has to guard one small area.

TeamEd: There's still no place for low efficiency long-twos in the game. Does anyone think the NBA needs more JR Smiths and Rudy Gays? Wanting to see the midrange game have more value =! wanting to see more chuckers.


No place for long 2s?  Why is that a bad thing on its own?  What's so great about long 2s that we need to alter the rules right when the NBA is at it's most entertaining since the Jordan era?

Chuckers are the guys who take a lot of long 2s!  That's why they're chuckers!  Teams have moved away from chuckers because of the new found value in the 3.  That ugly 1v1 basketball is what you'd get if you moved out the 3 point line.  Teams needing to respect the 3 ball are what creates openings in the defense for folks to score.  Make that shot way less efficient and the "best" way to get an open look would be to go back to those ball dominant guards and wings who can create shots off the dribble.  How else are you going to beat a defense if they don't have to respect a shot beyond 12-15 feet because they have such low value?
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report