2016 Warriors attempted a league leadin 31.6 3s a game..... That would rank dead last this season in 3 point attempts

[FunkDoc1112]

But you can't really say it's working, because it's everyone playing the same way. If everyone is doing the exact same thing, someone still has to come out on top. If this strategy truly works, then the teams that attempt the most 3s should win it every year, have the best record or at least go to the Finals. The number of makes wouldn't matter if you're shooting more than everyone. Even most of the years that GS won it, Houston were leading the league in 3s. So this doubles back on having the personnel for it. In '23 Denver were in the bottom 5 of attempts and won the ring. The season before that, GS was #3 in attempts, with Min & Utah above them and Houston & Mil below. Mia were middle of the pack.

Last year was the first year that the 2/3 of the 3-pt attempts & makes were in the Finals. Hawks & Mem and BK were in Top 10 and didn't even make the playoffs. So, is it makes or is it attempts? Is it percentages? And if it's percentages, spamming 3s isn't necessary, it's all about the quality of them.

Obviously the quality of the looks is important, too. But you're oversimplifying things. The Rockets didn't do worse than the Warriors just because they shot too many 3s. But because they didn't have a good game plan if the 3s stopped falling and becaus the Warriors are just more talented. That's poor strategy, not an indictment of the 3 point shooting. You guys are making it seem like 3 points are a direct hindrance to teams success when the actual issues are what have always kept 29 other teams from doing what 1 team can - personnel, strategy, and bad luck. That will never change no matter what the style is.

You can prescribe any teams failure to doing too much of something that's not working. That's a fault of the team, not the concept.

You can use your same argument for the 90s - just point to the teams that failed and say " These teams are playing in the post and shooting mid range shots even though they don't have the personnel, therefor post ups and mid range are bad for the game!" Yall are working backwards.

 

[Stick Up Kid]

Its the biggest issue in the NBA..

not load management, not international stars, etc... its the visuals of the game. its unwatchable.

 

[Copy Ninja]

It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but this is like when the New Jersey Devils implemented the neutral zone trap and won them 3 Cups in the 90s and early 00s. It was a smart strategy, it was within the rules but sucked the life out of the game. Obviously this was a defensive tactic vs the 3 ball which is an offensive tactic, but both strategies are smart, winning strategies, but it takes out the entertainment part of the game.

The NHL made some changes to remove that trap to be so effective. The NBA is making more money than ever, I don't think they care that people criticize them for it. If you don't like it, don't watch it. It's pretty simple. If the C's aren't playing, I'm not watching

 

[lib123]

My nikka what argument are you making????

The numbers showing that high volume threes are working for the good teams, and not working for the bad teams. As is the case with every strategy. The bad teams aren't bad because they shoot too many 3s, they're bad because they suck.

In order to make the cas that teams as a whole are shooting too many 3's, you need to show evidence. But the percentages shows they're shooting just as well from 3 today as they were when they were shooting half as many 3's - meaning that they're NOT shooting too many 3's. Moreover, the teams that have shot the most threes have been the most successful. There is no "shooting too many 3's." The results have shown that shooting more 3s have made teams better. Thus, the only justification you can have for the argument is looking at bad teams and using them as a strawman

The argument is all or arguably even most teams shouldn’t be adopting the high volume threes strategy.

 

[FunkDoc1112]

The argument is all or arguably even most teams shouldn’t be adopting the high volume threes strategy.

WHY. Answer that question with something concrete. The numbers contradict your argument.

 

[lib123]

Bad teams tend to either have the worst analytics people or reject them moreso than the good teams. They tend to have worse development and worse eyes for talent as well. Thats what them bad...not shot selection.

The point is the analytics people who are bad are getting jobs primarily because that’s the wave and they’re analytics people instead of former players who would be better at developing young players.

 

[lib123]

WHY. Answer that question with something concrete. The numbers contradict your argument.

Uh because it’s not working for the bad teams. Are you dumb?

 

[FunkDoc1112]

Uh because it’s not working for the bad teams. Are you dumb?

Are YOU dumb???

How many times do I have to say the same thing - the bad teams suck because they SUCK. Not because they're shooting 3s. What alternatives do the bad teams have to shooting 3's? If they can't shoot but had other things they could do instead, they'd be doing them. And teams that do have those things but are still shooting 3's...well, that's bad planning on their part.

Again, you are using teams that are bad at a strategy as evidence that a strategy is bad - when in reality, it's just that those teams are bad. Did the 10 bad teams in 2005 shooting too many mid-range jumpers mean that the mid-range jumper was bad for the NBA? Or did it it just mean that there were 10 bad teams? Did the the 10 bad teams in 1995 force feeding their bigs in the post to no success mean that post-ups were bad for the game, or did they just suck.

If Shaq tried to play like MJ and was bad at it, does that mean playing like MJ is bad, or does it just mean Shaq shouldn't play like MJ?

The teams that are good are good at things and the teams that are bad are bad at things. No fukking shyt.

 

[charknicks]

I can tell you right now..... that's NOT winning basketball. Look at their record

Exactly my point. So by everyones theory, Ball and Miller shoot more 3's so its better. No, the RIGHT shooters need to shoot the 3's. These other cats need to drive to the basket or learn how to pull up for mid range jumpers they can hit. Plus both of them are great free throw shooters, so they should be driving more. I know, cause I watch them in person about 20 times a season, including last night.

 

[FTBS]

The point is the analytics people who are bad are getting jobs primarily because that’s the wave and they’re analytics people instead of former players who would be better at developing young players.

It varies. You need a balance of both data and experience. Many former players are shyt when it comes to development. That is a seperate skill from actually playing. It aint just roll the ball out and go get it. It aint just tough talk, kick em in the ass, and go with your gut. The best teams are and have always been at the forefront or ahead of the curve in terms of analytics...even before it was called that. And it aint white, its just like everything else...white folks put themselves at the forefront. Aint nothing blacker than math.

 

[lib123]

Are YOU dumb???

How many times do I have to say the same thing - the bad teams suck because they SUCK. Not because they're shooting 3s. What alternatives do the bad teams have to shooting 3's? If they can't shoot but had other things they could do instead, they'd be doing them. And teams that do have those things but are still shooting 3's...well, that's bad planning on their part.

Again, you are using teams that are bad at a strategy as evidence that a strategy is bad - when in reality, it's just that those teams are bad. Did the 10 bad teams in 2005 shooting too many mid-range jumpers mean that the mid-range jumper was bad for the NBA? Or did it it just mean that there were 10 bad teams? Did the the 10 bad teams in 1995 force feeding their bigs in the post to no success mean that post-ups were bad for the game, or did they just suck.

If Shaq tried to play like MJ and was bad at it, does that mean playing like MJ is bad, or does it just mean Shaq shouldn't play like MJ?

The teams that are good are good at things and the teams that are bad are bad at things. No fukking shyt.

No you really are dumb. The bad teams should focus on other areas to generate offense to try to win. The NFL has become a passing league, but bad teams who have QBs who can’t consistently throw accurate deep balls don’t try to play like the Chiefs or Bills. The convo is about all teams trying to emulate a strategy without the pieces.

 

[lib123]

It varies. You need a balance of both data and experience. Many former players are shyt when it comes to development. That is a seperate skill from actually playing. It aint just roll the ball out and go get it. It aint just tough talk, kick em in the ass, and go with your gut. The best teams are and have always been at the forefront or ahead of the curve in terms of analytics...even before it was called that. And it aint white, its just like everything else...white folks put themselves at the forefront. Aint nothing blacker than math.

Agreed but a lot of bad teams don’t have that balance. That’s the problem.

 

[FunkDoc1112]

No you really are dumb. The bad teams should focus on other areas to generate offense to try to win. The NFL has become a passing league, but bad teams who have QBs who can’t consistently throw accurate deep balls don’t try to play like the Chiefs or Bills. The convo is about all teams trying to emulate a strategy without the pieces.

Like WHAT?

Again: a team being bad at something and not doing something else doesn't mean the strategy is bad. It means that the team is bad. Your thesis is that 3-point shooting is bad for the league when your only evidence is that some teams are bad at it. No shyt there are some teams that are bad at it. The Wizards would be a bad team whether they were shooting 3s or posting up

 

[Monsanto]

One thing missing is, those Warriors teams made shooting 3s a spectacle. No one is creative with celebrations. Only guy i can think of outside of Curry is Hali with his skipping.



No personality to the game. When I turned on a Kobe or Melo game I knew what I'd be getting. Creativity and personality in their game. Everyone for the most part is the same now. Handful of guys that separate themselves on the court.

Too homogenous.

 

[CourtesyFlush]

I have an honest question brehs, if a coach decided "fukk this 3 point shyt" and built a team around defense/shots in the paint/mid-range or whatever else, would they be able to compete without the 3 in today's NBA?