As a whole, the NBA has lost around 45% of its viewership since 2012.

[yseJ]

No, it isn’t. Sports in the back yard is about that. Heck, even the cheesing people do in videogames is about that.

when people compete they dont like to lose no matter the stage

most loyal fans are those of the sport and not the product. the product is what youre trying to sell to someone who is on the outside and doesnt necessarily care about the sport itself.

Im a football fan and Ive watched football even when no one would really talk football around me...I dont need the storylines, the intrigue, the binary jordan vs bron or brady vs peyton debate etc to enjoy a sport


again if it was all about the product, no big name sports star would ever use PEDs. and yet it happens all the time. maximizing an edge is a thing in any competition. it even is a thing in non-competition. you can sell the product in a way that will yield more profit, and that would be strategical edge

 

[CHICAGO]

Sports is competition first, entertainment second.

And when competing in anything that is not trivial, you use any edge you can get.


That's why I never get the hate for analytics. People have used strats to get ahead in all kinds of things. Those strats get used because they do offer advantages.


Poker even tho it's not sports.... two decades ago was really easy to play because most players went by "feel". Nowadays everyone got solvers and if you don't try to play game theory optimal you will probably lose in the long run



Yeah people might not like what the analytics offer and the product it results in, but they're misplacing their issues. The issue is not with the analytics that tell you how to get an edge. The issue is why you are able to get an edge by doing X or Y instead of Z

DUDE NOBODY WANTS TO
WATCH THESE nikkaS MISS 60
COMBINED THREES
PER GAME SIMPLY BECAUSE
33% FROM THE THREE
IS ADJUSTED TO 50% FROM THE 2.

THIS IS ANALYTICS AND HORRIBLE BASKETBALL.



​

 

[yseJ]

Not saying this applies to every person who doesn't find today's game entertaining, but I remember all too vividly that when this 3-pt boom took a sharp rise in 2015, folks' criticism, in general, was about 3s being a gimmick and not conducive to winning. Nobody was talking about 3s being boring or not entertaining. It was all about "you can't win shooting 3s".

Now that it's proven you can win that way, and that it's become a league-wide trend playing this way, these cats all too conveniently find the game boring, picking up their ball and heading back to the crib.

They don't want to admit it but their lack of enjoyment stems a lot from not getting their own way. In similar principle to how they hate the best player in the league - their lack of enjoyment stems from this fat Euro coming along and wrecking havoc on the league.

Of course, it's not fun anymore when the rabbit has the gun.

Over the course of the last 10 years the NBA has changed more than it has arguably ever, from the way it's been played, to the type of players that now populate the league, that it only stands to reason cats are going to feel some way about it. I'd just wish that they either come to terms that the game isn't for them anymore and move on, instead of crying about it at every turn.

No amount of tears are going are going to wash the league back clean to whatever they think it was.

There's nothing wrong with having an honest, genuine discussion about things the NBA needs to improve on, but that's not what's happening here. It's just romanticized, disingenuous, my-day-was-better, contradictive, nonsensical bullshyt.

I actually think its fine to not enjoy a certain way sports is played

I look at pro soccer at highest level nowadays and its very robotic with very little creativity but a lot of endurance-based pressing and movement. It's not as aesthetically fun to me as it used to be so I barely watch it nowadays. But I get WHY its played that way right now, because it gets results.

So I get the people who dislike the current way the sport is played in the NBA.

 

[No1]

sure but unless an org really dont give a fukk, they care about winning too

thats the thing, the getting an edge part was long before here

PEDs are a thing that undoubtedly give athletes an edge, and no one question their effectiveness because the athletic edge they provide is self-evident

but when it comes to strategical edge, which is also important, people are too dismissive of that

Orgs care about making money before anything. MLB turned a blind eye to PEDs because it made money.

 

[yseJ]

DUDE NOBODY WANTS TO
WATCH THESE nikkaS MISS 60
COMBINED THREES
PER GAME SIMPLY BECAUSE
33% FROM THE THREE
IS ADJUSTED TO 50% FROM THE 2.

THIS IS ANALYTICS AND HORRIBLE BASKETBALL.



​

well then its the leagues job to reconcile what brehs want to watch with how the rules reward certain actions

no coach will say screw doing what will win us a game lets just play in a way thats more entertaining

 

[In The Zone '98]

well then its the leagues job to reconcile what brehs want to watch with how the rules reward certain actions

no coach will say screw doing what will win us a game lets just play in a way thats more entertaining

Spacing serves no purpose without snipers

Some of these teams need to be slashing and shooting 40 free throws a night

Edit: For example. Orlando played without their two best players tonight. And went 9/30 from 3. And only shot 13 FTs.

All 30 teams are hoping to hit 15-25 threes per game. On a shot that avg out to low 30 percent from all areas. Its low key kinda stupid

 

[No1]

when people compete they dont like to lose no matter the stage

most loyal fans are those of the sport and not the product. the product is what youre trying to sell to someone who is on the outside and doesnt necessarily care about the sport itself.

Im a football fan and Ive watched football even when no one would really talk football around me...I dont need the storylines, the intrigue, the binary jordan vs bron or brady vs peyton debate etc to enjoy a sport


again if it was all about the product, no big name sports star would ever use PEDs. and yet it happens all the time. maximizing an edge is a thing in any competition. it even is a thing in non-competition. you can sell the product in a way that will yield more profit, and that would be strategical edge

The majority of people are not loyal to the sport itself. When you’re trying to grow a business you look at your potential market and how to target it. Big name stars have every incentive to use PEDs because better production equals more money and a better performance on the field. Mark McGuire using PEDs led to both and ratings and winning. It was a perfect marriage.

 

[Geek Nasty]

I’m a very casual NBA fan, last couple years I almost completely stopped watching. For me, there’s just not the same energy in the games. Not in the crowds and doesn’t seem to be in the players either. I’m not a good enough player to know why. Is the 3pt shooting making guys just stand around on the perimeter more? Don’t know but games just feel more boring.

Part of too is the way rosters seems to change a lot more. Teams don’t have that same “brand” anymore.

 

[SchoolboyC]

when people compete they dont like to lose no matter the stage

most loyal fans are those of the sport and not the product. the product is what youre trying to sell to someone who is on the outside and doesnt necessarily care about the sport itself.

Im a football fan and Ive watched football even when no one would really talk football around me...I dont need the storylines, the intrigue, the binary jordan vs bron or brady vs peyton debate etc to enjoy a sport


again if it was all about the product, no big name sports star would ever use PEDs. and yet it happens all the time. maximizing an edge is a thing in any competition. it even is a thing in non-competition. you can sell the product in a way that will yield more profit, and that would be strategical edge

Diehard fans will watch regardless

Casual fans need an incentive

Casuals no matter the sport will always outnumber the diehards

The SB wouldn’t draw 100+ million viewers if it didn’t have the spectacle around it

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Teams are now missing on avg more threes per game. Than they actually shot 10 seasons ago

You can acknowledge the disagreement with a viewer who does not want to watch 25-40 missed threes, per game per team?

Where are you getting this stat from?

The league-average 3-pt% this season is 36% (37.5 attempts per game)
The league-average 3-pt% in 2015 was 35% (22.4 attempts per game).

The league is shooting the exact percentage from 3 as they did 10 years ago, even despite an increase in volume.

Unless you're saying the bad teams are missing more 3s than they attempted 10 years ago, but that is largely irrelevant because bad teams have always existed, and you don't use bad teams as a reflection of the league as a whole. Like the Bulls are associated with 90s play, you wouldn't go and say the 13-win 1994 Mavs team are a reflection of the 90s, would you?

Folks are picking out the worst parts of today's game and saying, "see, look, the NBA is ass, look at these teams missing all these 3s".

Why not talk about the best teams or the league-average? Why focus on the bad when the bad of the past isn't focussed on?

DUDE NOBODY WANTS TO
WATCH THESE nikkaS MISS 30 THREES
PER GAME SIMPLY BECAUSE
33% FROM THE THREE
IS ADJUSTED TO 50% FROM THE 2.

THIS IS ANALYTICS AND HORRIBLE BASKETBALL.



​

Except those are the bad teams you're talking about.

Nobody wants to watch bad teams, ever. No matter what type of shot they're taking and missing. Do you somehow think that if they weren't taking 3s, but instead took other shots (and still missing them), that they'd be watchable? The NBA public are going to start watching these bad teams more because they're missing jumpshots a few more feet in?

Analytics aren't magically going to turn bad teams into good teams; analytics don't turn good teams into bad teams. If they're bad, then they'll continue to be bad, until they won't.

Are you telling me that if you dropped the 7-win 2012 Bobcats into today's league that they'd become more watchable just because they didn't take 3s, or would they still be looked at and treated as a bad team, who nobody would want to watch?

As I need to keep reiterating, the league isn't missing a greater percentage of 3s now than they did 20 years ago, so stop trying to make out teams are missing a greater number of 3s, relatively.

2024 season average - 36% from 3
2015 season average - 35% from 3
2005 season average - 35% from 3
1995 season average - 36% from 3.

That exact same damn percentage from 3.

Nobody wanted to see the '97 Grizzlies missing all the shots they took either. It wasn't watchable. It was horrible basketball. Nobody wanted to watch the likes of Blue Edwards and Lawrence Moten missing jumpshots. I'm not going to suddenly use them as a scale for the entire league during the 90s now am I? So why are y'all doing it with the bad teams today? Why can't y'all focus on the best teams or what the average is?

 

[Brozay]

even the NBA is like, yeah sorry about these matchups

 

[CHICAGO]

Where are you getting this stat from?

The league-average 3-pt% this season is 36% (37.5 attempts per game)
The league-average 3-pt% in 2015 was 35% (22.4 attempts per game).

The league is shooting the exact percentage from 3 as they did 10 years ago, even despite an increase in volume.

Unless you're saying the bad teams are missing more 3s than they attempted 10 years ago, but that is largely irrelevant because bad teams have always existed, and you don't use bad teams as a reflection of the league as a whole. Like the Bulls are associated with 90s play, you wouldn't go and say the 13-win 1994 Mavs team are a reflection of the 90s, would you?

Folks are picking out the worst parts of today's game and saying, "see, look, the NBA is ass, look at these teams missing all these 3s".

Why not talk about the best teams or the league-average? Why focus on the bad when the bad of the past isn't focussed on?

Except those are the bad teams you're talking about.

Nobody wants to watch bad teams, ever. No matter what type of shot they're taking and missing. Do you somehow think that if they weren't taking 3s, but instead took other shots (and still missing them), that they'd be watchable? The NBA public are going to start watching these bad teams more because they're missing jumpshots a few more feet in?

Analytics aren't magically going to turn bad teams into good teams; analytics don't turn good teams into bad teams. If they're bad, then they'll continue to be bad, until they won't.

Are you telling me that if you dropped the 7-win 2012 Bobcats into today's league that they'd become more watchable just because they didn't take 3s, or would they still be looked at and treated as a bad team, who nobody would want to watch?

As I need to keep reiterating, the league isn't missing a greater percentage of 3s now than they did 20 years ago, so stop trying to make out teams are missing a greater number of 3s, relatively.

2024 season average - 36% from 3
2015 season average - 35% from 3
2005 season average - 35% from 3
1995 season average - 36% from 3.

That exact same damn percentage from 3.

Nobody wanted to see the '97 Grizzlies missing all the shots they took either. It wasn't watchable. It was horrible basketball. Nobody wanted to watch the likes of Blue Edwards and Lawrence Moten missing jumpshots. I'm not going to suddenly use them as a scale for the entire league during the 90s now am I? So why are y'all doing it with the bad teams today? Why can't y'all focus on the best teams or what the average is?

WHAT'S GOING OVER YOUR HEAD?

PPL WANT TO SEE THAT
SHOOTING PERCENTAGE IN MODERATION.

PPL WOULD MUCH RATHER
WATCH TEAMS GO
8-23 INSTEAD OF 21-60
FROM THE THREE
eVeN tHoUGh iTs tHe sAme pErCenTaGe

THATS 15 POSSESSIONS
WITHOUT A BUCKET VS 39 POSSESSIONS....

BOTH TEAMS DOING IT TURNS IT
INTO 78 SCORELESS POSSESSIONS


​

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Of course the NBA is going to be "terrible" when your teams ain't been shyt Lol

 

[tremonthustler1]

The white people cowherd are talking about never watched the NBA to begin with .

They are/were apart of the college basketball is better then the NBA crew.
—

Also the Caitlyn Clark parallel ppl are trying to make is stupid…nobody has an issue with her launching threes just like nikkas don’t have a problem with Steph or Dame doing it ….
nikkas have a problem with Jaden Ivey or Jalen Green putting up 8-10 threes in a game

Ivey shooting 5 3's a night at a 37% clip isn't bad. Don't discourage someone like him from shooting when that's supposed to be a justification for him being out there.


Jalen Green, however, can't really shoot at all, let alone from 3. Jalen Green as a player necessitates a deeper dive into his performance, but NBA fans get mad when actual good shooters take too many threes.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It wasn’t just that Michael Jordan won

Except the entertainment of MJ came second to him winning.

If he never won anything and played exactly as he did, he'd just be another player who didn't win anything, especially in a league like the NBA which treats its winners as Gods and losers as basketball yokels. Whoever won in place of him would have taken the spotlight, and aside folks reminiscing about how skilled he was, the conversations of him wouldn't go further than that.

Folks have a problem with how teams/players are winning because it's different to the methods that they grew up on. It's as simple as that.

WHAT'S GOING OVER YOUR HEAD?

PPL WANT TO SEE THAT
SHOOTING PERCENTAGE IN MODERATION.

PPL WOULD MUCH RATHER
WATCH TEAMS GO
8-23 INSTEAD OF 21-60
FROM THE THREE
eVeN tHoUGh iTs tHe sAme pErCeTaGe



​

It seems it's going over your head.

You look at averages. You don't cherry-pick a game where a team shoots poorly from 3. They may shoot 21-60 one game, but then in the next 4-5 games they shoot 37-44% from 3. Why do y'all focus on the bad games instead of the averages? I even pointed this out to you during the OKC vs. Houston game, where you pointed out OKC were playing poorly on offense (shooting bad from 3), but then I replied in their last 9-10 games they were actually generating offense at a high level and shooting well from 3.

You picked a game where they shot bad and tried using it to make a grand statement.

When has that ever been a thing to use an outlier game to use as a reflection of the picture?

You could have 10 games in one night:

5 of those games are teams shoots 37-44% from 3, as a collective
3 of those games are teams shooting around league-average (or just below)
2 of those games are teams shooting poorly from 3.

Why focus on those 2 bad games?

Teams aren't going to shoot consistently every single night. That has NEVER been the case in the NBA. Why are you pretending it should be that way now?