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

[HandyWithTheSteel]

2024-25 NBA Season Summary | Basketball-Reference.com

Checkout the latest 2024-25 NBA Season Summary including Shooting Stats, Advanced Stats, Conference and Division Standings, Awards, Leagues and more on Basketball-Reference.com

www.basketball-reference.com

Gil, just listen. And look at the data. Every single team is missing more 3s per game than attempts from 10 seasons ago

I enjoy the game as is. But just listen to what nikkas is telling you

It is hard for them to watch a team miss 25-40 threes on any given night

Thr Celtics are cheesing 50 threes a game. Lol.

And in 2005, every team was missing more threes than attempts in 1994.

Damn you Steph Curry!

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

AND A MOREY TEAM
AINT NEVER WON shyt.

nikkaS KEEP BRINGING UP
THE CELTICS....

THEY WON BECAUSE THEY HAVE
THE BEST ROSTER IN THE NBA
NOT BECAUSE THEY SHOOT
THE MOST THREES.



​

Prioritizing the 3 has allowed the Celtics to be the best version of themselves. If they played 90s ball and took minimal 3s, they wouldn't win shyt. Players like Jaylen Brown would turn the ball over every other possession if the Celtics chose to shrink their spacing down to within the arc.

Morey's squads had the best code for winning, except one of the worst methods in generating shots (let by a mental midget who took shortcuts).

Nobody is saying taking a 3 for the sake of = winning

You still have to generate a quality shot, no matter where you shoot it from.

I don't know what's so hard to understand that spacing the floor out allows more room to get easy scoring opportunities. The more you shrink the floor, the harder it is to generate good looks. And you have to consistently take 3s in relation to what the defense is showing so that you can keep the floor spaced.

 

[In The Zone '98]

Stop saying bad teams miss jumpshots


Players are literally fukking over fast breaks looking for corner 3s

 

[In The Zone '98]

Prioritizing the 3 has allowed the Celtics to be the best version of themselves. If they played 90s ball and took minimal 3s, they wouldn't win shyt. Players like Jaylen Brown would turn the ball over every other possession if the Celtics chose to shrink their spacing down to within the arc.

Morey's squads had the best code for winning, except one of the worst methods in generating shots (let by a mental midget who took shortcuts).

Nobody is saying taking a 3 for the sake of = winning

You still have to generate a quality shot, no matter where you shoot it from.

I don't know what's so hard to understand that spacing the floor out allows more room to get easy scoring opportunities. The more you shrink the floor, the harder it is to generate good looks. And you have to consistently take 3s in relation to what the defense is showing so that you can keep the floor spaced.

There's no one arguing in any of these threads that spacing is a flaw and has to go away

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Stop saying bad teams miss jumpshots gil!

The whole fukking league is missing upwards of 30 threes a night per team

Players are literally fukking over fast breaks looking for corner 3s

You can be a diehard. Like myself. And still acknowledge there are flaws in the approach

The argument is not about the proper method of winning. It is whether or not the casual viewer can be entertained by the product. And recognizing why somebody wouldn't watch

I'm not sure what you're even talking about because your line of thought about teams missing all these 3s in relation to the actual percentage is heavily flawed.

It doesn't make one bit of sense.



It doesn't matter how many shots they're missing, as long as they're efficient and/or helping them space the floor. If x-team and y-team miss the same amount of jumpshots, but x-team is missing more 3s, in isolation, what is the difference? They're still missing the same amount of jumpers, correct?

People have always had a problem with bad teams missing jumpshots.

It's not a recent phenomenon.

Or do you seem to think teams now are missing more jumpshots now than in the past (in relation)? Because they're not.

 

[In The Zone '98]

And in 2005, every team was missing more threes than attempts in 1994.

Damn you Steph Curry!

Watching a team miss 10 threes in 94 compared to a team missing 30 is a completely different thing, aesthetically

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Watching a team miss 10 threes in 94 compared to a team missing 30 is a completely different thing, aesthetically

But those teams in '94 were missing jumpshots of the other kind instead. Teams from those respective eras are/were still missing relatively the same amount of jumpshots. Just from different distances.

Look at all the jumpshots A.I. missed and he's heralded as being one of the best players of that time.

Missing jumpshots on this volume isn't a recent thing, ITZ98.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Also @In The Zone '98, the folks complaining about teams like the Hornets missing all these 3s aren't even watching them. I bet you out of all the posters that complained about that Bulls/Hornets game with a record amount of missed 3s, only 1-2 of them actually watched the game.

Just complete fake outrage about something they didn't even watch to begin with.

 

[In The Zone '98]

I'm not sure what you're even talking about because your line of thought about teams missing all these 3s in relation to the actual percentage is heavily flawed.

It doesn't make one bit of sense.



It doesn't matter how many shots they're missing, as long as they're efficient and/or helping them space the floor. If x-team and y-team miss the same amount of jumpshots, but x-team is missing more 3s, in isolation, what is the difference? They're still missing the same amount of jumpers, correct?

People have always had a problem with bad teams missing jumpshots.

It's not a recent phenomenon.

Or do you seem to think teams now are missing more jumpshots now than in the past (in relation)? Because they're not.

Teams who struggle with shooting are better served slashing and attacking the rim within their sets and on fast breaks

Rather than hoping to hit 15-25 threes

I ask y'all over and over. Was copying European basketball the proper way to go. And the response is that it's the efficient way to play, but not the most pleasing

It is what it is. This is all the fault of short cacs and positionless basketball

 

[In The Zone '98]

But those teams in '94 were missing jumpshots of the other kind instead. Teams from those respective eras are/were still missing relatively the same amount of jumpshots. Just from different distances.

Look at all the jumpshots A.I. missed and he's heralded as being one of the best players of that time.

Missing jumpshots on this volume isn't a recent thing, ITZ98.

The knowledge of spacing was limited at that time. But the game has probably gone too far.

We have to artificially deflate the amount of 3s attempted by eliminating the corner 3

The grizzlies just went 9-28 and the Lakers went 10-34. Enough is enough, lol

 

[HandyWithTheSteel]

Watching a team miss 10 threes in 94 compared to a team missing 30 is a completely different thing, aesthetically

Because watching them miss 30 more 15 footers instead is so much more aesthetically pleasing?

 

[In The Zone '98]

Because watching them miss 30 more 15 footers instead is so much more aesthetically pleasing?

Are you watching these games. They are passing out of many open mid range shots, hunting 3s

Justify to me why Wemby, at 7'4, went 1-7 from 3 tonight. When he was 8-13 closer to the basket?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Teams who struggle with shooting are better served slashing and attacking the rim within their sets and on fast breaks

Rather than hoping to hit 15-25 threes

Easier said than done.

A team like the Hornets, who are without their best player/playmaker, are going to struggle to generate good shots, let alone slash and attack the rim. They don't have the personnel to do that. They don't have players who can dribble drive to get into the lane. Their second-best player [Miller] still has a handle that's a work in progress and he hasn't fully developed into his body yet. Forcing the ball into his hands and getting him to attack the rim isn't going to happen.

And because opposing teams know teams like the Hornets aren't consistent with their shooting, they'll sell out on them, forcing them to beat them behind the arc, making sure they don't get easy looks at the rim.

That's the struggles of a bad team. They've got to work through those things in order to get better. It's going to be an ugly process.

Again, as I need to stress, this has always been the case throughout the history of the league.

The knowledge of spacing was limited at that time. But the game has probably gone too far.

We have to artificially deflate the amount of 3s attempted by eliminating the corner 3

The grizzlies just went 9-28 and the Lakers went 10-34. Enough is enough, lol

The Lakers are one of the worst shooting teams in the league, regardless of 3s or 2s, combined with their best shooter only playing limited minutes. The Grizzlies aren't that much better, with a team that's struggled with injuries and continiunity, relying on a bunch of role players to keep them afloat.

The Mavs and Warriors both just shot 50% from 3 tonight.

Enough is enough, right?

Throughout NBA history every season there's only a handful of good teams, mixed in with average teams and then you have your bad teams. You combine this with the marathon that is the 82 game season and there's going to bad/inconsistent play wherever you look given the nature of that. Not even the good teams can play well and shoot well every night. That's always been the case, and if this current structure remains, it'll always be the case.

The only thing that would change that is collapsing all the talent down to nothing but All-Star caliber teams, and reducing the games to a fraction of a fraction of what they are now.

Otherwise, we all just have to put up with what the NBA has always been.

 

[In The Zone '98]

The success of the Mavs/Warriors tonight is the European vision of what they want the NBA to be

Unfortunately, most nights these teams are going 13/40

 

[In The Zone '98]

Easier said than done.

A team like the Hornets, who are without their best player/playmaker, are going to struggle to generate good shots, let alone slash and attack the rim. They don't have the personnel to do that. They don't have players who can dribble drive to get into the lane. Their second-best player [Miller] still has a handle that's a work in progress and he hasn't fully developed into his body yet. Forcing the ball into his hands and getting him to attack the rim isn't going to happen.

And because opposing teams know teams like the Hornets aren't consistent with their shooting, they'll sell out on them, forcing them to beat them behind the arc, making sure they don't get easy looks at the rim.

That's the struggles of a bad team. They've got to work through those things in order to get better. It's going to be an ugly process.

Again, as I need to stress, this has always been the case throughout the history of the league.

The Lakers are one of the worst shooting teams in the league, regardless of 3s or 2s, combined with their best shooter only playing limited minutes. The Grizzlies aren't that much better, with a team that's struggled with injuries and continuity, relying on a bunch of role players to keep them afloat.

The Mavs and Warriors both just shot 50% from 3 tonight.

Enough is enough, right?

Throughout NBA history every season there's only a handful of good teams, mixed in with average teams and then you have your bad teams. You combine this with the marathon that is the 82 game season and there's going to bad/inconsistent play wherever you look given the nature of that. Not even the good teams can play well and shoot well every night. That's always been the case, and if this current structure remains, it'll always be the case.

The only thing that would change that is collapsing all the talent down to nothing but All-Star caliber teams, and reducing the games to a fraction of a fraction of what they are now.

Otherwise, we all just have to put up with what the NBA has always been.

You make it seem like we don't have the data a click away

The Lakers are in the top half on 2s percentage and FT percentage. And bottom half on 3s percentage