More than 40% of total shots are 3pt attempts for the first time in NBA history

[beenz]

If you can hit your 3 pointers at a 34% or greater rate, they have more value than hitting 2 pointers at a 50% rate.

u hit 50/100 2 pointers and that's 100 points

u hit 34/100 3 pointers and that's 102 points

this is why they are shooting so many three pointers. as long as u can maintain that 34% rate, u are pretty good.

 

[BlackAchilles]

Never thought a day would come when I was more into the tennis tour than the NBA

 

[Copy Ninja]

Curry's NBA.

 

[CourtesyFlush]

What if they moved the 3 point line back a little bit?

 

[stepbackj34spud]

Was watching the celtics nets game last night and that shyt was

3 after 3. Role players with a huge greenlight to take any 3 they can. shyt is

 

[zerorequiem]

This why I haven't watched in so long. Everyone wants to be Curry. You got 7 foot mfs at the 3 point line shyt is disgusting to see.

 

[Kunty McPhuck]

If you can hit your 3 pointers at a 34% or greater rate, they have more value than hitting 2 pointers at a 50% rate.

u hit 50/100 2 pointers and that's 100 points

u hit 34/100 3 pointers and that's 102 points

this is why they are shooting so many three pointers. as long as u can maintain that 34% rate, u are pretty good.

I think what annoys people is driving to the basket and it's open for the lay up. The player will overcomplicated it by passing it into the corner for a 3 attempt.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Teams are just chasing the math.

3 points is worth more than 2.
If you can make the 3s at a high enough percentage, it's the better shot to take.

If you move the 3 point line back or eliminated it entirely, the math would change and strategy would adjust.

You could say "well the 3 was around in the 1980s and they didnt shoot them".

Yeah. Well, it took a while for teams to recognize its true value.

Yeah… Cause motherfukkas didn’t know how to do math in the 80s and 90s right?

Yall believe anything

 

[fifth column]

If you can hit your 3 pointers at a 34% or greater rate, they have more value than hitting 2 pointers at a 50% rate.

u hit 50/100 2 pointers and that's 100 points

u hit 34/100 3 pointers and that's 102 points

this is why they are shooting so many three pointers. as long as u can maintain that 34% rate, u are pretty good.

Good for the team but at the cost of viewing experience for the public which kills ratings then subsequently kills the business

 

[Remote]

Yeah… Cause motherfukkas didn’t know how to do math in the 80s and 90s right?

Yall believe anything

No, you dummy.

They were slow to exploit it because for one thing many people thought the 3 point shot was a gimmick. And for another, they probably didn't think shooters could make them consistently enough to make them a viable strategy.

Read a book, dikkwad.

 

[fifth column]

No, you dummy.

They were slow to exploit it because for one thing many people thought the 3 point shot was a gimmick. And for another, they probably didn't think shooters could make them consistently enough to make them a viable strategy.

Read a book, dikkwad.

Teams don’t even exploit no more they just spam 3s

 

[Remote]

Teams don’t even exploit no more they just spam 3s

Ok.

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

Teams are just chasing the math.

3 points is worth more than 2.
If you can make the 3s at a high enough percentage, it's the better shot to take.

If you move the 3 point line back or eliminated it entirely, the math would change and strategy would adjust.

You could say "well the 3 was around in the 1980s and they didnt shoot them".

Yeah. Well, it took a while for teams to recognize its true value.

The problem is that’s not happening for the most part, so you’re literally having situations where teams are shooting themselves out of games because of “math.”

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

people thought the 3 point shot was a gimmick

And why is that graduate? You think new nikkas just smarter now all of a sudden? Or is there a bigger motive to making 40 percent of the shots taken in the NBA right now practically indefensible…. Take your time…

 

[Remote]

The problem is that’s not happening for the most part, so you’re literally having situations where teams are shooting themselves out of games because of “math.”

It's a balancing act like anything else.

People have to understand, however, that just because variance isn't going your way doesn't mean the process isn't sound.