Classic Teams And 3pt %

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by AIRJ23

No man. This is what I’m saying. So many threes during games are not “smart” threes. They’re jacked up low IQ contested bricks.

Which is what so many of these twos were. Re-watch some games. I grew up on fastbreaks that ended in mid-range shots. The Latrell Sprewell special.

Quote:

Back in the day players would get subbed out and reamed by the coach for shooting those

Bad shot selection existed well before the three. It is not a modern evolution. The only thing that has changed is the location of those shots.

Quote:

And Oakley and AC were never staples of their offenses lmao.

Charles Oakley took 8-9 shots per game. Roughly 66-75% of those were jumpers (6 per game).

Players aren't shooting more jumpers today. All they're doing is pulling from 23 feet away instead of 15-18 feet.

[The 24th Letter]

Tim Hardaway is another one.

Funny enough, He was one of the first to start pulling up from 3 on the fast break too.

As far as viewership-

Internet comment sections should never be taken into consideration....for anything really ...

There's nothing the NBA can do to pull that particular section of fans put of their time warp if they don't want to.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[The 24th Letter]

Quote: Originally Posted by bls

How would you access 24th? 99% of those classic teams have multiple players with 50 badges lol If anything they all should be in tier 1 IMO. I just don't understand how you can access a rating to a player for something that never exist in that era So now I gotta deal with 3 marksman from the 3pt line and Kareem......OK Sent from my SM-F926U using Operation Sports mobile app

I think the start would be to get teams into their proper Tier. I think they are only in tier 3 because they have 5 players....which doesn't matter in PNO because fatigue is essentially off, lol

Thing is, The Bucks 3 PT ratings don't seem to be all that high..I'm assuming it's the large amount of badges that's causing the high %

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[AIRJ23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Real2KInsider

Which is what so many of these twos were. Re-watch some games. I grew up on fastbreaks that ended in mid-range shots. The Latrell Sprewell special. Bad shot selection existed well before the three. It is not a modern evolution. The only thing that has changed is the location of those shots. Charles Oakley took 8-9 shots per game. Roughly 66-75% of those were jumpers (6 per game). Players aren't shooting more jumpers today. All they're doing is pulling from 23 feet away instead of 15-18 feet.

I’m not arguing that point at all. But no one who watches the game today with an open mind can deny the repetition of three point shots. It removes the dynamic of the game and makes it look more like a one dimensional three point contest. Aesthetically those shots look a lot less IQ than a contested mid range if you ask me. And more contested mid ranges go in (which is part of the mentioned “aesthetic”). We all know analytics favor it. But of course, no one ever says analytics are pretty or soulful. And more often than not, analytics driven equals boring.

Pop said it best. So did Kerr, etc.

https://247sports.com/nba/san-antoni...ng--125587382/
(yes I know there site is trash, but I’m referring to the quote itself)

Quote: Originally Posted by The 24th Letter

Tim Hardaway is another one. Funny enough, He was one of the first to start pulling up from 3 on the fast break too. As far as viewership- Internet comment sections should never be taken into consideration....for anything really ... There's nothing the NBA can do to pull that particular section of fans put of their time warp if they don't want to. Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I mean that’s kind of my point. Guys have been shooting threes and we’ve had great three point shooters for a long time who would thrive today. Kukoc for example imo would be an elite scorer and all star in this league without a doubt. The difference is, back then you saw a lot more dynamism on offense. Now it’s centered on primarily threes. Personally, mid ranges are far prettier and more fun to watch than long bombs that go in 30% of the time. Funner to shoot on the court too. Threes give the game the look of no one wanting to get physical in the least thus shoot from a safe distance (lazy).

Again, we know why they do it (analytics).

As far as comment sections. Sure, in general you’re right. But referring to basketball I disagree. The league has been so soft and foul bait/flop driven and three point contest like for so long, of course anyone without a perma fan bias would complain. I’ve never talked to anyone in real life who said “I love the flop culture and constant three point shots.” It’s always complaints about it. Especially from casual fans who in essence stop watching (hence ratings drops).

I mean the NBA Finals in the 90’s was like the Super Bowl. It’s just not a huge deal anymore.

All that said, the league is moving in the right direction with the rule changes and this has been by far the best year in a long time so far. Player stats are down across the board, scoring is down, percentages are down, steals are up, average players aren’t scoring 25-30 easily due to rules that make it easy for anyone to score, lots of players are being weeded out from elite status because they can’t dominate as well in a more physical game that doesn’t allow them to abuse soft rules. Warriors and Curry are playing exceptional. The threes still look terrible to me but the game is looking a lot more serious and respectable to me (and many) this year.

[AIRJ23]

Biases go two ways. People have recency bias and think no matter what, what’s happening now is better than before, and people have “nostalgia.”

I think it’s easy to separate the two. It’s a bias in itself to assume anyone who doesn’t enjoy 100 threes a game game tossed up and guys faking hits to the face and flopping to the floor crying, or gyrating their bodies and arms into each other to draw fouls, are “biased” themselves.

Those elements are fundamentally less dynamic and intense and make a mockery of the game.

I always watch full games (not highlights) simultaneously from each other and flip back and forth. Currently I’ve been watching the 2010 playoffs between Kobe’s lakers and the suns, the ‘93 Bulls Suns finals as well as current games daily. Last one I watched was the disaster megateam Laker circus take an L to the sub par Kings.

I can tell you which games are more entertaining and look like the best basketball is being played but you may not want to hear it lol.

[The 24th Letter]

Wilt on 90's basketball, how it's all flash no substance, how MJ & Shaq wouldn't survive in his day (around the 5 minute mark)

https://youtu.be/-GnTgEHjFpQ

It's cylical. The next generation will do the same.

I can understand why people don't like the amount of 3's taken today, but I can also see why someone wouldn't enjoy the PHX/ORL game I recently watched where the strategy was to let Luc Longley expose his mismatch in the post in the first quarter. I haven't talked to anyone in real life that said they enjoy that, lol

So enjoy what you enjoy.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[AIRJ23]

Quote: Originally Posted by The 24th Letter

Wilt on 90's basketball, how it's all flash no substance, how MJ & Shaq wouldn't survive in his day (around the 5 minute mark) https://youtu.be/-GnTgEHjFpQ It's cylical. The next generation will do the same. I can understand why people don't like the amount of 3's taken today, but I can also see why someone wouldn't enjoy the PHX/ORL game I recently watched where the strategy was to let Luc Longley expose his mismatch in the post in the first quarter. I haven't talked to anyone in real life that said they enjoy that, lol So enjoy what you enjoy. Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Fact is, indeed, enjoy what you enjoy. Or enjoy them all simultaneously if you’re a true connoisseur. Each era has better aspects than others. Players before, for example, never got injured at such high profile rates and they played extremely grueling schedules, didn’t take days off, and had far less luxurious and amenities (or conditioning tech, even down to shoes, all the padding worn today, etc.). I respect the conditioning and heart of back in the day. IMO money messed up some of that in basketball. For some players at least (Ben Simmons Kyrie Irving cough).

Wilt has a point as well. MJ changed the game to be more flashy. His blueprint is used by every player today as he redesigned what basketball looked like. Wilt always resented it. Falling back to how each era has its own charm. Including todays.

Wilt played a very physical era. Like super physical. He being arguably the best athlete who ever lived based on his untouchable physical attributes and obscene sprint/vertical/size/strength stats of course gave him a nearly unfair advantage (which of course is fair game lol).

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by AIRJ23

Wilt played a very physical era. Like super physical. He being arguably the best athlete who ever lived based on his untouchable physical attributes and obscene sprint/vertical/size/strength stats of course gave him a nearly unfair advantage (which of course is fair game lol).

He also played in an era with no spacing where offensive & defensive strategy was hope you have a HOF big man since there was no tactical counterplay.

He isn't the best athlete who ever lived. So much of Wilt's legacy is hyperbole and myth.

Send Rudy Gobert back in time 50 years and he'd have a field day with literally no counter to drop coverage. It was a much simpler game. The rules of engagement have changed considerably since.

(You can act like Wilt would "adapt" to the modern game but he wouldn't be the perfect specimen that he was in his time period and that's kinda the point.)