To update I just saw a video about Pete. The person that tracked Pete’s college shots was Dale Brown who was LSU coach. He said Pete averaged 44ppg with no change to his shots with a three point line, Pete would have averaged 57ppg.
OT: Steph Curry
- Thread starter greenknight
- Start date
Playing video games the best and worst thing you could do is "beat the game" The thrill of accomplishing this feat quickly got replaced with the thought the game wasn't worth playing any more.
Steph "beat the game". What it takes to beat the game isn't appealing to me.
Kevin McHale's low post moves being substututed wait a Kareem hook shot isn't changing the game
Rick Barry taking an underhanded free throw isn't either
Realizing you get 3 points vs. 2 points and taking shots further away from the basket is totally changing things.
This is defining a good shot as one that is open and potentially 28 feet from the basket. It goes against all the principles of the game that was invented years ago.
And destroyed it at the same time. The chuck it up or get fouled NBA blows. Thanks Steph.
NBA league wide 3pt shooting percentage has basically been flat in the mid 30s since the mid 1990s. However, attempts have gone up from 15 to 35 per game. To me that says there are just better shooters out there in todays age. It’s not a specialized skill anymore. Everybody can do it.
Cliff notes...possible ideas
1. Let the home team draw the 3 point line
2. Eliminate corner 3s
3. Redraw line every year based on where 33.3% of 3s are made
4. Allow goaltending of 3 point shots
I really think the only solution is to make the line farther back, but the elimination of the corner three is suboptimal in my opinion. I am not really a basketball expert but if we are going to move the three point line back perhaps the entire court needs to be wider so that the corner three remains a thing.
Letting the home team draw the 3 point line sounds hilarious but probably not practical.
(3) seems like a problem because where people attempt 3s from is heavily impacted by where the line is.
(4) seems overpowered
Hockey could use a few changes too:
1. No goalie.
2. Much smaller net.
3. No player on either team allowed within a 7 foot radius of the center of the net.
Each idea is just terrible. These are all solutions in search of a problem.
Wait, wut? How about just reducing the size of the goalie pads?
Shooting is a skill that can be improved with lots and lots of lots of practice.
Edit: I'm talking about NBA-level players. There are so many examples of players adding three point shots to their repertoire.
This is funny because I remember 20 years ago and the European players could all shoot and the Americans couldn’t and we started losing international ball. Now lots of Americans can shoot well and we win a lot again. Durant comes to mind in the Olympics. Carmelo. So maybe the Europeans ruined it first?
Curry changed the game bc he throws up massive volume and crazy long threes. That was never a thing. Most people shouldn’t try that.
Every goal in hockey is worth 1 point. The probability of scoring a point decreases as the length of shots increase.
Hockey doesn’t award 2 points from the blue line. No one wants to see players shooting from 60 feet away trying for a 2 point goal.
From the above article:
"What this means is that shooters in the NBA have always been great, it’s just that there are far more shooters in the league than there were 30 years ago. Teams effectively lose nothing from having every player shoot from deep, rather than trying to get easy buckets in the paint."
Summary: Teams/coaches/players are smarter and more talented than in prior years.
For some reason, having a smarter more talented set of executives and players is looked down upon.
The basic "anti-3pt" argument boils down to: I want teams to play dumber.
This is the exact same argument from the football board: "Rutgers needs to play tough, ball control, slow, Northeast football. I don't want to watch a fast, up tempo, pass-first team. This isn't the Big 12 and gimmick offenses."
I don't care how my favorite team plays. I want them to win and win championships.
Devils won with the boring "neutral-zone trap" and Marty digging the puck out of the corner.
If Rutgers basketball winning the BIG Ten means more 3pt shots and higher scoring games - then take more 3pt shots and focus on scoring..
If winning games means milk the shotclock down to 2 and then have someone post-up for a 3ft shot - great do that all game.
The problem is some fans are more concerned with "how" the team wins than just flat-out "winning".
"What this means is that shooters in the NBA have always been great, it’s just that there are far more shooters in the league than there were 30 years ago. Teams effectively lose nothing from having every player shoot from deep, rather than trying to get easy buckets in the paint."
Summary: Teams/coaches/players are smarter and more talented than in prior years.
For some reason, having a smarter more talented set of executives and players is looked down upon.
The basic "anti-3pt" argument boils down to: I want teams to play dumber.
This is the exact same argument from the football board: "Rutgers needs to play tough, ball control, slow, Northeast football. I don't want to watch a fast, up tempo, pass-first team. This isn't the Big 12 and gimmick offenses."
I don't care how my favorite team plays. I want them to win and win championships.
Devils won with the boring "neutral-zone trap" and Marty digging the puck out of the corner.
If Rutgers basketball winning the BIG Ten means more 3pt shots and higher scoring games - then take more 3pt shots and focus on scoring..
If winning games means milk the shotclock down to 2 and then have someone post-up for a 3ft shot - great do that all game.
The problem is some fans are more concerned with "how" the team wins than just flat-out "winning".
I have called for Rutgers to get more shooters. Not have our 4 being a guy who cant make 3s. Rutgers needs to make and take more 3s to be an efficient offense.
The NHL changed the rules to prevent the boring neutral zone trap from winning games. The NJ Devils front office beat the game and figured out how to win without talent/$$.
I am not on an island. I don't think I have a minority POV regards to the anount of 3pt attempts. I expect over the next few years rule changes.
The NHL changed the rules to prevent the boring neutral zone trap from winning games. The NJ Devils front office beat the game and figured out how to win without talent/$$.
I am not on an island. I don't think I have a minority POV regards to the anount of 3pt attempts. I expect over the next few years rule changes.
This 100%. Sports nowadays is defined by analytics. The analytics say to put up more threes.
Plus, all the kids want to be like Steph.
I will agree they need to expand the court (at least wider) and make the 3pt line at minimum a true arc.
Doubt anyone would disagree - players, fans, team front offices.
The players are just bigger/faster/stronger and take up more space on the court.
Problem is infrastructure.
Those courtside seats are pretty valuable to the arena's/teams.
How do you pitch it to the owners that losing a couple rows of their most valuable seats would be a benefit?
Also, not sure how the combination NFL/NBA arena's would be impacted.
I haven't watch much NFL lately (Devils have been bad) but could it also benefit from a wider ice?
Doubt anyone would disagree - players, fans, team front offices.
The players are just bigger/faster/stronger and take up more space on the court.
Problem is infrastructure.
Those courtside seats are pretty valuable to the arena's/teams.
How do you pitch it to the owners that losing a couple rows of their most valuable seats would be a benefit?
Also, not sure how the combination NFL/NBA arena's would be impacted.
I haven't watch much NFL lately (Devils have been bad) but could it also benefit from a wider ice?
So if I would want to see it then you would be wrong, right?
Btw, someone could always stop the puck at any time as it traverses that 60 feet. Not so in basketball unless someone blocks the shot immediately.
This goes in cycles. Critics said that Michael Jordan ruined basketball because he influenced kids to want to dunk and they weren't learning to shoot. When US teams began to lose in international tournaments, the critics savaged the American style of play for the lack of perimeter shooting, lack of ball movement, and poor spacing while lauding other countries for their mastery of these fundamentals.
Now many of these same critics are saying that Steph Curry and the Warriors are ruining basketball by mastering the very fundamentals that they criticized American players for not having.
There is also a misunderstanding of how Curry plays the game. He uses screens and movement away from the ball to generate most of his opportunities. He actually plays the game the way critics think it should be played.
Now many of these same critics are saying that Steph Curry and the Warriors are ruining basketball by mastering the very fundamentals that they criticized American players for not having.
There is also a misunderstanding of how Curry plays the game. He uses screens and movement away from the ball to generate most of his opportunities. He actually plays the game the way critics think it should be played.
Jordan didn’t solve the game by dunking
Curry solved the game by making 30 footers (while working extremely hard off the ball)
If I am wrong and tons of 3s is exciting there will be changes
if I am not alone the NBA will make changes. There are solutions.
Curry solved the game by making 30 footers (while working extremely hard off the ball)
If I am wrong and tons of 3s is exciting there will be changes
if I am not alone the NBA will make changes. There are solutions.