MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Not A Serious Person on January 14, 2020, 09:30:46 PM
-
from
Kirk Goldsberry @kirkgoldsberry
NBA Analyst at ESPN, NYT Best-selling author of Sprawlball, Professor at University of Texas. Analyst, Team USA Basketball. Formerly VP at Spurs
https://twitter.com/kirkgoldsberry/status/1217109175894831105?s=20
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOQKV1sUUAArdKN.jpg)
-
It’s a guards’ game.
-
from
Kirk Goldsberry @kirkgoldsberry
NBA Analyst at ESPN, NYT Best-selling author of Sprawlball, Professor at University of Texas. Analyst, Team USA Basketball. Formerly VP at Spurs
https://twitter.com/kirkgoldsberry/status/1217109175894831105?s=20
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOQKV1sUUAArdKN.jpg)
#BigMenNoMatta
-
Anyone else see the Miami logo?
-
Medium range game is dead.
-
Yep, if you can't get a layup or a dunk, you better find someone for an open three.
-
Yep, if you can't get a layup or a dunk, you better find someone for an open three.
The shot chart of a Kidd coached team still looks like the left. Probably more long twos.
-
People will complain about how the games changed, but as long as the goal is to score more points than your opponent, the game will always move in that direction. Efficiency is a good thing.
-
That chart makes me wonder how far you'd have to push the three point line backward before the midrange game becomes strategically useful again.
-
That chart makes me wonder how far you'd have to push the three point line backward before the midrange game becomes strategically useful again.
Why would anyone want to do that?
-
That chart makes me wonder how far you'd have to push the three point line backward before the midrange game becomes strategically useful again.
You can't push the line back any further on the sides without widening the court. I am actually in favor of that in theory as the athletes get bigger, faster, and better shooters. However, the trickle down effect would be quite expensive, as all regulation courts are changed.
-
Anyone else see the Miami logo?
Kinda seams like Oregon's floor, aina?
-
People will complain about how the games changed, but as long as the goal is to score more points than your opponent, the game will always move in that direction. Efficiency is a good thing.
Watch a Lakers-Celtics game from the 80s and then watch a finals game from last year. Which is a more enjoyable brand of basketball to watch? I think basketball and baseball have the same problem. Analytics have pushed each game to a more efficient version of itself, but results in, IMO, a less fun and exciting game to watch.
-
nm
-
Watch a Lakers-Celtics game from the 80s and then watch a finals game from last year. Which is a more enjoyable brand of basketball to watch? I think basketball and baseball have the same problem. Analytics have pushed each game to a more efficient version of itself, but results in, IMO, a less fun and exciting game to watch.
agree 100%
-
Why would anyone want to do that?
I'm agnostic on it, but the college line has moved a bunch of times over the years, including before last season at least in part to "slow the trend of the 3 point shot becoming too prevalent." You could see a similar rationale for the NBA game, and moving the three point line wouldn't be without precedent there, either. In the 1990s it actually went the other way and was shortened to try to increase scoring (didn't work, just clogged the lane).
-
Watch a Lakers-Celtics game from the 80s and then watch a finals game from last year. Which is a more enjoyable brand of basketball to watch? I think basketball and baseball have the same problem. Analytics have pushed each game to a more efficient version of itself, but results in, IMO, a less fun and exciting game to watch.
You mean the 1984 or 1985 Finals in which both teams averaged around 115 PPG? And without the 3pt shot being a huge part of the game, they needed way more shot makes/attempts and the FG percentage is not noticeably higher and the eFG noticeable lower than say one of the Cavs/GSW series. Sounds like worse defense was played (despite claims of the defense being so lame now compared to the glory days) and teams played more like the Suns teams teams who scored a bunch without winning anything. The Showtime Lakers set the stage for the modern game, uptempo, scored tons of points. All thats different was more long-mid range jumpers and focused use of a big man down low. But again, a big like Kareem or McHale wasn't some plodding giant who is extinct largely in the game, but agile and fluid. Kareem could have transitioned into a Embiid/KAT/AD style of game if it was needed at the time. Seems like you're letting nostalgia override reality.
-
Watch a Lakers-Celtics game from the 80s and then watch a finals game from last year. Which is a more enjoyable brand of basketball to watch? I think basketball and baseball have the same problem. Analytics have pushed each game to a more efficient version of itself, but results in, IMO, a less fun and exciting game to watch.
Spot on. The NBA was most enjoyable IMHO during the 70s and 80s. The great Lakers, Bucks, Celtics, Sixers and such were so much more fun to watch than today's game.
-
You mean the 1984 or 1985 Finals in which both teams averaged around 115 PPG? And without the 3pt shot being a huge part of the game, they needed way more shot makes/attempts and the FG percentage is not noticeably higher and the eFG noticeable lower than say one of the Cavs/GSW series. Sounds like worse defense was played (despite claims of the defense being so lame now compared to the glory days) and teams played more like the Suns teams teams who scored a bunch without winning anything. The Showtime Lakers set the stage for the modern game, uptempo, scored tons of points. All thats different was more long-mid range jumpers and focused use of a big man down low. But again, a big like Kareem or McHale wasn't some plodding giant who is extinct largely in the game, but agile and fluid. Kareem could have transitioned into a Embiid/KAT/AD style of game if it was needed at the time. Seems like you're letting nostalgia override reality.
I'm sure Kareem and McHale could flourish in today's game. I'm saying that style of basketball, running featuring ball movement, and going for layups and best available shot is better than watching 60 3FGA a game. You may certainly disagree.
-
McHale was a below the rim player. Not sure exactly what he would do in today’s NBA unless his game evolved in some way. Kareem would be fine though.