10 ms·

Basketball has evolved into a game of calculated decision-making

• Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  >Rise of 3-and-D model Maybe the solution is with a different type of 3D model, namely the Wilson 3D printed basketball. It has more drag than the regulation basketball, making long shots more difficult. This could restore the balance between long field goals and shots near the basket.
  • zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
    $2,500!!! https://www.wilson.com/en-us/product/airless-gen1-bskt-natural-wz1016102idv https://www.wilson.com/en-us/product/airless-gen1-bskt-natur...
    • Y_Y 2y ago
      > Each Airless Gen1 comes with a case, stand, and a numbered tag highlighting its unique exclusivity. Clearly that justifies it.
      • zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
        Oh, right, I forgot about the value of exclusivity. Like an irl NFT.
• ano-ther 2y ago
  I wouldn't be that pessimistic. Just like Stephen Curry discovered the value of the three-point shot, someone will come along and spot an opportunity by going against the grain of today's paradigm. Perhaps an AlphaGo for basketball will help to find it.
  • fullshark 2y ago
    I don't think that will happen broadly, there will be physical freaks like Wembanyama or players with extreme talent like Jokic that will create teams with unique edges, but the mid range jumper is dead and it's a game of 3 pointers and dunks forever now.
    • darkerside 2y ago
      I doubt that. Players like DeRozan prove that mid and even long 2s have utility. As defenses optimize to pack the paint while chasing shooters off the line, more opportunities will open up. If it were obvious how, we'd already be doing them!
• RugnirViking 2y ago
  I'm surprised the author is so upset about the specialisation of players. Soccer has that in spades and it's endlessly fascinating because of it.
• ks2048 2y ago
  I read something about Go - that very unusual (maybe even considered bad) playing could beat the super-AIs. They are so tuned to opponents in a "typical" style, that they don't know how to beat a player outside this distribution. Maybe an NBA team will come up with something like that.
  • sharps_xp 2y ago
    i forgot what year but the year the spurs won the championship against lebron would be unusual today. tons of passing not necessarily for the 3 but to just dislodge the defense enough for a guaranteed bucket
  • vunderba 2y ago
    I'd be interested in seeing a link to this. Decades ago, playing defensive "computer chess" used to be a relatively optimal strategy against Chess AIs. However, I believe Kasparov famously tried to employ this tactic against Deep Blue but by that time it wasn't particularly viable.
    • ks2048 2y ago
      I'm not sure if this is the study I was remembering, but here is one link I found: https://far.ai/post/2023-07-superhuman-go-ais/ https://far.ai/post/2023-07-superhuman-go-ais/
      • pepa65 2y ago
        I can see it in the case of champion-trained AI, but in the case of Alpha Zero trained AI, it should have encountered virtually every kind of senseless play.
  • bigstrat2003 2y ago
    I can't speak for go, but I've seen beginners get an edge in other strategy games by playing a very unusual strategy. The trouble is, it doesn't tend to last - it turns out either that their strategy really is weak, or that it's viable but they don't have the ability to follow up on the early edge they gained. I can imagine a similar thing might happen with sports strategy.
• nabaraz 2y ago
  I personally think the 3-point line needs to be uniform distance. It is 22 feet from the corner compared to ~24ish feet from the center.
  • apgwoz 2y ago
    I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I’d guess more 3s are made with more backboard visible. Need to be way more accurate from the corners. (Not that people bank off the backboard, but hit the rim, backboard, in, type accidents)
  • paulcole 2y ago
    My recommendation is to let the home team draw the 3-point line on their court like how baseball stadiums have different dimensions.
    • quesera 2y ago
      Hm, that's an interesting idea. But why stop there? What about the foul line, key width, court size/half court line? I feel like the rim height is sacred, but what about backboard size/shape? Some of these dimensions are different in the international game.
• 1123581321 2y ago
  Basketball rules will change. It's becoming a more widespread view that the corner 3 should be eliminated, and perhaps the 3 line moved back in general. In the meantime, threat of 3s makes proactive defense more necessary and that's exciting to watch. Defense has evolved so much since the Jordan era. Some matches are not exciting right now, though.
  • anon84873628 2y ago
    As someone who doesn't follow the sport, what's the problem with corner 3's specifically?
    • 1123581321 2y ago
      Corner 3s are shorter because the 3-point curve flattens to give enough space to move between it and the bounds. The action in the corner is also less dynamic because it's hard to drive to the basket from there, so either you shoot a 3 or pass to center which resets the play if you can't find someone driving up center court. Here's a diagram of a regulation NBA court showing the issue. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Basketball_terms.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Basketba...
• Xenoamorphous 2y ago
  > Recently, teams have realized three-pointers have higher point value despite their lower scoring percentage. This was such an eye-opener for me. A high-stakes sport like basketball/the NBA went on for decades without realising the simple math that three pointers are more valuable than two-pointers if you just do the basic math. How many areas in our lives are yet to be optimised with really basic math?
  • raincole 2y ago
    It's such an arrogant comment. "Really basic math"? Do you think NBA coaches reached this conclusion like this: 1. A player can throw X 2-points in a game. 2. Or he can throw Y 3-points in a game. 3. 3Y > 2X, so we should just throw 3-points all the time. It's absolutely not what happened. And the reason teams didn't discovery the current strategy decades earlier was absolutely not that they couldn't do basic math.
    • tracerbulletx 2y ago
      Right because it was x * 2P% * 2 < Y * 3P% * 3
    • brutalhonesty 2y ago
      It really is basic math though. A 3 point shot with 36% chance to go in (league average) = 1.08 points per attempt. A mid-range 2 point shot with 45% chance to go in = .9 points per attempt. The math is very basic.
      • chatmasta 2y ago
        It was not always 36% and in fact for a while it had lower EV than two pointers. (Also, any league average for three pointers will suffer from obvious selection bias.)
      • grandempire 2y ago
        This assumes the game is static and the question is selecting A or B, but all the variables are intertwined. How does the percentage change when the other team knows you will go for 3? How much more effective is the three when you are able to have the threat of other scoring? A layup is 80-90% isn’t it worth it to try to create one?
• krustyburger 2y ago
  Even if true this has nothing to do with the value of the sport to the spectator or the competitor. Seeing world-class athletes push themselves to their physical limits is intrinsically exciting even if everyone is on the same page on how to win.
  • anon84873628 2y ago
    Nothing to do? If that were true, Olympic weightlifting would be a primetime sport. The strategy, drama, and player celebrity are all part of what makes a popular spectator sport. Lots of casual viewers found the recent Superbowl to be boring because of the early runaway score, despite lots of great athleticism on display. And of course it's a tautology that "true fans" will always find something to enjoy.
• waderyan 2y ago
  Easy fix. Get rid of the corner threes and push the three point line back.
  • hyperion2010 2y ago
    Or just get rid of 3 pointers entirely in the NBA.
    • lawgimenez 2y ago
      Or add a 4-point line https://youtu.be/IgEkocfa62g?si=63y0a_Zk8CxJ-5rM https://youtu.be/IgEkocfa62g?si=63y0a_Zk8CxJ-5rM
  • chasd00 2y ago
    Yeah just make it a straight line, that would be the easiest. Wouldn’t require any rule changes either.
    • nabaraz 2y ago
      This could affect the sales, as there will be less court-side seats.
  • deeg 2y ago
    I disagree; that would just squeeze the action into a smaller area of the court because offenses would avoid the corner 2. Another proposal would be to widen the court so the 3 point line would be a complete half circle.
• sylens 2y ago
  Interesting to see this pop up on HN because this topic has dominated some sports circles over the last year- the NBA has become unwatchable for some, as teams like last year’s champion, the Boston Celtics, just throw up three’s constantly, regardless if they feel confident that they’ll go in.
• beoberha 2y ago
  I don’t think this is a particularly well written article, but I sort of agree with the sentiment. Basketball just isn’t THAT complex and the talent pool is homogenous enough that most teams can find these archetypes and build rosters that get you to the playoffs. That said, trends are cyclical. Look at the role of the running back in the NFL. There will always be outlier players like Shaq who will buck the trends and exploit matchups.
  • relaxing 2y ago
    “The NBA talent pool is homogenous” is the new worst hn take I’ve seen. If “most teams can build rosters that get to the playoffs” is true it’s only because the NBA playoffs are so big. I’d assume it’s false based on any interpretation of “can build” you pick. Realistically only a handful of teams compete for a championship in any given span of years.
  • epolanski 2y ago
    > most teams can find these archetypes and build rosters that get you to the playoffs Not really, it's still 16/30 (I don't like playoff formats btw, so American).
    • mopenstein 2y ago
      My country of Smugistan solved playoff problem years ago. Very simple: every Smugball team makes playoffs. If Americans and Europeans weren't so far behind Smugistanian education system, they would have figured it out too.
      • epolanski 2y ago
        It's not about being smug: 1) playoff format rends 6 months of games not very important, the biggest difference is in your seeding. That's..all? 2) another way it makes the previous 6/7 months pointless is that your entire season is based on a single set of games. You can be the best team in the league by far, but then if one player gets injured or you're out of form or unlucky it's over I just don't like leagues with a playoff system, you either have a league or you have a round robin, both seem directed toward squeezing tv rights, not awarding the best team of a season.
• thakoppno 2y ago
  My proposal to fix this is to automatically award a point for all non-reboundable free throws.
  • apgwoz 2y ago
    You mean, a free throw is a chance shot that when missed awards the defense? Seems like that would have a huge impact on end of game strategy. It would change the “in the paint” strategy—maybe defense would foul earlier to avoid the 2+1? Hoping instead to split the 2, 1-1 with a miss. Of course, the centers and forwards, who typically aren’t great free throw shooters, are gonna get the ball less. Where does the play go? 3pt land, where it’s way more risky to foul. I still like the idea.
    • thakoppno 2y ago
      To clarify, award the offense a point when fouled shooting a 2-point shot and two points if shooting a 3. There’s still a free-throw left to earn the old fashioned way. Mostly the thinking is this encourages post-play since bigs are usually worse free-throw shooters. Also, it should shorten game length which is another recent audience concern.
      • apgwoz 2y ago
        Ah! That would speed up the game a bit, for sure. I like my idea a bit better. Fouls become way more strategic. Maybe you do away with the bonus, though. A foul on the floor just changes possession. A foul during shot becomes almost a toss up. You still have foul limits on players, and maybe you decrease the foul out limit to 4 just for fun. :)
• lawgimenez 2y ago
  I think the NBA needs to focus on how to make more people tune in to the first half of the season. And player’s load management is getting ridiculous.
  • owlninja 2y ago
    As a lifelong Mavericks fan, I hope the NBA fails...They've lost me.
    • darkerside 2y ago
      Sorry for your loss
    • bdangubic 2y ago
      sorry for you loss
    • ConspiracyFact 2y ago
      My condolences.
  • mnky9800n 2y ago
    Yes. The season is so long it gets boring tbh. I never watch the season to begin with only the playoffs but a big reason is there’s so many games it’s not really interesting to watch that many games. But if it was half as long and half as many games in the season I probably would watch every one.
    • imbnwa 2y ago
      How much of the NBA economy is predicated on those regular season ticket and arena sales? And despite viewership dropping off, it isn't zero so the ad money lost is still a thing too isn't it, unless they charge more?
• 11101010001100 2y ago
  Once I realized that I could use gillespie's algorithm to model a basketball game, I felt like I was 'trading on the inside'.
• meisel 2y ago
  This article presents a readable overview of today’s NBA trends, but IMO is too absolute in its judgment. Basketball is not a solved sport. There is still innovation, for example with OKC’s historically good defense that relies on playing 5 smaller but faster players. There are still good all-around players. There are still people that hit a lot of mid range shots. We have trends going the other way, sure, but they have their own set of tradeoffs and are neither a total solution nor totally embraced in the NBA. Teams will continue to evolve based on the talents of people at their disposal and their own innovative ideas.
  • anon84873628 2y ago
    It seems like a very brief and abrupt article. I can understand the part about strategy of three pointers. But how does all the technology and analytics actually change the game, besides "improving form"? Has it allowed better calculation shots with the best odds for a given player? Has it discovered other team's weaknesses to exploit? Etc
    • HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Analytics leads to teams converging on the same strategy, at least on offense. The data makes it clear that you should almost never being taking mid rangers or running iso sets. So now those plays are gone from the game.
  • dang 2y ago
    Ok, we removed the solved part from the title above.
    • necovek 2y ago
      I think that's unfortunate: the article still has that title, and knowing it wants to lead to such an absolute conclusion can tell a prospective reader if they are interested to be led down that path or not.
      • dang 2y ago
• threemux 2y ago
  This happens at times in all sports. The NFL is a prime example. QBs were lighting up big, heavy defenses with deep passes. Then teams ran two high safeties to prevent this. This year, offenses adjusted again to run more against the smaller linebackers and nickel/dime packages.
  • skippyboxedhero 2y ago
    With the quantification of sport, it has becoming increasingly common for people who only look at the statistics to assume that some global strategic minima has been achieved. In reality, in every competitive invasion-based game strategies adapt. The adaption varies by sport - without going into the weeds, basketball is less random than other invasion sports so there has been typically been a higher premia on player talent so you see high levels of strategic adaption to individual players...by contrast, you don't see this in soccer to the same degree, apart from the top one or two players - but it happens all the same. For some reason, the assumption is that without quantification none of this stuff would be obvious...but if you look at the history of almost every invasion sport there have been strategic adaptions over years/decades/centuries because this stuff is obvious to people playing it. To be clear, this doesn't happen in non-invasion sports. There is no strategic adaption so you see interesting things like the ability to compare statistical records over long periods (to a certain degree, over very long periods the rules often change and there can be adaption due to generally increasing physical capacity of athletes). In other words, there is always someone who wants to spoil the fun. The beauty of invasion games is that there is no global minima (and there is a profound lack of joy in non-invasion sports when someone has a higher level than the competition, and just annihilates everyone every match).
• jordanmorgan10 2y ago
  This reads as someone who looks at data but doesn’t actually play basketball, coach basketball or generally know basketball. Numbers can only tell you so much, and 2025 Celtics and the rise of Steph have led to more 3s but the sport of basketball is not as predictable as the author suggests. For example, look at the college game, which doesn’t reflect this trend as much as the NBA does.
  • wsatb 2y ago
    I think they are talking strictly about the NBA. College players are much more inconsistent because they're younger and less experienced. There are not many 20 year olds you can depend on to consistently make 3s. There are also a lot more teams which spreads the talent pool around. In my opinion, it amounts to a more exciting product to watch, even if it's less polished.
    • jordanmorgan10 2y ago
      Yes, I agree. Love the college game. I think people don’t realize how talented NBA players really are, which sounds crazy to type - but I believe its true.
    • SoftTalker 2y ago
      There probably are as many 20 year old college kids who can hit threes as there are pros who can hit them, but they are spread over many more teams. Unless you have a correctable mechanical problem with your shot, the ability to hit a three point basket is more of a natural ability than a learned skill. Those guys just have incredibly good hand-eye coordination.
      • darkerside 2y ago
        3 point line is also closer in college
        • SoftTalker 2y ago
          True, but there are college players who can hit from pro range.
• rambambram 2y ago
  I haven't looked at the NBA in more than 20 years and recently started watching it again. I was shocked. Not necessarily by all the three point shots, but more about the carrying of the ball, the multiple extra steps that players take before dunking or laying up, and getting extra free throws when it's the offensive players who rams into a still standing defender. If I want to watch rugby or ice hockey, then I watch rugby or ice hockey, this jumping into defenders has nothing to do with basketball if you'd ask me. And this Donkic trade to the Lakers because of gambling money, ughh... it's an ugly organisation.
  • darkerside 2y ago
    Look up the gather step. Agree on offensive players drawing fouls.
• tclancy 2y ago
  Ah, this is the current grouse about the league, that it is all pace and space and somehow the art is lost. Sports go through eras. I will simply assume the author was not alive to watch Pat Reilly’s Knicks play their version of juego bonito, but while the over reliance on threes can make individual games hard to watch, the league has more talent that I can remember and there are so many fun players. It is bold to declare basketball is now deterministic in Year Two of Wemby and with all the other people capable of doing things we thought unique a generation ago. Plus there are some great minds as coaches right now. I think Spolestra, Daigneault and Mazzula will have something to say about how the game is played.
• legitster 2y ago
  Professional athletes are freaks of nature being given millions of dollars to optimize for the problem. If you give them an unopposed chance to score, you're going to have very unfun sports. The same problem is happening in baseball pitching and football kicking.
• timewizard 2y ago
  Oh. Is that why I don't enjoy watching it at all anymore?
• bmitc 2y ago
  Not a particularly well written article, but I haven't ever really believed that jacking up threes is a global maximum in the basketball optimization problem. For example, if you have a team that posts up in the middle, actually moves the ball around and not just around the perimeter, and utilizes the shot clock well, this is going to wear down a team by forcing them to play rough defense, reducing the effectiveness of the three point shot over the course of the game. Part of the reason of the decline e of interesting basketball is the insane relaxation of rules. Offensive players can travel, carry, flop, ect. all the while knowing that defensive players are handicapped in the contact they can initiate.
• brm 2y ago
  Knowing what to do in a situation and being able to do it in a situation are two different things.
• littlestymaar 2y ago
  > Gone are the days of an all-around player. Yet Wemby is the most hyped young player since LeBron because of his incredible versatility.
• Animats 2y ago
  So Moneyball has come to basketball. Optimize the team, not star power.
• necovek 2y ago
  While there is obvious winning strategy, rule changes around salary caps have already limited any one team's ability to dominate like GSW did for a couple years. They mention Boston Celtics, but they are only a single time champion, and we can see plenty other teams with good chances to beat them. And I'd argue we are moving further away from specialization: now centers are required to shoot 3 pointers at a high clip and high percentage, they have high number of assists (it's not just Jokic, look at Iannis, Sabonis...). And centers need to defend smaller, faster players when switching, just like smaller players need to defend centers.
• grandempire 2y ago
  E sports actually gave me a lot of insight into regular sports which decreased my interest. The real power is with the league, not the players. And they steer the sport to promote business engagement. If the sport is hyper optimized and boring they will change the rules. If teams from smaller markets keep winning they will do what they need to, to help other teams win. Playing sports is a fun activity to get exercise, it’s not worth getting emotionally invested in teams or leagues.
• sandworm101 2y ago
  Teams try to win, but basketball as a sport is entertainment. The opposing teams actually work together to put on a great show for the fans. If those fans don't want to see an endless series of 3-point shots, basketball will indeed change its rules.
• atmosx 2y ago
  > In the end, it’s all about optimizing every ball possession. While I partially agree with the article's stance, you can't optimize for this[^1] or this[^2] because they’re unpredictable—historically great outliers that defy averages and planning. [^1] Luka Doncic WCF G5 against the Twolves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H3bGEXk3GA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H3bGEXk3GA [^2]: Giannis Antetokoumpo scoring 50p in G6 of the 2021 NBA Finals (featuring 17/19 FTs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHPLeWsAQw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHPLeWsAQw4
• jackschultz 2y ago
  Stolen bases in baseball is similar to this. In 2023, MLB made two rule changes with stealing being at all time lows (and them thinking fans love stolen bases): 1) Limiting the number of pickoff attempts by pitchers, and 2) Slight enlarging of the bases. Take a look at the jump[0]. It's been interesting to follow some changes teams have made the past two seasons where teams are figuring out how to better time steals when a pitch is thrown, and which players to go after. For example, pitchers with slow releases and bad catchers. Base running aggressiveness that some teams have been doing as well. The value of going 1st to 3rd on a single is massive and getting speed, and judgement and wanting your players to do that will be more and more valued. I actually searched "base running aggressiveness" to see what articles had to say, and two months ago Statcast put in a new stat called "Net Bases Gained"[1]. Crazy. This mimics the changes in NBA talked about here, where value in players changes over times when new ways of playing show their value. It's kind of like the 4 minute mile though, where until someone went out and was able to run under 4 minutes / make all those 3s / run that aggressive on the base paths / go for it on more 4th downs, teams are scared to be the first. [0] https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SB_leagues.shtml https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SB_leagues.shtml [1] https://www.mlb.com/news/breaking-down-statcast-s-new-baserunning-stats https://www.mlb.com/news/breaking-down-statcast-s-new-baseru...
  • ramoz 2y ago
    I don't really understand the comparison. The game changes with the rules. The meta shifts with the analytics. But stealing bases has long been a science. It was something I admired about college level development of players in the 2000's - stealing bases went from fundamental to advanced and well beyond "just let the fastest guys do their thing." UVA's coach had a saying like "every player on this team will be capable of stealing bases"
    • gfunk911 2y ago
      The comparison IMO is that how baseball is played changed over time as teams optimized, and some of those changes are undesirable from the perspective of an entertainment product. So MLB changed the rules to increase plays at the margin that are on average considered "more exciting." Every league does this of course, NBA did it just last year with the stealth rule changes around fouls.
• refulgentis 2y ago
  This has many "not even wrong" observations, and if it was, is so surface-level as to be meaningless regardless. It'd be like reading how software engineering has evolved into a game of prompting AI.
• deeg 2y ago
  I play and watch a lot of basketball and this article seems to be written by someone who doesn't do either. The idea that players are more specialized is wrong. In the 90s there were plenty of defense-only players like Denis Rodman and Ben Wallace; they might not start in today's NBA, let alone make all-star teams, because they are too one-dimensional. A good counter to these arguments is made on the Thinking Basketball podcast. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fp4but75EjY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fp4but75EjY
  • m2024 2y ago
    [dead]
  • darkerside 2y ago
    Disagree. Also watch and play a lot. And also think the article is poorly written, amateur analysis FWIW. That said, Wallace was 2000s, not 90s, and they were specialists whose exception proved the rule. Basketball then was much more positional, so you did have specialists in that you expected your PF to rebound, your SG to shoot, etc. Considering the modern game is much more positionless, it is surprising that in relation that foundation, there is much so much more focus on specialized skills (3pt shooting, wing defense, paint protection, offensive rebounding). Also agree that Thinking Basketball is a terrific podcast.
  • TeaBrain 2y ago
    This blog post was likely inspired by an article published by Bloomberg yesterday, about how basketball had fallen into an efficiency trap, centered around avoiding mid-range shots in favor of threes and high percentage close range shots.
• hardwaregeek 2y ago
  Thinking Basketball is one of my favorite resources for basketball analysis. He recently made a video debunking myths about the modern game [1]. While yes, there’s far more analytics and knowledge in the game, it hasn’t lead to monotony or poor quality. It’s instead resulted in a Cambrian explosion of tactics, counter tactics, and really diverse team strategies. But the commentary and analysis in mainstream basketball hasn’t caught up, so your average viewer is watching a chess match but not even understanding the basic moves. Which leads to frustration and confusion. [1]: https://youtu.be/fp4but75EjY?si=YdOqZZ5-sH6lQHd9 https://youtu.be/fp4but75EjY?si=YdOqZZ5-sH6lQHd9
  • gfunk911 2y ago
    I love the modern game. I just think the pendulum has swung a tiny bit too far toward 3s in the past 3-4 years, that's all. Just a nudge in the other direction. My ideal would be to try changing 2s and 3s to 3s and 4s. But that will never happen.
    • twolf910616 2y ago
      agree it'll never happen, but very cool idea.
    • pgm8705 2y ago
      I think it would be enough to simply move the 3 point line back a couple feet AND have it follow its natural arc out of bounds, thus eliminating the shorter and easier corner 3 shot.
      • bdangubic 2y ago
        couple of feet is not enough. the line needs to move far enough such that vast majority of the players (more than 95%) shoot less than 30% from there. so probably 8 to 10 feet back. absolutely should happen but they will likely do something awesome like shortening quarters to 10 minutes
        • 2y ago
• Tarsul 2y ago
  The point about 3 pointer shots being worth more than 2 pointer shots is generally true. However, in the playoffs, when the going gets tough, usually the jitters set in and the teams hit a lot less 3 pointers than in the regular season. Especially with the season on the line in endgames[1]. Which means: In those cases easy baskets and also mid-range shots (from people who are used to making those) regain their importance. Thus, if you have your playoffs in mind, don't forget to plan for those middies! [1]the worst were the conference finals 2018 game 7s: Cavs (9/35); Celtics (7/39). Rockets (9/44); Warriors (9/33).
  • BoiledCabbage 2y ago
    > However, in the playoffs, when the going gets tough, usually the jitters set in and the teams hit a lot less 3 pointers than in the regular season. Is that stats based or anecdotal? Link to random person on reddit, but it seems like shooting percentage overall drops due to getting rid of bad teams in the playoffs. And 3pt and fg are affected equally. By about 1% - ie not that much. https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/12luk37/oc_how_does_playoff_basketball_differ_from_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/12luk37/oc_how_does_pl...
    • darkerside 2y ago
      You'd expect shooting percentage to go up based on bad teams dropping out. Elite offensive teams have a much higher increase in shooting percentage over replacement than even an elite defensive team can reduce an opponent's shooting percentage. But, the game slows down, and everyone plays defense more aggressively, which might account for the change described here.
• pfisherman 2y ago
  This article was written by someone who has very little knowledge or appreciation of the history of the game. The NBA has always been a league of specialists revolving around a few superstars with a couple of “glue guys” thrown into the mix.
  • darkerside 2y ago
    Honestly, this post comes off that way. Or you have a different timeline of what you consider always. Jordan basically invented the modern superstar. Sure, you had the Wilts and Dr J's back in the day, but they dominated based on their talent, not because the game was meticulously planned around maximizing their specific capabilities.
    • myvoiceismypass 2y ago
      Not to discount Jordan in any way - but Nike and all the marketing behind him with the shoes was a big part of becoming the first modern superstar. He won championships many years later.
    • pfisherman 2y ago
      Basketball is not football. It is a five man game where one player can have an outsized impact. Superstars not only impact the makeup of their teams roster, they impact the composition of rosters across the league. When Shaq was in his prime teams used to carry extra big men to have more fouls to give. The most recent iteration of the league was teams going for small ball with three point shooting wings to compete with the Warriors. Right now you see serious contenders in the western conference going for size to make it past Jokic. The next iteration will be the Wemby stoppers. Before Wilt and Dr J you had Oscar Robertson, Pistol Pete Maravich, Jerry West, Rick Barry, George Milan, etc. The league has always revolved around stars.
      • darkerside 2y ago
        Yup, can't disagree with any of that! I do think the modern game has specialized a bit more beyond star stoppers, but that's kind of a natural part of the evolving meta game in any long running competition. It'll be fun to see what Wemby stoppers could possibly look like.
• streptomycin 2y ago
  Danny Green is probably the father of [the 3-and-D] model, with his 40% career three-point field goal percentage and he also made into all-defensive team. Obviously people shot fewer 3s back then, but as far as I remember, Bruce Bowen was really the first 3-and-D player back in the 90s. Gone are the days of an all-around player. There is no longer a need for a player who does everything. Look at players like Kobe Bryant and Lebron James (early career); they not only scored but guarded defense, caught rebounds and played the role of playmakers. Not sure how true that is. People sometimes call the modern style "heliocentric" - one star who makes the offense work, surrounded by a bunch of role players. These star players often do basically everything, albeit most are better at some things than others. But that's always been true, stars in the old days were not always perfectly balanced. And stars these days have a ton of variability. Look at the best players in the league - Jokic, Shai, Giannis, Luka, Embiid (when healthy..) - those guys all play very different styles of basketball, and that's awesome! But I do agree with the overall point of the article. I find it annoying when I'm watching a game and so many possessions there's just not much happening. A couple passes around the perimeter, someone jacks up a moderately contested 3, rinse and repeat. Not the most exciting basketball. That doesn't happen every play, and there's still plenty of exciting plays and players, but it happens a lot more than it used to.
  • gfunk911 2y ago
    One of my favorite ridiculous stats. Bruce Bowen had one year where he shot better from 3 than he did on free throws. He was a dreadful shooter, but somehow he taught himself to be passable at this one specific skill, corner 3s.
  • The_Blade 2y ago
    Danny Green is not the father of the 3-and-d model, he's like the great nephew. Not only Bruce Bowen but you also have Shane Battier, and can also go back to Michael Cooper. Usage rates also show there is still plenty of heliocentrism so Copernicus remains happy
    • lawgimenez 2y ago
      And Robert Horry too or sometimes Pippen.
• andrepd 2y ago
  We see this a lot in football as well. Some say it's "lost its flair", I still can't tell if it's rose tinted glasses or if truly something was lost in with the omnipresence of data-driven optimisation. I tend towards the latter.
• mmooss 2y ago
  The author does not know basketball, either watching or playing, which is evident from their claims and from their language. > Players are no longer do-it-alls; they are now given specialized roles. > they not only scored but guarded defense, caught rebounds and played the role of playmakers. Anyone who even watches games would instinctively use different language. Nobody in basketball speaks this way. As far as the veracity, I'd really need to see some data. First, nothing in cutting edge, 3-and-D basketball says to stop playing defense. Defense is the D in 3-and-D. As just one counter-example to the author's claims, big players - centers and power forwards - have become more generalized. Instead of just playing near the basket on offense and defense, many now handle the ball, pass, and also shoot from outside - the old-style guys who lack those skills have taken big pay cuts. The primary ball-handler for the author's local Golden State Warriors is Draymond Green, their center. The best player in the world is a center renowned especially for their passing, Nikola Jokic. Wing players (small forwards and shooting guards) do it all. The local Golden State Warriors also have Steph Curry, the best shooter ever and an excellent ball-handler and passer. And they recently acquired Jimmy Butler, an all-star all-around player; here is the coach: "Jimmy, he's a real deal," Kerr said. "I mean, just a complete basketball player, methodical, under control all the time, plays at his own pace, never turns it over, sees the game and then can get to the line frequently. Great closer, not in the traditional sense where he's going to be Kevin Durant and make four straight midrange jumpers, but it's more of a complete game. Get to the line, make the right pass, get somebody else an open look, get a defensive stop, get a rebound. He's a fantastic player." https://abc7news.com/post/warriors-draymond-green-calls-new-teammate-jimmy-butler-franchise-changer/15904858/ https://abc7news.com/post/warriors-draymond-green-calls-new-... What's changed in the NBA is that 3-point shooting has become more valued, partly supported by analytics, partly because Steph Curry redefined what is possible for 3-point shooting for both playing and for being a star: Before Curry, every kid wanted to be Michael Jordan or others who made miraculous drives to the basket through crowds; after Curry, kids were heaving up shots from ridiculous distances, just like their hero. You won't be surprised to learn that many people say, 'it's not like the old days', and are debating changing the rules to make everyone play like they did 20 years ago. Supporting my theory of the author, here is their bio (https://nabraj.com/ https://nabraj.com/) > Hi, I'm NT (Nabaraj T), a full-stack engineer in Northern California. ... ten years of professional experience > Besides software development, my interests are in embedded circuits and astronomy. I have started my startup to research space technologies. When not tangled with 1s and 0s, I usually watch football, cheering on Chelsea.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• asimpletune 2y ago
  I think this article doesn’t do the sport justice. Modern basketball is amazing and light years ahead of where it was even ten years ago. Watch “explain one play” on YouTube and you’ll begin to understand how much thought goes into even 5 seconds of normal basketball. The craziest part is how teams now days know how to punish a mistake, and virtually every point comes from very slight mistakes happening. Being too slow to close out, miscommunication on the dribble handoff, size mismatch, etc… in this way it’s like chess where you make threats but they’re just threats until your opponent commits an error. You still have to be able to punish the error. A big conversation I see now days is what’s “wrong” with the modern nba, with too many 3’s being the most common refrain. That’s silly. I will tell you what’s actually wrong about the nba. They’re playing the most amazing basketball the worlds ever seen, but the entertainment ecosystem around them hasn’t changed at all. Literally they just talk about the stupidest stuff, like who’s the GOAT, instead of actually educating their audiences about the incredible level of play that exists now days. You could argue that people aren’t interested in seeing that, but I don’t think we will ever know until it’s been tried. Instead, sports pundits are just being negative about the sport and filling the airwaves with low effort, toxic cliches while providing zero information about the brilliance we’re seeing. As to why I think people would actually care to know, I think it’s because once you’re exposed to this stuff it sticks and then you can’t unsee it. You start to notice the patterns and enjoy the game again. So anyways sorry for the rant but it drives me nuts. Basketball is so cool right now once you start to get what you’re actually seeing and players can be so smart too. It’s amazing.
  • Cockbrand 2y ago
    Wow, I hadn't watched basketball in ages, so I followed your recommendation and watched a random "Explain one Play" video [0]. The narration is excellent, and if all games contain amazing stuff like this one, I may just start watching NBA in the future (or at least follow that YT channel). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwp-NAPFqAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwp-NAPFqAo
  • branko_d 2y ago
    I agree. As someone who watched Magic, Bird and MJ in their prime, I think the modern basketball is at much higher level of both skill and athleticism. The level of "4D chess" going on is incredible and very enjoyable to watch! I do not like the bullying aspect of it though. Offensive players are ramming straight into defenders, shoving the them mid-jump to get a rebound etc.
• mooreds 2y ago
  Wish OP had presented some data beyond "people are shooting more threes". From the bit of basketball youtube I've watched, there seems to be a bevy of data. I roll my eyes a bit at announcements like "he's the first person ever to have X points, Y assists and Z steals in 3 quarters" but they are pulling that data from somewhere. Would be really interesting to read about team records when they field a bunch of specialized players vs generalized players (due to injuries or foul trouble). That would be far more convincing.
• xdavidliu 2y ago
  > In the past, the team built its roster around a big name like Shaq. Most of the offense were from the center. This is the first time I've ever heard this. > they not only scored but guarded defense, caught rebounds and played the role of playmakers. This is also the first time I've ever heard the phrases "guarded defense" and "caught rebounds".
• rurban 2y ago
  > The Golden State Warriors, led by Stephen Curry, probably jump-started this trend with 34 three-pointer attempts per game in the 2018-19 season, twice as much from five years ago. No, it was Daryll Morey's Houston Rockets around the James Harden era, who started advanced analytics player selection and shot selection. They started with enormous video analytics and Morey runs the yearly Analytics Sports Conference. Moreyball was way more advanced than Moneyball. You go by the three and die by the three. He still didn't win a championship though.
• layer8 2y ago
  Sean Carroll had an interesting podcast episode with Daryl Morey on that topic (among others): https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/03/15/138-daryl-morey-on-analytics-psychology-and-basketball/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/03/15/138-...
• bentt 2y ago
  This article has reduced it too far. Yes, the game has gotten optimized... for the moment. However a few years ago the complaint was that it was only about 3s. Now it's about 3s... and defense... and floor spread... and layups... and small ball... and big men who can shoot the three... and rim protectors... and it goes on and on. There's no one thing and the number of combinations of tactics, players, and circumstances make it pretty dynamic. If there's any problem with basketball right now it's that Adam Silver is trying too many radical things and leaving history behind in uncomfortable ways. I mean, he's talking about going to 10 minute quarters! That will invalidate basically every record ever. I could go on and on, but the NBA game itself is not broken.
• exabrial 2y ago
  I find basketball (College and NBA) incredibly hard to watch. Beyond the basic necessary ball handling skills, the games are largely decided by the acting for the refs. I much prefer the street ball route: make it a contact sport and stop the flopping.