3 point shots

[SlyPokerDog]

Not to mention white people.

We can use the cameras to raise and lower the basket based on the color of the person shooting.

 

[dviss1]

You been drinking?

You need to start making better sense Denny.

This is a kids game. They have to use a lighter ball until 7th grade. Making this children's game harder for the children is just silly.

11 foot rims is jumping the shark.

 

[Denny Crane]

You need to start making better sense Denny.

This is a kids game. They have to use a lighter ball until 7th grade. Making this children's game harder for the children is just silly.

11 foot rims is jumping the shark.

The kids here play on courts (and playgrounds) that are smaller and the baskets aren’t even 10’.

So what is the problem?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Damn, Denny is trying to make basketball like healthcare.

Only rich white people get the industry standard.

 

[dviss1]

The kids here play on courts (and playgrounds) that are smaller and the baskets aren’t even 10’.

So what is the problem?

Not my kid. Not most kids. If you're in 3rd grade and up, playing competitively, you practice and play on 10s. It's hard enough for a 5th grader to shoot on a 10 with a regulation ball.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

If you really want to end the endless "fouling for possession" (aka: blatant hacking) and resulting parade to the FT line that causes the last 2 minutes of playing time stretch out to half an hour in real time, just make the penalty for fouling in the last two minutes progressively worse. After x fouls, the player being fouled gets 3 FTs (not the old 3 to make 2, but 3 FTs regardless of how many they make). After y fouls, you get 4 FTs. If you're dumb enough to get to z fouls, it goes up to 5 FTs.

X, y and z can either be based on team fouls in the 4th quarter (my preference - I don't want teams saving up fouls for the last two minutes) or team fouls in the last two minutes. If you want to claw your way back into the game, how about playing some actual defense, rather than hoping and relying on the inept FT shooting of your opponent.

BNM

It sounds like you're assuming that the players who play today would continue to play under these rules - I very much doubt it. DeAndre Jordan and many other poor FT shooters would simply be out of the league - teams would make it so that there was no one to foul.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Keep the 3pt shot.

Widen and lengthen the court.

Raise the basket a foot.

The players have grown in size and are faster and stronger. The dimensions of the court and height of the basket really need to be adjusted to match.

Raising the basket would absolutely bring back the post up game. The 3pt shot keeps it so the 5’9” guys can still play and make a difference.

(They should similarly make the NFL fields wider/longer, too).

Make it a 15 foot hoop. Players nowadays are getting up way too easy!

 

[Denny Crane]

Not my kid. Not most kids. If you're in 3rd grade and up, playing competitively, you practice and play on 10s. It's hard enough for a 5th grader to shoot on a 10 with a regulation ball.

Raise the basket in the NBA. I didn't talk about raising it anywhere else.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

Raise the basket in the NBA. I didn't talk about raising it anywhere else.

No offense but this is a dumb idea. If I wanted this sort of action I’d watch the WNBA. Why would you want to turn the NBA into that?

 

[Denny Crane]

No offense but this is a dumb idea. If I wanted this sort of action I’d watch the WNBA. Why would you want to turn the NBA into that?

It wouldn't be the WNBA.

The bigs inside wouldn't be able to goal tend as easily. Getting inside shots would mean a lot more because they're truly higher percentage shots.

The basket was 10' when starting PFs were 6'5", and it was fine. Now that your SG's are 6'9", everything about the game has gotten bigger except for the height of the basket and size of the court.

I've thought the basket should be raised since the 1980s, and there were plenty of back to the basket/post PFs and Cs in those days. And the 3pt shot.

As the game is now, it's pass around the perimeter and try to get your 3pt shooting guy picked onto a lesser defender and hoist up long shots.

 

[dviss1]

It wouldn't be the WNBA.

The bigs inside wouldn't be able to goal tend as easily. Getting inside shots would mean a lot more because they're truly higher percentage shots.

The basket was 10' when starting PFs were 6'5", and it was fine. Now that your SG's are 6'9", everything about the game has gotten bigger except for the height of the basket and size of the court.

I've thought the basket should be raised since the 1980s, and there were plenty of back to the basket/post PFs and Cs in those days. And the 3pt shot.

As the game is now, it's pass around the perimeter and try to get your 3pt shooting guy picked onto a lesser defender and hoist up long shots.

This doesn't sound very libertarian. Sounds tyrannical.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

The basket was 10' when starting PFs were 6'5", and it was fine.

Were the 1950's your favorite decade of the NBA or something? Make the court a bit bigger maybe, but 10' is good.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Increase course size. Agreed (but I don't think it would ever happen). Move out 3 pt line after. Agreed. That is as far as I would go though. Everything else is turning it into Looney Toons unless you do it at all other levels as well (which ain't happening).

 

[dviss1]

Increase course size. Agreed (but I don't think it would ever happen). Move out 3 pt line after. Agreed. That is as far as I would go though. Everything else is turning it into Looney Toons unless you do it at all other levels as well (which ain't happening).

I don't think they should touch the Swish3 line. When the shooting 40% from there is stellar, why do we want to see more missed shots? It's just dumb.

 

[Denny Crane]

Were the 1950's your favorite decade of the NBA or something? Make the court a bit bigger maybe, but 10' is good.

I don't have a favorite decade.

I have been watching NBA basketball since the 1960s, though. The first game I went to was the Baltimore Bullets vs. the New York Knicks. Clyde Frazier was the star of the Knicks and Earl Monroe was the star of the Bullets. Monroe later went to the Knicks and teamed with Frazer to form one of the great guard tandems of that era.

I do find passing the ball around the perimeter until someone hoists a 3pt shot a boring kind of basketball. The lack of fundamentals among the players is quite evident watching the games. Defense is now running at guys standing beyond the 3pt line while they shoot.

The NBA is literally selecting players for the length of their arms, height, and agility. Those traits do make the basket too low and the court too small.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

I don't think they should touch the Swish3 line. When the shooting 40% from there is stellar, why do we want to see more missed shots? It's just dumb.

I just wanted an excuse to use this meme:

 

[BrianFromWA]

Make 3 on the Blazers court, then post.

I actually hit a corner 3 on the first attempt before a game at the HS State Championships on the Sonics court at Key Arena. A few guys on the rest of the team saw it, and I walked away like the "Cool Guys don't look at explosions" video.

Never tried again. Not at MODA, not in ORL,

 

[SportsAndWhine]

I don't think they should touch the Swish3 line. When the shooting 40% from there is stellar, why do we want to see more missed shots? It's just dumb.

From a game balance standpoint, if I were a game designer trying to make a balanced game, I'd want a 2-pointer and a 3-pointer to be worth roughly the same, just with different risk/reward profiles. I'd say right now, they are perfect. 3-pointers are worth a bit more up front, but if you include Free Throws, and how they're more common if you're in the paint, then it all balances out.

Right now, from a rules balance perspective, the NBA might be perfect for the next 3-5 years. The talent distribution is kind of messed up, though.

 

[dviss1]

From a game balance standpoint, if I were a game designer trying to make a balanced game, I'd want a 2-pointer and a 3-pointer to be worth roughly the same, just with different risk/reward profiles. I'd say right now, they are perfect. 3-pointers are worth a bit more up front, but if you include Free Throws, and how they're more common if you're in the paint, then it all balances out.

Right now, from a rules balance perspective, the NBA might be perfect for the next 3-5 years. The talent distribution is kind of messed up, though.

Great post rook!!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yeah, I don't mind at all where the game is. Coaches are still at various levels of dealing with the game, and that's a competitive advantage for smart teams. I'm always on the side of people creating advantages, be that Moneyball-level GMing or taking what the opponent gives you to make your odds of winning go up.

As RookWhine said, it's pretty close right now. For every Morey-ball (see what I did there? ) "let's shoot 70 3's a game and see what happens" gimmick, there's Phil Jackson stubbornly clinging to Melo shooting 18' jumpers. The Princeton offense went the way of the dodo for a while, but Stotts' multiple-motion system incorporates many of the same principles. 3pt shooting is at a premium because many people thought for a long time that 35% from 3 was much much worse than 50% from 2, because you're missing a bunch more shots.

I like where the game is, and b/c it's a competitive league self-correction will occur if things get too out of whack one way or another.

 

[dviss1]

All these proposed rule changes remind me of @Boob-No-More's post. They seem to be a reaction to dealing with super teams.

Rasta is a bit far out when talking about getting rid of the 3 pointer.... Bruh... C'mon.. Fuck GSW... We don't need to change the game so drastically because they shoot a lot of Swish3s.

There simply needs to be more parity and they need to find out how to achieve that.

But here's the deal; Golden state followed the exact same model we should:

1. Build through the draft.
2. Draft well.
3. Farm up our guys.
4. And then a FA will come.

Like ANYONE wouldn't recruit and sign Durant. If you had any chance of getting him, you'd be a fool not to try.

 

[blue9]

This is just wrong. It's not giving the advantage at all. Move your feet. You should not be able to hold someone. This ain't football.

MFs want handchecking but don't want to be handchecked...

I realize that there are 4 more pages of comments, so maybe this has already been hashed out. But I suspect that BR is saying that it's fine to take away hand checking, but you've also gotta take away shooter-initiated contact. If the shooter jumps into the defender that should be an offensive foul, but 99% of the time they give the shooter free throws. That's some bullshit and it's gotta stop.

Any unnatural shooting motion designed to draw contact should receive a technical foul.

 

[dviss1]

I realize that there are 4 more pages of comments, so maybe this has already been hashed out. But I suspect that BR is saying that it's fine to take away hand checking, but you've also gotta take away shooter-initiated contact. If the shooter jumps into the defender that should be an offensive foul, but 99% of the time they give the shooter free throws. That's some bullshit and it's gotta stop.

Any unnatural shooting motion designed to draw contact should receive a technical foul.

Spoken like someone who's never reffed a game. Sorry if I offend but that's a pretty ridiculous take:

There are 2 questions that must be asked on a block/charge call. The first question that's asked in a block/charge call is:

Is the defender legal?

Do you know what the definition of a legal defender is?

The 2nd question you ask is:

Did the offensive player go To & Through the defender?

If you get affirmative answers to both questions, it's a charge.

Any negative answers result in a block.

 

[BrianFromWA]

dviss, didn't the league go through this with the Durant up-and-under motion that got called as a defensive foul for a year or two? How is that different than what blue just said...(excepting the T, of course). Did the 3rd ref have to start watching different parts of the action?

 

[blue9]

Spoken like someone who's never reffed a game. Sorry if I offend but that's a pretty ridiculous take:

There are 2 questions that must be asked on a block/charge call. The first question that's asked in a block/charge call is:

Is the defender legal?

Do you know what the definition of a legal defender is?

The 2nd question you ask is:

Did the offensive player go To & Through the defender?

If you get affirmative answers to both questions, it's a charge.

Any negative answers result in a block.

I have never reffed a game - you are correct. I do know what legal defense is...and the NBA sucks at calling it.
But mostly, I think you're taking my sentence that you bolded too literally. You've gotta know what I'm talking about. It's mostly seen on jump shots where the shooter jumps into a defender that's in the air - if they had jumped naturally there'd be no contact, but they go into an unnatural shooting motion in order to create contact. It's fucking bullshit, not basketball, and a disgrace to the game.
it also happens when players like Harden/CP3 drive and feel any sort of contact, so they lean into the contact and flail while throwing the ball somewhat in the direction of the basket. It's not a legit shot and should be punished severely.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

There are 2 questions that must be asked on a block/charge call. The first question that's asked in a block/charge call is:

Is the defender legal?

Do you know what the definition of a legal defender is?

The 2nd question you ask is:

Did the offensive player go To & Through the defender?

If you get affirmative answers to both questions, it's a charge.

Any negative answers result in a block.

Just need to clarify: based on the above, it sounds like you're saying that

• if the defender is legal (yes to question 1), and
• the shooter goes into but not through the defender (no to question 2),
• that it's a defensive foul
  • (based on the last sentence: "Any negative answers result in a block").

Shouldn't that be a no call?

 

[dviss1]

I have never reffed a game - you are correct. I do know what legal defense is...and the NBA sucks at calling it.
But mostly, I think you're taking my sentence that you bolded too literally. You've gotta know what I'm talking about. It's mostly seen on jump shots where the shooter jumps into a defender that's in the air - if they had jumped naturally there'd be no contact, but they go into an unnatural shooting motion in order to create contact. It's fucking bullshit, not basketball, and a disgrace to the game.
it also happens when players like Harden/CP3 drive and feel any sort of contact, so they lean into the contact and flail while throwing the ball somewhat in the direction of the basket. It's not a legit shot and should be punished severely.

If you don't know what a legal defender is, how can you say they suck at calling it?

I watched that HOU/GSW game and lord the officials did a great job (save a flagrant 1 call). They called traveling. They didn't reward EITHER flopper.

I'm super critical of NBA refs and I thought they were pretty spot on last night. Again, if you can't define legal guarding position, how do you know they suck?

NBA refs do a solid job of calling Block/Charge when they have their positioning right.

 

[dviss1]

Just need to clarify: based on the above, it sounds like you're saying that

• if the defender is legal (yes to question 1), and
• the shooter goes into but not through the defender (no to question 2),
• that it's a defensive foul
  • (based on the last sentence: "Any negative answers result in a block").

Shouldn't that be a no call?

Thanks for the clarification.

It would be a no call. Marginal contact is not a foul.

 

[blue9]

If you don't know what a legal defender is, how can you say they suck at calling it?

I watched that HOU/GSW game and lord the officials did a great job (save a flagrant 1 call). They called traveling. They didn't reward EITHER flopper.

I'm super critical of NBA refs and I thought they were pretty spot on last night. Again, if you can't define legal guarding position, how do you know they suck?

NBA refs do a solid job of calling Block/Charge when they have their positioning right.

Learn to read, then respond!

(I said I DO know what legal defense is.)

 

[dviss1]

Learn to read, then respond!

(I said I DO know what legal defense is.)

I did miss that but it's not called ”legal defense".

It's called a legal guarding position. And based upon your answer I'm not sure you know how that is defined.