Western Conference Finals: #1 Warriors vs. #3 Thunder
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
put pressure on the NBA to make it more difficult. Which I do through various other mediums.
Actually Napear of all people had a good starter idea -- get rid of the corner three cheat. Continue the arc into the sidelines so all threes are the same distance. you simultaneously get rid of guys who can't hit form the true distance, and dramatically shorten the three point area of the court that has to be defended, thus giving the defense a much better chance to interfere with a three point bombing attack.
Actually Napear of all people had a good starter idea -- get rid of the corner three cheat. Continue the arc into the sidelines so all threes are the same distance. you simultaneously get rid of guys who can't hit form the true distance, and dramatically shorten the three point area of the court that has to be defended, thus giving the defense a much better chance to interfere with a three point bombing attack.
No, it too is the right approach. Its just reached the level of an exploit now. Your way of playing has been artificially inflated to be counted as 1 1/2 times as valuable as everybody else's way of playing. A league mandated rule run amok created the situation. Its going to be up to the league to correct it.
Is there something new about the three? Ruined the game? It is the game, a rule, both teams play buy, either team is permitted to use the play, at the end of the game the ne with most points wins. Just think, somebody 25 years ago snuck up on us and changed the rule. I get your point, you don't like the way the game is played now. So you want to change it. Good luck, and, oh yes, also, players used to get paid 10 cents on the dollar. Try changing that now. The Warriors have won because they are a nicely oiled team.
K
It all comes back to DMC on this forum I think the notion is that if GSW win it's not good for DMC since it goes against "big man isolation" type ball (which due to plenty of factors has not worked for us) which he plays it's why a lot of people on the forum seem to be desperate for the Warriors to lose.
But that area of the court is where most stepping out of bounds turnovers occur than anywhere else - Peja-vu?! To push the arch to so-called true distance each corner would probably not be something NBA would go for, creating even more turnover congestion. I'm not sure what to do with insane proliferation of jacking threes. I hate it as the game is simply boring one-dimensional much of the time. My #1 suggestion overall is to widen court by several feet. The players are so much bigger, faster now, than back in the day. Expanded real estate would allow more player/ball movement, not less. Probably open up basket for more interior passing, mid-range shooting with some sanity restored, instead of more trigger happy bombs 'til you drop 3 point barrage after 3 point barrage.
The reason the 3 is worth more is because if it wasn't, then fewer teams would be taking threes. Let's think about that for a second. Fewer threes means more defenders in the paint. Why defend the the "3" if its worth the same as a 2, but a lower percentage shot? What do you think that will do to DMC's game and overall points in the paint when you have congestion in the lane?
You even see it in today's game where teams won't even defend 16-23 ft when you can just let the opposition take a lower percentage shot for the same amount of points.
You even see it in today's game where teams won't even defend 16-23 ft when you can just let the opposition take a lower percentage shot for the same amount of points.
I look at the 3pt as a circus skill, and do not like GSW attack style and I am mildly rooting for OKC, however..... they won the last game on defense and more.
It was a guilty pleasure watching them destroy on defense Durant and Westbrook in the final minutes. I liked their whole team attitude throughout the game without giving up while OKC choked.
GSW would not be where they are if they are relying only on 3pt. The defense and team spirit they have is something that I wish Kings will have one day.
It was a guilty pleasure watching them destroy on defense Durant and Westbrook in the final minutes. I liked their whole team attitude throughout the game without giving up while OKC choked.
GSW would not be where they are if they are relying only on 3pt. The defense and team spirit they have is something that I wish Kings will have one day.
That's far more revolutionary than simply making the 3pt stripe a universal distance. Certainly wouldn't solve everything, but it would take a bite out of it in natural fashion. The corner three is unnatural, the result of the NBA dickering with the arc so they could have their distance and their corner threes too. I think its the only three point line in the world that isn't actually an arc.
on a major shooter like Klay that creates this:
Its not going to end 3pt shooting, but it does cut down on maybe 20-25% of it from the highest percentages/shortest distances. And defending against 3pt attacks gets more practical as you can just focus your personnel to the arc up top without the short corner vulnerabilities. Also makes it more practical to play true bigs who don't have to be as adept at racing out to the corners.
on a major shooter like Klay that creates this:
Its not going to end 3pt shooting, but it does cut down on maybe 20-25% of it from the highest percentages/shortest distances. And defending against 3pt attacks gets more practical as you can just focus your personnel to the arc up top without the short corner vulnerabilities. Also makes it more practical to play true bigs who don't have to be as adept at racing out to the corners.
I can't speak for everyone else, but, for me, it isn't just the Warriors and I already stated that. I even said that I didn't care if it was the Kings winning the way the Warriors and some other teams are now --- I don't care to see a 3 pt shootout and/or a game of HORSE during what is supposed to be a game of basketball. That's what pregame shootarounds and All-Star weekend are for.
And the Warriors aren't ruining "team" basketball, as they actually move, cut and pass more that anybody else. It's the volume of threes and quick, off balance shots (often 2-5 feet behind the line) that isn't basketball. Sure, they make a lot of those shots -- but they miss a lot of them too as evidenced by the 30+ point beat downs they received in this series.
But of course they are going to win most the time when stupid coaches and teams try to match them by playing the same way. The reason OKC had and has a shot to win this series is because they have, for the most part, resisted matching up with Golden State and played to their own strengths. If more teams started doing that consistently, it will probably change the game yet again.
And the Warriors aren't ruining "team" basketball, as they actually move, cut and pass more that anybody else. It's the volume of threes and quick, off balance shots (often 2-5 feet behind the line) that isn't basketball. Sure, they make a lot of those shots -- but they miss a lot of them too as evidenced by the 30+ point beat downs they received in this series.
But of course they are going to win most the time when stupid coaches and teams try to match them by playing the same way. The reason OKC had and has a shot to win this series is because they have, for the most part, resisted matching up with Golden State and played to their own strengths. If more teams started doing that consistently, it will probably change the game yet again.
That is actually one of the better ideas I've read.
You mentioned earlier how absurd it is that a shot from 23.9 feet is worth 50% more than a shot a step closer to the basket. Well, the short corner 3 at 22 feet is even more ludicrous. Makes absolutely no sense and I agree that it should be taken out of the game.
At least when the ABA instituted the shot, they had it at 25 ft and not in the corners. That works much better, IMO.
You mentioned earlier how absurd it is that a shot from 23.9 feet is worth 50% more than a shot a step closer to the basket. Well, the short corner 3 at 22 feet is even more ludicrous. Makes absolutely no sense and I agree that it should be taken out of the game.
At least when the ABA instituted the shot, they had it at 25 ft and not in the corners. That works much better, IMO.
Not so good considering every team can sag and dig in on DeMarcus once he touches the ball because they don't respect the shooters/slashers surrounding him.
They simply haven't collected or developed enough talent to surround their best player with. That's the real difference between teams like the Warriors and the Kings. Once the Warriors got Steph, they continued to draft well with the likes of Klay, Draymond, Barnes, etc. while the Kings completely blew it with names I don't even have to list. You know them all.
They simply haven't collected or developed enough talent to surround their best player with. That's the real difference between teams like the Warriors and the Kings. Once the Warriors got Steph, they continued to draft well with the likes of Klay, Draymond, Barnes, etc. while the Kings completely blew it with names I don't even have to list. You know them all.
I understand your stance. We all have our preferences. for example, I hate ISO-ball which became popular during the Jordan era. I hate it today because it is one of the most inefficient ways of scoring and tedious watching a guard dribble the life out of the ball for 15 seconds creating a shot for himself. I don't think that's basketball either, but at the same time, I accept it has a place in the game.
OKC had a chance to close out the game, but instead went back to their kryptonite if hero-ball when they stopped looking for the open teammate.
Houston Rockets are one team that has taken the GSW model to the extreme, and I don't like watching them play just like I don't like watching OKC because they don't pass or move like GSW.
OKC had a chance to close out the game, but instead went back to their kryptonite if hero-ball when they stopped looking for the open teammate.
Houston Rockets are one team that has taken the GSW model to the extreme, and I don't like watching them play just like I don't like watching OKC because they don't pass or move like GSW.
I'm intrigued by the notion that you seem to believe that hatred of the three-point shot is a new phenomenon; some of us have been on this for a while. Speaking just for myself, I've hated the three-point shot since the three-point shot happened. I've been very consistent about that, throughout my posting history here, too.
And, FTR, I'm not the world's biggest fan of how Oklahoma City plays, either; I just dislike them less than I dislike Golden State.
And, FTR, I'm not the world's biggest fan of how Oklahoma City plays, either; I just dislike them less than I dislike Golden State.
Becuase its basically by the rulebook cheating.
Always was. It was just counted on to be too difficult to make a difference. Now it is, and its killing the rest of the game. Don't believe me? Watch these numbers:
Since 1980, year by year, average number of 2pt shots a game, 3pt shots a game, and % of all shots that were threes:
1979-80: 87.88 2PA, 2.77 3PA = 3.1%
1980-81: 86.40 2PA, 2.02 3PA = 2.3%
1981-82: 85.96 2PA, 2.28 3PA = 2.6%
1982-83: 87.40 2PA, 2.26 3PA = 2.5%
1983-84: 85.98 2PA, 2.38 3PA = 2.6%
1984-85: 85.96 2PA, 3.13 3PA = 3.5%
1985-86: 85.29 2PA, 3.34 3PA = 3.8%
1986-87: 84.06 2PA, 4.73 3PA = 5.3%
1987-88: 82.71 2PA, 5.00 3PA = 5.7%
1988-89: 82.41 2PA, 6.55 3PA = 7.4%
1989-90: 80.55 2PA, 6.60 3PA = 7.6%
1990-91: 80.05 2PA, 7.15 3PA = 8.2%
1991-92: 79.72 2PA, 7.63 3PA = 8.7%
1992-93: 77.00 2PA, 8.95 3PA = 10.4%
1993-94: 74.55 2PA, 9.89 3PA = 11.7%
1994-95: 66.18 2PA, 15.30 3PA = 18.8% Shortened Line Experiment (22 foot arc)
1995-96: 64.13 2PA, 16.05 3PA = 20.0% Shortened Line Experiment (22 foot arc)
1996-97: 62.50 2PA, 16.79 3PA = 21.2% Shortened Line Experiment (22 foot arc)
1997-98: 67.00 2PA, 12.70 3PA = 15.9%
1998-99: 65.04 2PA, 13.16 3PA = 16.8%
1999-00: 68.38 2PA, 13.72 3PA = 16.7%
2000-01: 66.89 2PA, 13.71 3PA = 17.0%
2001-02: 66.52 2PA, 14.74 3PA = 18.1%
2002-03: 66.10 2PA, 14.68 3PA = 18.2%
2003-04: 64.89 2PA, 14.93 3PA = 18.7%
2004-05: 64.59 2PA, 15.76 3PA = 19.6%
2005-06: 63.01 2PA, 15.98 3PA = 20.2%
2006-07: 62.77 2PA, 16.94 3PA = 21.3%
2007-08: 63.39 2PA, 18.11 3PA = 22.2%
2008-09: 62.79 2PA, 18.12 3PA = 22.4%
2009-10: 63.57 2PA, 18.13 3PA = 22.2%
2010-11: 63.21 2PA, 18.01 3PA = 22.2%
2011-12: 63.05 2PA, 18.38 3PA = 22.6%
2012-13: 62.00 2PA, 19.95 3PA = 24.4% <-------------- Explosion begins
2013-14: 61.46 2PA, 21.54 3PA = 25.9%
2014-15: 61.15 2PA, 22.41 3PA = 26.8%
2015-16: 60.49 2PA, 24.09 3PA = 28.5%
So when do you sound the alarm? When it hits 1/3 of all shots taken? At the current pace of expansion, that should be 3 years. 1/3 of all shots will be threes. Or do you wait until 40%? 50%? Or do you recognize you have a perverse incentive structure causing an issue and work to head it off before it entirely supplants the rest of the sport?
I refer you to the mid-90s experiment with a shortened 3pt line. It was too effective, causing too big a perversion of the game. Took a decade for threes to catch back up to hose levels after the experiment ended, and until 5 years ago they were holding pretty steady in the low 20% range. High, but seemingly stabilized. But in the last 4 years this explosion has been unprecendented, and it is rapidly shoving out every other approach to the game. The mid-90s explosion showed one thing clearly: this is all about incentives. If you de-incentivize 3pt shooting, you can cut back on its prevelance, carve some room back out for the drivers, the post players, the mid range shooters. But if you don't, the enormous +50% bump you give to 3pt shooting makes it the ultimate weapon, and its rapidly turning a deep and complex sport into a one trick puppy.
Always was. It was just counted on to be too difficult to make a difference. Now it is, and its killing the rest of the game. Don't believe me? Watch these numbers:
Since 1980, year by year, average number of 2pt shots a game, 3pt shots a game, and % of all shots that were threes:
1979-80: 87.88 2PA, 2.77 3PA = 3.1%
1980-81: 86.40 2PA, 2.02 3PA = 2.3%
1981-82: 85.96 2PA, 2.28 3PA = 2.6%
1982-83: 87.40 2PA, 2.26 3PA = 2.5%
1983-84: 85.98 2PA, 2.38 3PA = 2.6%
1984-85: 85.96 2PA, 3.13 3PA = 3.5%
1985-86: 85.29 2PA, 3.34 3PA = 3.8%
1986-87: 84.06 2PA, 4.73 3PA = 5.3%
1987-88: 82.71 2PA, 5.00 3PA = 5.7%
1988-89: 82.41 2PA, 6.55 3PA = 7.4%
1989-90: 80.55 2PA, 6.60 3PA = 7.6%
1990-91: 80.05 2PA, 7.15 3PA = 8.2%
1991-92: 79.72 2PA, 7.63 3PA = 8.7%
1992-93: 77.00 2PA, 8.95 3PA = 10.4%
1993-94: 74.55 2PA, 9.89 3PA = 11.7%
1994-95: 66.18 2PA, 15.30 3PA = 18.8% Shortened Line Experiment (22 foot arc)
1995-96: 64.13 2PA, 16.05 3PA = 20.0% Shortened Line Experiment (22 foot arc)
1996-97: 62.50 2PA, 16.79 3PA = 21.2% Shortened Line Experiment (22 foot arc)
1997-98: 67.00 2PA, 12.70 3PA = 15.9%
1998-99: 65.04 2PA, 13.16 3PA = 16.8%
1999-00: 68.38 2PA, 13.72 3PA = 16.7%
2000-01: 66.89 2PA, 13.71 3PA = 17.0%
2001-02: 66.52 2PA, 14.74 3PA = 18.1%
2002-03: 66.10 2PA, 14.68 3PA = 18.2%
2003-04: 64.89 2PA, 14.93 3PA = 18.7%
2004-05: 64.59 2PA, 15.76 3PA = 19.6%
2005-06: 63.01 2PA, 15.98 3PA = 20.2%
2006-07: 62.77 2PA, 16.94 3PA = 21.3%
2007-08: 63.39 2PA, 18.11 3PA = 22.2%
2008-09: 62.79 2PA, 18.12 3PA = 22.4%
2009-10: 63.57 2PA, 18.13 3PA = 22.2%
2010-11: 63.21 2PA, 18.01 3PA = 22.2%
2011-12: 63.05 2PA, 18.38 3PA = 22.6%
2012-13: 62.00 2PA, 19.95 3PA = 24.4% <-------------- Explosion begins
2013-14: 61.46 2PA, 21.54 3PA = 25.9%
2014-15: 61.15 2PA, 22.41 3PA = 26.8%
2015-16: 60.49 2PA, 24.09 3PA = 28.5%
So when do you sound the alarm? When it hits 1/3 of all shots taken? At the current pace of expansion, that should be 3 years. 1/3 of all shots will be threes. Or do you wait until 40%? 50%? Or do you recognize you have a perverse incentive structure causing an issue and work to head it off before it entirely supplants the rest of the sport?
I refer you to the mid-90s experiment with a shortened 3pt line. It was too effective, causing too big a perversion of the game. Took a decade for threes to catch back up to hose levels after the experiment ended, and until 5 years ago they were holding pretty steady in the low 20% range. High, but seemingly stabilized. But in the last 4 years this explosion has been unprecendented, and it is rapidly shoving out every other approach to the game. The mid-90s explosion showed one thing clearly: this is all about incentives. If you de-incentivize 3pt shooting, you can cut back on its prevelance, carve some room back out for the drivers, the post players, the mid range shooters. But if you don't, the enormous +50% bump you give to 3pt shooting makes it the ultimate weapon, and its rapidly turning a deep and complex sport into a one trick puppy.
Last edited:
It's great and all that you bring up these statistics. However, so many teams are afraid to pursue their own style of play and the majority of them are like sheep trying to follow the herd. The herd right now is in the chuck-tastic three point shooting circle, the new fad will either continue to grow, or as I expect...diminish little by little, but that's just pure speculation on my part.
I'm with you on not liking straight ISO ball either. But I disagree, to a point, that the Jordan era Bulls were an ISO team. They ran the triangle which involved a lot of movement and passing. It often resulted in role players such as John Paxson and Steve Kerr ending up with wide open shots. Same goes for the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, as Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Harper and Co. are known for hitting big shots when they ended up with open shots.
Yes, Jordan, Pippen, Shaq and Kobe had their share of ISO plays, but when they were playing at their best, everyone was touching the ball and the role players were pivotal in their success.
That said, I don't think any team shared the ball as well as our Kings during that time. And they took good shots on the whole. It's too bad they didn't win a title to show for it. Despite that, I have yet to see a team since that was as enjoyable to watch.
Yes, Jordan, Pippen, Shaq and Kobe had their share of ISO plays, but when they were playing at their best, everyone was touching the ball and the role players were pivotal in their success.
That said, I don't think any team shared the ball as well as our Kings during that time. And they took good shots on the whole. It's too bad they didn't win a title to show for it. Despite that, I have yet to see a team since that was as enjoyable to watch.
I agree and it baffles me. Why any GM, coach or player believes that they are going to beat the Warriors at their own game is beyond me. They have the 2 best deep shooters, who happen to also be the best at off-balance, quick shots in the league. You aren't going to beat them doing the same thing.
Instead of mimicking them to a much lesser degree, I'd be building my team to take advantage of their weaknesses and the general weaknesses of all teams playing this style. The Thunder (and a few others) have shown that long, athletic teams pose a problem defensively. Also, you can run them in transition when they quick shoot and miss. And you can punish them on the glass. I'd be building my roster with players that posses these kinds of strengths.
The Kings already have a a player that owns the paint and can punish the offensive glass. WCS obviously fits the length and athleticism checkbox. We just need to find some guards and a SF that can do the same. Rudy can be one of those players when he wants to be, but we know his focus is elsewhere.
Instead of mimicking them to a much lesser degree, I'd be building my team to take advantage of their weaknesses and the general weaknesses of all teams playing this style. The Thunder (and a few others) have shown that long, athletic teams pose a problem defensively. Also, you can run them in transition when they quick shoot and miss. And you can punish them on the glass. I'd be building my roster with players that posses these kinds of strengths.
The Kings already have a a player that owns the paint and can punish the offensive glass. WCS obviously fits the length and athleticism checkbox. We just need to find some guards and a SF that can do the same. Rudy can be one of those players when he wants to be, but we know his focus is elsewhere.