**2016 Official NBA Playoffs Thread**

[KC_Connection]

Round 1:

EAST:

#8 Pistons @ #1 Cavs
#7 Pacers @ #2 Raptors
#6 Hornets @ #3 Heat
#5 Celtics @ #4 Hawks

WEST:
#8 Rockets @ #1 Warriors
#7 Grizzlies @ #2 Spurs
#6 Mavericks @ #3 Thunder
#5 Blazers @ #4 Clippers

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Teams aren't abandoning the perimeter now it's just that there are enough solid shooters in the league that you can rotate around the perimeter and set screens to give guys just enough time to get the shot off.

Offenses now are designed around high screens that force the defenders to go under the screen or switch off. If you go under the screen, that's enough time for the modern sharpshooters to burn you. If you switch off, reverse rotation will kill you.

That's why I say there's not a simple answer. If you could just decide to guard the perimeter, teams would've done it long ago. Giving up 35% beyond the arc isn't an environment coaches want to operate in, it's just become a fact of life given the number of shooters in the game today and the direction the league is trending.

I don't want to irreperably damage the effectiveness of that kind of system, I just want to see other kinds of systems remain possible ways to win and think as the game goes forward that's going to be less and less possible. I'd like to see teams be able to win like the Grizzlies tried; just be big and powerful and imposing underneath. I'd like to see teams be able to utilize the crafty pick and roll point guards and athletic front-courts to try go out there and win a championship.

But right now, the only way to win is to have 2 premier outside shooters and ideally a stretch 4/5 for maximum spacing. It runs the risk of getting almost as stale as the beat and bang teams of the late 90s.

Think the Cavs showed how you do it last year in the finals. Though that solution stopped working once iguodala hit his shots. Now that they have Barnes in the lineup and with draymond stretching the court better, I hate that it's the case, but Cavs are in trouble

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But right now, the only way to win is to have 2 premier outside shooters and ideally a stretch 4/5 for maximum spacing. It runs the risk of getting almost as stale as the beat and bang teams of the late 90s.

The Spurs and Heat weren't totally reliant on the 3, they did have good shooters though which is I think necessary regardless.

The key to winning an NBA championship is really having a couple of Top 10 players on your team and a solid supporting cast.

[chiefzilla1501]

I get how good golden state is. I guess I don't understand the excitement. As Snr has said, lobbing up a bunch of prayer 3s without a set is boring basketball to me. Granted, I also don't want to go back to the days of boring throw it in to the center and watch him spend 10 seconds posting. I don't know how to strike that balance. I fear that impressionable kids are going to spend more time practicing threes and garbage shots than learning the key skills in the game.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I get how good golden state is. I guess I don't understand the excitement. As Snr has said, lobbing up a bunch of prayer 3s without a set is boring basketball to me. Granted, I also don't want to go back to the days of boring throw it in to the center and watch him spend 10 seconds posting. I don't know how to strike that balance. I fear that impressionable kids are going to spend more time practicing threes and garbage shots than learning the key skills in the game.

When the success rate can be a full 50% less often, there's really little reason not to go hucking up 3-balls.

The funny thing is that I knew this when I was a kid playing Playstation basketball with Eddie Jones and Nick VanExel. !@#$ this 2-pointer crap, I'm chucking from down town with Eddie all day.

It's simple math. It's actually pretty surprising to me that it took this long for the league to get here.

[O.city]

Are they garbage shots if you consistently make them?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Are they garbage shots if you consistently make them?

Even the best shooters hit at 45% - that's not 'consistently making them'.

It's just making them often enough that the premium you get for making them rather than taking higher quality shots makes the riskier shot worthwhile.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

When the success rate can be a full 50% less often, there's really little reason not to go hucking up 3-balls.

The funny thing is that I knew this when I was a kid playing Playstation basketball with Eddie Jones and Nick VanExel. !@#$ this 2-pointer crap, I'm chucking from down town with Eddie all day.

It's simple math. It's actually pretty surprising to me that it took this long for the league to get here.

It's still crazy hard to get open looks in this league. Guys are to big fast and athletic. They can get from the paint to challenge a jump shooter, literally, instantly.

The Warriors are really good at getting loose and making shots, but they're still making contested jumpers.

It's back to the whole "they play no defense" rhetoric. They do, they're actualky realky good at it, they're just that good at making shots.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Even the best shooters hit at 45% - that's not 'consistently making them'.

It's just making them often enough that the premium you get for making them rather than taking higher quality shots makes the riskier shot worthwhile.

Depends what you consider consistent. Typically, if you're shooting over 30 percent out therr, I'd say you're pretty conaistent.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Depends what you consider consistent. Typically, if you're shooting over 30 percent out therr, I'd say you're pretty conaistent.

Not if it's a free throw.

If you hit 25% of your wildly contested forays into traffic, that's probably twice as good as anyone else hits; does it make you consistent in knocking those down?

If you're talking about shot quality, shot distance absolutely applies. And if you're looking at percentages made when determining the quality of the shot, then the percentages have to be evenly weighted to determine consistent. 'Consistent' has to be evenly applied if you're talking shot quality. You can't say the guys taking the much higher quality shots around the rim after to be at 50% to be consistent while guys taking lower quality shots from far away merely have to be at 35%. That's a relative comparison for two shots that are of differing degrees of difficulty - it completely defeats the point of the discussion.

If you hit 51% of the shots you hit around the rim, you're hitting them with far greater 'consistency' than a guy that hits 40% from behind the arc. Hell, hit 35% and you're doing better than the other guy despite missing 2/3 of the shots you take while the other guy hits the majority of his . But the guy behind the arc is still more efficient because of the premium on the shot.

I just worry that the NBA will devolve into the completely unwatchable dreck that college ball has become. That's all they do - pass around the perimeter and throw up a 3 ball. And why should they do anything else? The reward more than justifies the risk and it does so even if you aren't consistently hitting them.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Not if it's a free throw.

If you hit 25% of your wildly contested forays into traffic, that's probably twice as good as anyone else hits; does it make you consistent in knocking those down?

If you're talking about shot quality, shot distance absolutely applies. And if you're looking at percentages made when determining the quality of the shot, then the percentages have to be evenly weighted to determine consistent. 'Consistent' has to be evenly applied if you're talking shot quality. You can't say the guys taking the much higher quality shots around the rim after to be at 50% to be consistent while guys taking lower quality shots from far away merely have to be at 35%. That's a relative comparison for two shots that are of differing degrees of difficulty - it completely defeats the point of the discussion.

If you hit 51% of the shots you hit around the rim, you're hitting them with far greater 'consistency' than a guy that hits 40% from behind the arc. Hell, hit 35% and you're doing better than the other guy despite missing 2/3 of the shots you take while the other guy hits the majority of his . But the guy behind the arc is still more efficient because of the premium on the shot.

I just worry that the NBA will devolve into the completely unwatchable dreck that college ball has become. That's all they do - pass around the perimeter and throw up a 3 ball. And why should they do anything else? The reward more than justifies the risk and it does so even if you aren't consistently hitting them.

Well, there's nuance in which shot you're talking about. A 50 percent free throw shooter sucks. A 50 percent 3 point shooter is a hofer.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Well, there's nuance in which shot you're talking about. A 50 percent free throw shooter sucks. A 50 percent 3 point shooter is a hofer.

But that's exactly my point.

If you eliminated the 3-point shot entirely, most teams would stop shooting from outside about 18-20 feet. All things being equal, the 3 point shot, by nature of the distance, is a garbage shot. But the premium makes it a worthwhile effort.

The point is that when you're talking about style of play, all things have to be equal to evaluate. Passing around the perimeter and whipping up a 24 footer with a hand in your face knowing full well that you're only going to hit 35% of those is, in a vacuum, garbage basketball. But because of the value of that shot, it's probably more efficient that simply working it around, moving defenders and finding a shot underneath that you're going to convert 50% of the time.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Teams aren't abandoning the perimeter now it's just that there are enough solid shooters in the league that you can rotate around the perimeter and set screens to give guys just enough time to get the shot off.

Offenses now are designed around high screens that force the defenders to go under the screen or switch off. If you go under the screen, that's enough time for the modern sharpshooters to burn you. If you switch off, reverse rotation will kill you.

That's why I say there's not a simple answer. If you could just decide to guard the perimeter, teams would've done it long ago. Giving up 35% beyond the arc isn't an environment coaches want to operate in, it's just become a fact of life given the number of shooters in the game today and the direction the league is trending.

I don't want to irreperably damage the effectiveness of that kind of system, I just want to see other kinds of systems remain possible ways to win and think as the game goes forward that's going to be less and less possible. I'd like to see teams be able to win like the Grizzlies tried; just be big and powerful and imposing underneath. I'd like to see teams be able to utilize the crafty pick and roll point guards and athletic front-courts to try go out there and win a championship.

But right now, the only way to win is to have 2 premier outside shooters and ideally a stretch 4/5 for maximum spacing. It runs the risk of getting almost as stale as the beat and bang teams of the late 90s.

I'm not convinced you change the game due to one team having two of the greatest shooters of all time. I also have no desire to return to the era of the 90s Knicks, where the ability to shoot was completely devalued.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I get how good golden state is. I guess I don't understand the excitement. As Snr has said, lobbing up a bunch of prayer 3s without a set is boring basketball to me. Granted, I also don't want to go back to the days of boring throw it in to the center and watch him spend 10 seconds posting. I don't know how to strike that balance. I fear that impressionable kids are going to spend more time practicing threes and garbage shots than learning the key skills in the game.

Impressionable kids should work on their shooting, including from 3. The object of the game is to put the ball in the hoop.

[Deberg_1990]

It would be interesting to see how the game would change if the NBA took away the 3 point shot.


I fee like there are more 3 point attempts than 2 point jump shots attempted now.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But that's exactly my point.

If you eliminated the 3-point shot entirely, most teams would stop shooting from outside about 18-20 feet. All things being equal, the 3 point shot, by nature of the distance, is a garbage shot. But the premium makes it a worthwhile effort.

The point is that when you're talking about style of play, all things have to be equal to evaluate. Passing around the perimeter and whipping up a 24 footer with a hand in your face knowing full well that you're only going to hit 35% of those is, in a vacuum, garbage basketball. But because of the value of that shot, it's probably more efficient that simply working it around, moving defenders and finding a shot underneath that you're going to convert 50% of the time.

if the 3 didn't exist (or was moved back significantly), teams would begin packing in the defense to prevent the good close-range looks.