[HN Gopher] Basketball has evolved into a game of calculated dec...
___________________________________________________________________
Basketball has evolved into a game of calculated decision-making
Author : nabaraz
Score : 57 points
Date : 2025-02-15 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nabraj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nabraj.com)
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| $2,500!!! https://www.wilson.com/en-us/product/airless-
| gen1-bskt-natur...
| Y_Y wrote:
| > Each Airless Gen1 comes with a case, stand, and a numbered
| tag highlighting its unique exclusivity.
|
| Clearly that justifies it.
| ano-ther wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| paulcole wrote:
| My recommendation is to let the home team draw the 3-point line
| on their court like how baseball stadiums have different
| dimensions.
| apgwoz wrote:
| 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)
| 1123581321 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| As someone who doesn't follow the sport, what's the problem
| with corner 3's specifically?
| 1123581321 wrote:
| 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.wikime
| dia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Basketba...
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Right because it was x * 2P% * 2 < Y * 3P% * 3
| brutalhonesty wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| Precisely. Shooting lots of threes with good/decent
| efficiency also made two pointers more likely as more
| players would be defending the perimeter. Again,
| seemingly nobody thought of this for decades.
| grandempire wrote:
| It's not insightful to say your team is more effective
| when you have the real threat of scoring 3s. That's not a
| new idea.
|
| Comparing probability of shot A vs shot B is just not a
| sufficient model. Its not simple math to model
| basketball.
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| Then why the first time someone tried it then it worked
| and it stuck for 15 years or so? Last season there were
| 35 3p attemtps per game on average vs 18 in the year
| before Curry's debut, almost 2x.
|
| It it really impossible to think that it was a huge
| oversight?
| grandempire wrote:
| > why the first time someone tried it then it worked
|
| Is this the first time a team has tried to shoot 3s?
|
| > It it really impossible to think that it was a huge
| oversight?
|
| I'm not saying biasing towards 3s, with serious threats
| inside, is a bad strategy. Im saying multiplying a
| shooting percentage doesn't tell you that.
| relaxing wrote:
| Daryl Morey? Is that you?
|
| You can't just tell your players to start jacking more
| threes and coast your way to success. Many tried, many
| failed. The game is more complex than that.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| When you elect to take more three pointers you necessarily
| have to resort to shooting more difficult ones, which
| lowers the expected return on each one. In the real world
| it's not so simple.
|
| Similar reason why star players often have lower FG% than
| one might think: they are the ones tasked with trying
| _something_ when the shot clock winds down and there's no
| clear play. Not all shots are chosen equally.
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| > When you elect to take more three pointers you
| necessarily have to resort to shooting more difficult
| ones, which lowers the expected return on each one
|
| But then 2 pointers become easier. You can't defend
| tightly both the perimeter and the paint at the same
| time. Sounds like a win-win. Again, nobody seemingly
| noticed.
| relaxing wrote:
| Do you watch NBA games?
| jitl wrote:
| Claim the math is very basic is reminding me of the
| different conclusions people have drawn from this image: ht
| tps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#/media/Fil.
| ..
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| So in the 2008-2009 season, the one before Curry's debut,
| the average number of 3 pointer attempts per game from a
| team was 18. Last season it was 35, so pretty much 2x.
|
| If it was so intricate why nobody tried it before? And
| why after someone tried it it seemingly stuck? Is it
| really that far fetched that it was actually pretty
| simple and nobody noticed for many years?
|
| Even if you consider the adjustement to the defense,
| you'd be making two pointers easier as you can't defend
| tightly both the perimeter and the paint at the same
| time.
| relaxing wrote:
| It was absolutely tried before. The 08 Magic shot threes
| at a similar % and volume to the 2015 Warriors, yet they
| got rolled in the playoffs every time.
| necovek wrote:
| But it isn't just simple math.
|
| Yes, 33% for 3pts equals a 50% 2pt shot, so beat that,
| and you've got yourself a pretty good scorer. But hitting
| 33% is not trivial unless you make a lot of other
| adjustments: multiple blocks for the shooters and not
| just a simple pick-and-roll or pick-and-pop, staggered
| blocks for a shooter switching from one sideline to the
| next. This has actually led to _less_ specialization, as
| every player on the court needs to shoot 3s and defend
| faster or bigger players as switches became unavoidable.
|
| And with all that, it only led to a "dynasty" when one
| player who could create his own shot and shoot from
| nearly anywhere at 35+% (Curry), paired with another ~40%
| career 3pt shooter and defensive specialist (Thompson)
| and completed with a power forward who could defend
| anyone and coordinate the attack too (Green). Even so,
| they did need another future hall-of-famer in Durant to
| win two of their last 3 rings.
|
| That same team still has 2 of those core people in them,
| but they are unable to replicate anywhere near the
| success.
|
| So if anyone can do this, why doesn't everyone do it?
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| OK so eFGs are basic math. Are we ignoring them??
|
| https://www.basketball-
| reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_g...
|
| https://www.basketballforcoaches.com/effective-field-goal-
| pe...
| zzo38computer wrote:
| This math makes sense, but it might not not always be so
| simple.
|
| For example, maybe these probabilities might not always be
| the same as this in all circumstances. Also, how much risk
| you might take also might depend on the current score and
| remaining time (e.g. maybe you are likely to win even with
| only one more point than your current score, or maybe it
| depends how much time it takes to make a specific shot (I
| don't actually know enough about basketball to know if this
| is relevant)), and on how your opponent can defend against
| it at a specific situation (and if their defense would
| allow them to score instead; I don't actually know how much
| that is relevant either), maybe. There are probably other
| considerations as well.
|
| (I do not actually know all of the rules or strategy of
| basketball, so if I am wrong, you can mention what mistake
| I made.)
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| In the 2008-2009 season, the year before Curry's debut, the
| 3p percentage was 36% vs 2p percentage of 48%. If you took
| 100 shots of each you'd have 108 points vs 96 so yeah I
| consider that quite simple.
|
| And call me naive maybe but not arrogant, I've never been
| called that in my life so it's quite surprising to be called
| arrogant in HN where I know the average person is smarter
| than me.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| 4th down attempts in American football come to mind. Twenty
| years ago they were rare; mathematically they should be
| common.[1] Coaches have shifted with the math but not quite as
| dramatically as it suggests.
|
| [1] https://malteranalytics.github.io/nfl-4th-down/
| tclancy wrote:
| It's a bit of a dodge. In the 80s and 90s, there were a handful
| of players making 40% of threes and most shooters were closer
| to 30% so the math didn't used to be the same.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| One possibility is that there are more players who can make
| 3-point shots at a high enough percentage to make this true.
| Also, it depends on how good the defense is vs. 2-point shots;
| if that gets tighter, then the 3-point shot becomes more
| valuable.
|
| Which also suggests how things may continue to evolve; the best
| defense vs. 3-point shots probably compromises your defense vs.
| 2-point shots, and eventually some team will "realize" that
| they can do better with _fewer_ 3-point shots.
|
| Further complication comes from rebounds; the player taking the
| 3-point shot is less likely to be able to get the rebound if he
| misses, relative to a player trying to dunk it. So, the math is
| not trivial, and it depends on what the other team is
| expecting/guarding against, which might make it a non-linear
| system (i.e. constantly evolving over time).
|
| There was a time when chess theory said that there was one
| perfect, optimal opening, and anything else was a mistake. It
| was sort of true, until everyone took it as a given, and then
| doing another opening meant your opponent wasn't as likely to
| be prepared for it.
| necovek wrote:
| While most of what you say correlates, there are other
| gotchas: moving around a 3pt line leaves a lot more space for
| defenders to cover, and the real innovation is introducing
| multiple staggered blocks to open up a 3pt shooter (as a
| development of pick-and-pop). And moving around an even
| farther imaginary line at like 40ft from basket and making
| ~35% of those shots.
|
| So it really is impossible to cover a more than 33% shooter
| all around the court, and that equates to a better than 50%
| 2pt shooter.
| BoxFour wrote:
| Disclaimer: I have only extremely limited exposure to this
| topic (I worked in sports analytics, attached to a team, quite
| awhile ago), so take it all as heavy speculation:
|
| 1) It seems like there's a natural resistance to change driven
| by loss aversion; you see a similar pattern in the NFL with
| decisions like punting vs. going for it on fourth down. Even if
| the expected value is positive, the failures are given far more
| weight than the successes.
|
| 2) In general, there's a lot of skepticism toward analytics
| until they reach a tipping point where they're impossible to
| ignore, at which point they take over completely and introduce
| shifts like the ones shown here.
|
| Moneyball, for example, has plenty of anecdotes about front
| office staff and coaches dismissing analytics in favor of "gut
| instincts"--and that was in 2002! In baseball, a sport which
| adopted advanced analytics far faster than others (obviously in
| no small part due to teams like that As roster).
|
| Even today, plenty of NBA personalities push back against
| analytics--Reggie Miller, for example, has been pretty vocal
| about his distaste for them. He's obviously increasingly alone
| in that opinion, but it can be really hard to break old habits.
| teej wrote:
| This is classic innovators dilemma.
|
| Coaches and owners are not rewarded for innovation. Fans
| strongly discourage taking bets that could fail.
|
| And then there's preparing for the strategy change. Training,
| practice, and coaching time is extremely limited. How much do
| you re-allocate to this new approach? You don't just tell
| players to take more 3s, it's more complicated than that.
|
| So in traditional innovators dilemma fashion, it's much easier
| to follow when you see that the new way works. It's easier to
| convince everyone (fans, coaches, players, owners) to get on
| board when you can point to Steph Curry doing it right.
| ysavir wrote:
| I'm guessing that it's more complicated than that. Possibly
| when the specifications for a basketball court were laid out,
| the 3-point line was intentionally drawn where it would be a
| risky shot. And the coaching/playing culture developed with
| that mindset.
|
| But since then people have gotten at least a little bit taller.
| We developed more ways in which to train and grow our physical
| strength. Training got more intense, improving results. And
| more subtle changes along those lines, which are micro-changes
| that accrue over time, and often hard to notice.
|
| It can take a while for someone, anyone, to realize that all
| the various changes have made what was intended to be a risky
| maneuver into a viable play. It seems obvious in retrospect,
| but until someone points it out, it's one of those avenues of
| thought requires you to shake off what you've known your whole
| life before you can accept it.
|
| Could also be that none of that was relevant, but it's worth
| considering and keeping in mind.
| Y_Y wrote:
| Ok, so we learn a function mapping position on the court to
| point value. Clearly a step function was too simple. Might
| want to fix the values during the games though to make it a
| bit easier on the fans.
| brandall10 wrote:
| "But since then people have gotten at least a little bit
| taller. We developed more ways in which to train and grow our
| physical strength."
|
| The person who shifted this mindset is one of the smallest
| players in the the NBA though, would be considered small by
| the standards of any era of the game. And in fact, the game
| has shifted to smaller players in general in recent years.
| It's more of a skill/agility thing.
|
| I do believe technology has played a part though. Being able
| to 3d scan a player's motion and find mechanics adjustments
| has proven to be quite powerful.
| atmosx wrote:
| No, because hand-checking was allowed back then. Smaller guards
| like Mark Price for example, would go off in some games but
| stronger, bigger defenders would ultimate shut them down
| because they could feel and follow their movements with their
| _hands_. Now, if you so much as think too much of a player,
| they call a foul - supposedly to help the offense and make the
| game more entertaining. The result? A watered-down product
| where any team can _win_ on any given night, but no one cares
| because defense is nonexistent during the regular season.
|
| The only basketball that really matters happens in the
| playoffs; the rest is irrelevant and says nothing about the
| true power rankings.
| krustyburger wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Easy fix. Get rid of the corner threes and push the three point
| line back.
| hyperion2010 wrote:
| Or just get rid of 3 pointers entirely in the NBA.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| Or add a 4-point line
|
| https://youtu.be/IgEkocfa62g?si=63y0a_Zk8CxJ-5rM
| chasd00 wrote:
| Yeah just make it a straight line, that would be the easiest.
| Wouldn't require any rule changes either.
| nabaraz wrote:
| This could affect the sales, as there will be less court-side
| seats.
| deeg wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| Most sports pretty much have a playoff system to a
| greater or lesser degree.
|
| That said, basketball has pretty much always been one of
| the major US sports that can rely on a fairly small
| number of really good players and the rest don't matter
| nearly as much. Stars (pitchers, QBs, receivers, etc.)
| matter elsewhere but probably not individually as much as
| they do in basketball.
| bdangubic wrote:
| the most popular sport on the planet - soccer - doesn't
| have playoffs anywhere except USA
| ghaff wrote:
| I mean there's the World Cup though that's a bit
| different. The US (or US + Canada) is big enough that
| having large leagues of top-level teams makes some sense
| to have playoffs.
| thakoppno wrote:
| My proposal to fix this is to automatically award a point for all
| non-reboundable free throws.
| apgwoz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| As a lifelong Mavericks fan, I hope the NBA fails...They've
| lost me.
| darkerside wrote:
| Sorry for your loss
| bdangubic wrote:
| sorry for you loss
| mnky9800n wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we removed the solved part from the title above.
| necovek wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That approach to baity titles doesn't generalize, I'm
| afraid--neither to users in general, nor to titles in
| general. In general, baity titles cause threads to fill up
| with responses to the provocation in the title, making for
| shallow and ultimately off-topic discussion.
|
| It's standard practice on HN to replace these with titles
| that are more accurate and neutral, but we always try to do
| this using representative language from the article itself.
| Usually that's a subtitle, or the HTML doc title, sometimes
| it can be the URL slug, or even a photo caption.
|
| Often there's a sentence at the start of the article that
| immediately walks back the title and says what the article
| is 'really' about. It's as if the title claims way too much
| and then the article 'confesses' and gives most of it back.
| These sentences often make good HN titles because they're
| far more accurate representations of the article. That's
| what I used in this case.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&qu
| e...
| epolanski wrote:
| You are right, the situation is not as dire as in baseball or
| arguably even soccer, there's more chaos and room for
| innovation.
|
| But still data-lization is taking the fun out of basketball,
| that's for sure.
| twolf910616 wrote:
| wow really? Did soccer also go through a statistical
| revolution? I don't watch soccer at all and am pretty
| surprised to hear this. Did all the teams converge on a
| winning solution?
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| completely the opposite
|
| because of the structure of soccer (completely different to
| basketball, it is an invasion sport but statistically very
| dissimilar), it has completely reversed the ordering of the
| sport
|
| there is significantly more strategic diversity, and teams
| that were unable to compete ten years ago are now able to
| compete effectively with wealthier teams (there is no
| catchup mechanic in soccer unlike US sports, ffp rules have
| also played a role but in the EPL at least the primary
| factor has been smaller teams using their budget more
| effectively)
|
| the most recent changes have been: premium for coaches
| (distinct from managers) has increased significantly and a
| greater focus on set pieces (but this is going back to the
| future, twenty years ago EPL had a period where teams did
| this to level the field...today, they are doing this and it
| appears to be permanent).
|
| it is also worth adding, i would say the majority of clubs
| that have tried a naive statistical approach have failed.
| Liverpool tried and are leading but are completely reliant
| on one player, Arsenal are doing better but reliant on set
| plays and their recruitment has been poor (they have had a
| stats team for over ten years at this point), the teams
| that have done well with stats (Brighton and Brentford)
| have a hybrid approach (and Brighton is further down the
| road with this, and have done significantly better...they
| use non-public resources far better, integrated with sport
| science, etc.)
|
| if stats in soccer is a 90-minute game, we are still at
| minute 5
| bdangubic wrote:
| Pep Guardiola 1000000% ruined soccer in similarish ways
| today's nba is broken
| atmosx wrote:
| In my opinion, the _real_ problem with the NBA is that we no
| longer get the marquee matchups in the Finals that we used to
| during the 90s and 00s, mainly because the season is too long.
| An 82-game grind isn't sustainable - it practically guarantees
| that stars like Giannis, Luka, or Jokic (or their key
| teammates) will get injured to the playoffs or not at all.
|
| The fact that we've never seen Embiid vs. Giannis in the ECF,
| and that we'll likely never get Giannis vs. Jokic, the two best
| players during the 2020s, in the NBA Finals says everything you
| need to know and it's a bummer.
|
| Aside from 2021, I can't remember another truly competitive
| finals where both teams had a real shot at winning. Maybe
| Boston wasn't expected to fall so hard against Golden State,
| but matchups like DEN vs. MIA, BOS vs. DAL, or LAL vs. MIA felt
| lopsided--one team stacked with talent, the other never really
| standing a chance.
|
| At this point, injuries, not players or teams, are deciding who
| moves forward.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| I think a big reason we don't have competitive finals is
| generally not having a harder salary cap and allowing max for
| contracts. If a player really is that good they should take
| up 50% of the cap and to balance it out have terrible other
| players.
|
| Anything else allows stacking value above cost and leading to
| team imbalances.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| > At this point, injuries, not players or teams, are deciding
| who moves forward.
|
| Football is kinda like this at this point too. Some fraction
| of the top QBs are going to go down each year, and it feels
| like a limp to the finish.
|
| That being said, somehow Wilt Chamberlain once played a
| season in which he only missed 8 and a half minutes total in
| the entire season, including OT. Amazing. Times have changed
| but that will never happen again now.
| matsemann wrote:
| Soccer is slowly getting there. You play for your club in
| the series, the cup, some europa cup, now also the world
| club cup, then there's matches with your national team,
| world cup etc. They are now even contemplating having the
| world cup more often.
|
| Having more games is an quick way to make more money, but
| in the long run it waters down the product.
| kaonwarb wrote:
| On season length: the NBA moved to an 82-game season in 1967.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's weird because almost all of the levels below the NBA are
| better games than the NBA. Nobody really goes out of their
| way to follow AAA baseball teams, but college basketball and
| even some high schools are great games.
|
| The pet theory is that the NBA is a RNG for gambling now the
| game isn't really the game. TV is near death, so gambling is
| the only source of revenue that can possibly replace the big
| TV deal.
| bdangubic wrote:
| TV is definitely not near death - geeeeez
|
| https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-signs-new-tv-deal-
| det...
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| The real problem is the players don't give a sh*t about the
| fans any more. You need no better example of that than the
| All star game tomorrow. In the 90's it was an amazing,
| competitive game between the best players in the league.
| Now...the players can't even be bothered to jog up and down
| the court. Load management: players claim their bodies are
| delicate and can't play too many games. Why would I want to
| buy tickets to a game or watch on TV if there's a good chance
| the stars aren't even playing. Guys the 90's played every
| game. Players now sign a 5 year contract and the next day ask
| for a trade. Look at Kevin Durant - great player, but has
| forced his way out of 3 teams and it's about to be a 4th. Too
| much guaranteed money means too little incentive. If the
| players don't care about us, why should we care about them?
| bdangubic wrote:
| 80's and 90's also played 82 games... the fact that today's
| players are soft and whiny is nba's fault
| chefandy wrote:
| When analyzing non-computing problems through a computer
| science lens, the human element merely muddies the path to a
| concrete answer. It's best to avoid that ambiguity and
| complexity.
| threemux wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bdangubic wrote:
| you read the article? where did you see college in it?
|
| there is absolutely no sport today that is as predictable as
| nba. check this next thursday 2/20, boston is playing philly
|
| - boston will score between 108 and 125 points
|
| - they will attempt between 48 and 58 3's
|
| - they will make betwee 19 and 25 of them
|
| I can make another 5 of these, they will be true as it is
| always all the same these days
| rambambram wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Look up the gather step.
|
| Agree on offensive players drawing fouls.
| tclancy wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Oh.
|
| Is that why I don't enjoy watching it at all anymore?
| bmitc wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Knowing what to do in a situation and being able to do it in a
| situation are two different things.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| So Moneyball has come to basketball. Optimize the team, not star
| power.
| necovek wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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
|
| [^2]: Giannis Antetokoumpo scoring 50p in G6 of the 2021 NBA
| Finals (featuring 17/19 FTs)
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHPLeWsAQw4
| jackschultz wrote:
| 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
| [1] https://www.mlb.com/news/breaking-down-statcast-s-new-
| baseru...
| ramoz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| MLB teams abandoned fundamentals because of the moneyball
| analyst guidance. Just like in business, following the MBA
| short-term analysis stuff often has negative impacts. You
| need to tweak the rules to break the statistical advantage.
|
| When the NHL over-expanded in the 90s a similar thing
| happened -- there wasn't enough talent so they'd just skate
| in these obnoxious circles, which is super boring to watch.
| refulgentis wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| darkerside wrote:
| 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.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| 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
| gfunk911 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| agree it'll never happen, but very cool idea.
| pgm8705 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| idlewords wrote:
| Just fill the ball with water.
| pandemic_region wrote:
| But not fully otherwise it becomes easy again.
| taurknaut wrote:
| > But that will never happen.
|
| Yes, it will. However it will take depressed viewership to
| realize.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Are you talking about NBA basketball? Golf is more exciting.
| bdangubic wrote:
| I am about as crazy of an nba fan as they come - or at least
| I used to be. I was averaging 80-90 games per year before,
| now I watch maybe 20 max, mostly in the playoffs. Surely
| there are people that prefer today's nba, I am not one of
| them. I think chucking 3's is the least interesting part of
| the game and it is so overwhelming in today's game that I
| lost interest in watching
| Tarsul wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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_pl...
| darkerside wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bdangubic wrote:
| it is not that anymore
| streptomycin wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| andrepd wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-...
|
| 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/)
|
| > 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.
| asimpletune wrote:
| 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 mistake happening. Being too slow to close out,
| miscommunication on the 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.
|
| A big conversation I see now days is what's "wrong" with the 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 talking smack and 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-15 23:00 UTC)