Take the 3 point line out tomorrow, how low do teams ppg plummet?

[pudman13]

This. It's really pathetic how the game has evolved into a shell of its former self.

Exactly....I've been saying for years that the 3-point shot has changed the game in a very negative way, and as of now people have been playing with it for so long that they are pretty much incapable of learning how to play real basketball again.

[pudman13]

The ESSENCE of the game of basketball since its inception is to get the BEST and closest shot to the basket as possible!

Bingo. the 3-point shot has changed the game into something that isn't really basketball.

[Showtime80']

Enjoy what a REAL offense is supposed to look like, everything setting up from inside out, the post ups creating the spacing, mid range game basically turning into 18 and 20 foot layups, timely 3 point shooting, fast breaking when the opportunity presents itself.

I give you the 1986 Celtics, the greatest team ever, RAPING the Showtime Lakers in the 1986 regular season. How much would the present day Warriors lose by to that team with the REAL rules back then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEbAQaLHT1E

Sad we're NEVER going to see an offensive symphony like that again!

[Showtime80']

Teams today just don't have the talent and fundamentals to play that way!

Thanks Nike and David Stern.

[3ball]

It isn't NEARLY as worthwhile to drive-and-kick for 2-pointers as it is 3-pointers.. It's a simple mathematical fact that without 3-pointers, the efficiency of screen rolls/drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post-ups.

This proves that the decline in post-ups is due to the rise of higher efficiency drive-and-kick made possible by 3-pointers, not defensive tactics.. [COLOR="Navy"]In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy could prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick[/COLOR].

Since post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations were the only things left in the 80's without the 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick back worthwhile, we can say with certainty that Lebron would be half the player back then - he's simply not elite in any of these areas.

[fpliii]

Possessions are like currency in basketball.

When you secure the ball (and the origin of every possession isn't created equal...possessions beginning from live ball turnovers > missed shots > dead ball turnovers/inbounds), you want to maximize the EV (expected value) of that possession. Likewise, when you don't have the ball, you want to minimize the EV of your opponent's possession.

When you exceed your EV, that's more money in the bank. When you don't, your account takes a hit. When your opponent underachieves its EV, that's your gain too. When they overachieve, that's another loss.

This may all seem incredibly obvious, and it probably should be. Going back to the first line though, bank accounts aren't infinite. Nobody has unlimited possessions either. You have a set amount relative to your opponent. So they aren't created out of nowhere, and you can't assume the results of additional possessions would be created out of nowhere. It's not about doing as much as you can in a vacuum, it's about maximizing your opportunities given the number of possessions you use.

One of Dean Oliver's theses in Basketball On Paper was that underdogs should adopt "risky" strategies, to increase variance and decrease the likelihood of you achieving your EV (since you want to stray from it, more positively) and your opponent achieving its EV (you want them to stray too, in the other direction). More talented favorites will instead adopt less "risky" strategies.

The point being...viewing anything in terms of per game numbers is misguided, since an arbitrary marker of 80ppg or 100pg or whatever is meaningless in a vacuum. Points per game are relative to scoring climate. Remember, possessions are currency. When you expend extra possessions, you're essentially taking out a "loan" from your opponent. Yes, you have an extra opportunity to achieve your goals (either achieving your EV if you are a favorite, or straying from it if you are an underdog) each time you receive a "loan" payment from the opponent. But each time your opponent overachieves its EV, that's money lost, digging you in a deeper hole.

[90sgoat]

'Efficiency' geeks have to be the worst and I say that as someone who has a bachelors in economics and statistics.

The biggest error is assuming that correlation means causation. Even educated people make this mistake.

Another mistake is using an 'all else equal' assumption, when there hardly ever is basis for 'all else equal'.

An example of the above is assuming that 90s teams were inefficient for not shooting more threes, which is a fallacy of thinking the 90s were all else equal when rules were clearly not the same.

Another is thinking that the current relative efficiency of the 3 ball means it was an efficient shot in the past. This again assumes all else equal, but it simply isn't true as teams are massively lacking people who can shoot the mid range shot.

Take Tony Parker, who does all his damage from the mid range and no 3s. Or Wade.

Now with 3s a lot of other effects come in to play, notably lack of free throws, second a lack of plan B, difficulty changing pace. The Warriors would have lost massively to Lebron's Cavs with full roster or the Spurs or Memphis.