|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 7, 2019 8:27:11 GMT -6
I don't understand why. The change should encourage more need to score mid range and drive to the basket. 3pfg% should decrease. Because offenses will be more spread out and covering driving lanes will be more difficult. How is that hard to understand ? Why will they be more spread out necessarily? Might be the opposite.
Fewer players will be as dangerous at the longer range. You will be able to stay back more frequently, more often than is true now.
As far as the better shooters, under the current rule the good shooters have required you to guard beyond the current arc already.
This rule is not about making the 3 more dangerous. Surely it will reduce the number of attempts and the 3pfg%.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsu0 on Jun 7, 2019 8:47:24 GMT -6
My reply was to point out that our outside shooting has been miserable for thirty years, period no matter who was coaching. It really doesn't matter where the three point line is as a team we do not have a good shooting ball club.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Jun 7, 2019 9:37:33 GMT -6
Got to have some fun with my old bud here....Petie Jackson at 42% for a career graduating in 02 was another pretty good one!
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 7, 2019 9:59:00 GMT -6
Because offenses will be more spread out and covering driving lanes will be more difficult. How is that hard to understand ? Why will they be more spread out necessarily? Might be the opposite.
Yeah sure because coaches will want perimeter players jacking up 21 foot two pointers. You are dumbest person on Earth, take a bow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 11:20:00 GMT -6
Is it possible that 00hmh and sweep are two personalities that inhabit the same body, and this has been an on-going feud for control. /cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52915231/MacAvoySplit1.0.jpg) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 11:23:26 GMT -6
Is it possible that 00hmh and sweep are two personalities that inhabit the same body, and this has been an on-going feud for control. Maybe a better example...  |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 7, 2019 11:51:51 GMT -6
Why will they be more spread out necessarily? Might be the opposite.
Yeah sure because coaches will want perimeter players jacking up 21 foot two pointers. You are dumbest person on Earth, take a bow. No, you are being unusually thick about this. We will still guard good shooters outside the new arc. When we do it's likely we were already guarding a number of them at that distance outside the present arc anyway. These are the good shooters.
But there aren't as many shooters who will be effective at that longer range. So not quite as often will we have to extend on a fair number of shooters who we have to guard now.
When we do go out we may be a few feet further. But often not we were already guarding those shooters out there. When the less good shooters spot up further out, they are less effective if we just don't need to guard them.
So tell me why the average shooters will be as good or better from further out and you will have a better case. I don't see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 7, 2019 11:58:56 GMT -6
Yeah sure because coaches will want perimeter players jacking up 21 foot two pointers. You are dumbest person on Earth, take a bow. No, you are being unusually thick about this. We will still guard good shooters outside the new arc. When we do it's likely we were already guarding them outside the present arc anyway. These are the good shooters.
But there aren't as many shooters who will be effective at that longer range. So not quite as often will we have to extend on a fair number of shooters who we have to guard now.
When we do go out we may be a few feet further. But often not we were already guarding those shooters out there. When the less good shooters spot up further out, they are less effective if we just don't need to guard them.
Oh yeah sure, a larger perimeter doesn't mean things are more spread out ? What are Hall of Fame coaches like Roy Williams thinking "The three-point shot, moving it back, will take the percentages down, that is pretty obvious. It does open up the floor more, so you will have more drives to the basket." Guys like him are idiots, what do they know ? |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jun 7, 2019 12:30:29 GMT -6
I advocate an offense that I personally had a lot of success with as a player. Every possession is a one-on-five fast break, with the other four players resting and conserving energy for their next break opportunity. Among other advantages, this would put us in a very advantageous recruiting position for a certain type of dynamic players.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 7, 2019 13:46:37 GMT -6
No, you are being unusually thick about this. We will still guard good shooters outside the new arc. When we do it's likely we were already guarding them outside the present arc anyway. These are the good shooters.
But there aren't as many shooters who will be effective at that longer range. So not quite as often will we have to extend on a fair number of shooters who we have to guard now.
When we do go out we may be a few feet further. But often not we were already guarding those shooters out there. When the less good shooters spot up further out, they are less effective if we just don't need to guard them.
Oh yeah sure, a larger perimeter doesn't mean things are more spread out ? What are Hall of Fame coaches like Roy Williams thinking "The three-point shot, moving it back, will take the percentages down, that is pretty obvious. It does open up the floor more, so you will have more drives to the basket." Guys like him are idiots, what do they know ? If you have a lot of good 3pfg shooters, IT ALREADY IS HARD to defend the drive in that case.
Why extend the defense when the marginal shooters will not be hitting as many shots. Many teams are NOT extending against teams that can't shoot now. With a shorter arc.
In that interview linked here he stressed the rules impact reducing the number of 3PFGA and increasing the amount of play INSIDE the arc. That may be in some cases due to more room, but my point is that it will also be because of poor shooters being discouraged from the 3. AS he said to the interviewer...
He also mentioned he would want players who face up taking good mid range shots. He said that the game had became out of balance with too many 3's. While for good shooting teams some of that may well be true because there is more room and defense extended, but it is very clear a lot of teams do not shoot well enough to take as many shots out there and marginal 3's are going to be passed up. Guarded or not...
My point is the larger perimeter is created by good shooters. By your logic if we extended the 3 point line to half court, we'd see defenses extend out to the range...even more room to drive.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 7, 2019 14:14:03 GMT -6
Oh yeah sure, a larger perimeter doesn't mean things are more spread out ? What are Hall of Fame coaches like Roy Williams thinking "The three-point shot, moving it back, will take the percentages down, that is pretty obvious. It does open up the floor more, so you will have more drives to the basket." Guys like him are idiots, what do they know ?
Why extend the defense when the marginal shooters will not be hitting as many shots. Gee I don't know maybe because that would give them enough room to drive to the bucket or pass into the post. Have you ever played basketball ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 14:25:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 7, 2019 18:20:15 GMT -6
Why extend the defense when the marginal shooters will not be hitting as many shots. Gee I don't know maybe because that would give them enough room to drive to the bucket or pass into the post. Have you ever played basketball ? That's ridiculous. If somebody is a threat to drive you don't crowd him outside at the arc where he is not a threat to shoot. It gives him better chances to beat you. As to feeding the post, playing back makes that harder to do not easier. Further out you go more you are unable to get back to help, which was your original logic in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 7, 2019 18:39:21 GMT -6
Got to have some fun with my old bud here....Petie Jackson at 42% for a career graduating in 02 was another pretty good one! I am not sure those are the only ones. Sellers, Francis, Weber, Tyler all had seasons with 40% 3pfg shooting.
Recent teams have taken a much larger number of shots than early teams in the 3p era. That is a coaching decision about getting more points per possession at a fg% that is not maximized. Just like about every D1 team.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 7, 2019 19:04:20 GMT -6
Gee I don't know maybe because that would give them enough room to drive to the bucket or pass into the post. Have you ever played basketball ? That's ridiculous. If somebody is a threat to drive you don't crowd him outside at the arc where he is not a threat to shoot. No what's ridiculous is no one used the words "crowd" or "outside the arc" but you. I am putting you on ignore. You aren't worth anyone's time. |
|
