What to do for scoring increases around the league?

better athletes on the same size court equals better coverage equals better defense.

guys making teams based on D before jumpshots equals poorer shooters in the aggregate.

defenses being more sophisticated (especially in terms of their being more double teams) and being far more focused on.

the game being slowed down by controlling coaches.

i really don't think there are fewer good shooters with great fundamentals playing basketball these days, they just aren't good enough to make the nba a lot of the time nowadays.

but it hasn't been caused by a decrease in overall talent.

 

Why are low scores a bad thing that needs to be fixed? Can't we all just enjoy hard fought defensive struggles? Jeez, its like the country is made up of a bunch of Tom Tolbert clones.

 

Do you actually enjoy 38% shooting games and 74-68 finall scores?

 

shooting seems to be a problem

obviously scoring is down,

but can someone is the number of shots is down and how much shooting percentage is down

from the games i have seen players are getting plenty of looks and just not making them.......

and i don't buy zones being a problem, coming from playing, watching and coaching in leagues that have always had zones i i highly detest people blame everything i zones, they can be broken down just as easily as a man defense, but they just require a different sub-set of skills that appear to not be very well empasised in players these days, ie shooting (esp catch and shoot and shots off 1 or 2 dribbles), passing the ball and moving without the basketball.

offenses and players just need to adjust and improve their damn shooting

 

I think the league is too young. I'm not goint to argue whether highschoolers should be able to join the NBA or not, but for every LJ or Amare, there's 10 projects that take up a roster. NBA teams have lost their depth, and maturity on the court. Most suffer from the mental aspect of the game like passing, and fundamentals and have to learn them while playing throughout the season. Most are unmotivated to really meet their potential and settle for mediocrity, because hey if your 19 and a millionaire already, there's not really much need to improve. I do agree the overall athleticism of the league has changed the way defense is played, but when I watch a team like the Kings, I don't exactly see the most athletic bunch on the court, but I see a group of very fundamental, and headstrong players that may not have chiseled arms or a barrel chested bodies, but know how to play the game. I think too many players in the league rely on their athleticism too much and not enough on the mental aspect of the game. It's why you see so many botched fastbreak attempts, so many breakdowns offensively when running plays, and in general just so many bad shots.

 

Yes. I love defense. I want to see guys body up on the perimeter. I want to see shots rejected into the forth row. I want to see plays develop and options be taken away. I hate it when only one player touches the ball on any non-breakaway possesion. I don't care what the final score is.

 

The game got physical. If the refs called the tick tack fouls from back in the day scoring would be up. Players muscle up now. Thanks to the Pistons and Knicks. And that is fine by me, but that's the end result. Plus they are better athletes. I don't think there is anything you can do. All these guys can shoot. Leave them alone in the gym and they don't miss. But when you have a guy dogging you physically it's different. You can't get a good look. When I see the way Allen Iverson scores that's all I need to know. The guy has to bend right, then left, bounce off two players, and then lay it in. Who can score like that. It's just a physical game now. And there's nothing you can do about it except make tick tack calls to loosen it up. But even at that, I don't think you can go back to the way it was. This is your NBA.

 

Of course, Rockets fans have gotten used to 38% shooting and 74-68 final scores, so we've been de-sensitized to it...

 

another one is minimizing charging calls. Everybody flops nowadays. It prevents slashers from going to the basket strong and instead of defenders going up for the block, helpout defenders would always sneak in to take the cheap charge. Not calling the charge as easily would free up the interior quite a bit and allow athletes to be athletes.

 

Most small market teams can't compete with 3-4 high power players on the big market teams so they have to use strategies that limit the game to simpler lower scoring affairs. If they can control the tempo and reduce the game to slow take up the clock exchanges with jam iup the middle, they then have a chance or at least make the scores closer and don;t look so overpowered. Boring.....

The rules will have to change. There needs to be an enforced 3 second zone for "zone" defenders that is the majority of the low post or something to that effect

 

Actually; that first Rockets - Spurs game was very exciting to watch; the cliche of the NBA is that you don't have to watch until the final 2 -3 minutes. THAT game was different EVERY possesion from the mid 3rd quarter on seemed critical; a 5 pt. lead seemed insurmountable.

 

You are all missing the obvious answers.

To increase scoring, you simply make each layup counts for 2 points... midrange jumpers count for 4 pts.. 3 pters count for 6.. and another line between 3pt line and the half count line that counts for 8 pts... backcourt shot count for 10 pts.

now.. all you need is 4 midrange jumpers to get 16 pts.. and if you are lucky.. a late prayer would boost that to 26 pts.

and any team that makes two in a row.. get an extra pt for consistency. So, one gets bonus for being consistent.

To increase fast break... a fast break layup counts for 4 pts.

To discourage careless TOs, the announer is required to say "So-and_so just made a TO!" and then runs a track of those fake laugh to remind people that's supposed to be funny.

no one is required (or is allowed) to shoot free throws (it is too embarassing...).. fouls after penalty automatically awarded 2 pts.

Finally... anyteam that takes over 100 shots in a game get an extra 5 pts.
shoot over 50% for the game gets an extra 10 pts.

Like isiah thomas said.. in order to give some, you have to get some...
so in order to prompt team to do more of things that fans want.. they need to be reward with points.. this is called the "Points for Points System" PPS

I think it'll increase the scoring and promote better basketball in the long run.

 

Or increasing the size of the rim?

 

Get rid of the damn zone.

 

I would like to take pchan's brilliant idea a short step forward.

With today's high-tech sensing gadgets, we should be able to determine the exact distance from a shooter's hand to the rim. Computers could then automatically map this distance into a point value based on some sort of curve. It could be linear, with values ranging from 0 to 20 based on distance, but then dunks would be worth zero points. You could start the curve at 1, so dunks would be worth something.

Best of all, I believe, would be something like the Lennard-Jones potential function.



Dunks would be worth a buttload of points and other teams would have to defend against dunks with all their might! Five-foot jumpers would be worth about zero, and that would increase as you moved further away. David Stern, my phoneline is open.

 

1) enlarge the court by 3-4 feet on both sides.
a) players are bigger, faster, and better leapers now, they cover ground faster, and more of it.
- if the court is wider, that opens up more lanes for cutters to slash to the basket, defenders have to cover more ground, which will lead to more open looks.

2) extend the 3 pt line.
a) in the beginning, very few people could actually make a 3 pter on a consistent basis. it was not the NBAs dream that one day everyone in the NBA could shoot 3s. Hell, theres 3pt specialists where the only shots they take are 3s, or backup centers who only score with 3pters.
-an extension of the 3pt line would eliminate half of the 3pt shooters in the league. Also, it would create more space inside the line, and combined with the wider floor area, would recreate a midrange game.

 

Making rule changes to keep the league consistent from one era to another is very short-sighted. I understand that the NBA is a business, and the best way to make money is to have high-scoring shootouts. That's the rub -- do you want better basketball or do you want more marketable basketball?

But sports, as with anything else, evolves such that advantages shrink, domination decreases, and parity becomes the norm.

The NBA doesn't operate in a vacuum. I get that. But changing the rules to ensure 110-point games only ensures that the game's talent stagnates. The players (and coaches) don't learn to overcome rule limitations, and the same result is just stretched across a bigger court. In essence, you dilute the product.

Sports -- and their players -- are self-correcting. Right now, defense is more specialized and more effective than most NBA offenses. Eventually, a team will learn to match (or surpass) those "advances," and offenses will rule again. For basketball purists though, it's a golden age. Defense has never been more fun to watch, and strategy has never been more important.

Let ESPN worry about marketing. Good basketball -- whether offense or defense -- is still good basketball.

 

one word: trampolines



whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa BOOM SHOCKALOCKA

 

I'm not so sure that everyone in the nba is bigger and faster than the players of the 80's. It was common in the early to even late 80's for every team in the league to average over 100 ppg. Now, only a couple teams do.

Several reasons:

-talented athletic players who can't run an offense

-zone defense is legal

-tim duncan missed 8 FT in a row, including a couple of air-balls.

-lack of maturity among players. Many players are looking to score rather than looking for their TEAM to score.