What to do for scoring increases around the league?

I think the NBA had a few more Kurt Rambises, Jon Koncaks, and Bill Wenningtons, though...

 

Thank you.

 

Get rid of the 3-point line.

It was never designed to be a specific part of every teams offensive game plan like it is now. Shooting 35% from behind the line is considered pretty good these days. Think about that.

 

The obvious solution is that the players need to quit smoking pot and start snorting coke like they did in the 80's.

 

Wennington was more of a 90s player, but anyway, those types still exist today...

See Christian Laetner, Chris Mihm, Greg Ostertag, Jake Voskhul, etc. The slow, unathletic white dude is still alive and kicking in the NBA today.

 

The zone is one problem. But this argument isn't totally logical because college games are 17% shorter, and the shot clock is 35 seconds. So there are not as many possessions.

 

Can someone tell me why removing the 3pt line will increase scoring? It might be very simple and logical but I don't get it right now.

Say a team shoots 30% for 3pt, this is the Cleveland Cavs, the lowest in the league. The adj. FG% for three point shots is 45%, which is still higher than their overall FG%. Okay I know the 3pt shots bring down the overall FG%, but take a look at the rockets, they are at 36%, the adjusted FG% is a whopping 54% I will venture to say this is higher than our 2pt %.

I don't think 3 pointers hurt scoring. Unless setting up for threes is less effecient then setting up regular buckets, but I don't easily see that either.


http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~wardrop/articles/3point_html

 

You can't ignore the direct correlation between the decrease in scoring since the advent of the three point line and the increase in three point attempts.

It's not necessarily about field goal percentages, it's about field goal attempts. Teams don't try for a three pointer on each possession. They try to get the ball in for an inside shot, then if that doesn't work, swing it out for a three pointer. Thus, three pointers are usually attempted with less than 7 seconds on the shot clock. More clock used each possessions = fewer shot attempts. Plus, more three point attempts result in long offensive rebounds, resulting in more time off the clock. Also, more three pointers mean fewer free throws. Free throws are points without the shot clock moving. The main detriment of the three point line can't be seen in the score, though. The three point line just sits out there screaming, "Hey, stand here and don't move!", which cuts down on ball movement and cutting to the basket.

The highest scoring game in NBA history was played on 12/13/83. 186-184 victory for the Pistons over the Nuggets. There were four three point attempts for the ENTIRE game.

 

Are free throws more exciting to watch? I can understand that some people don't like defensive clashes like we had against the Spurs, but I don't understand the obsession with the total number of points scored, taking into consideration FTs. If both teams scored 200 points but it was all off of FT shooting, that would be the most boring game possible to me, no matter what the final score is.

 

The high scoring days were concurrent with the advent of the 3 point line. And any case even if scoring went down after the 3pt line was introduce, you still cannot conclude there is a direct, causal correlation there's a bunch of other factors I mentioned above.

Also, say they work it inside and it doesn't go anywhere, now there's seven seconds on the clock left as you say. If there's no three point line what would they do? Shoot a long 2 pointer? As I've already mentioned the adjusted FG% for three pointer are as high if not higher than for 2 pointers on most teams. That in it self is not lowering scoring averages.

I still think 3 pointers is a very minor cause of the deficiency in scoring.

 

I think the zone is primarily reposible for the low scoring although it has resulted in better ball movement and fewer isolations.
I also think that quality shooters are lacking and everyone knows that, so the teams clog up on defense in the paint and dare players to make their shots knowing very well that eventually they will miss.
I don't want to see too many isolations although it can be a creative outlet for talented scorers but the zone needs to be modified or eliminated.

 

The best way to beat the zone is good ball movement and good midrange shooting. If the zone is the reason for low scoring, that means ultimately it's the lack of ball movement and shooting skills that kills high scoring basketball.

Years of illegalizing the zone in the NBA resulted in the extensive use of clear-out ISO and the decline of ball movement and shooting skills. I don't want to go back to that kind of basketball. So, no, the culprit is not the zone. On the contrary, the culprit is the decades of "no zone" NBA.

 

The 3 point shot has pretty much caused the mid-range game to be non existent. Like A-Train said, it's either throw it down to the big man and let him post up, or kick it out to the 3 point line and take your chances. Nothing in between.

If you watch some of the old classic games from the 70's, they seem to flow so much better. Less long jumpers, more mid range jumpers and more motion overall. Just better fundamental basketball. Less long rebounds off of missed 3's which means more boxing out (another lost art).

StupidMoniker, I don't want to just watch teams trade baskets for 48 minutes either, but you can't tell me that watching a 70-65 game is more exciting that a good fast paced 110-105 type game.

 

how about make the shotclock 20 seconds instead of 24? That's a lot more shots taken every 48 minutes...

 

That will definitely lower the Rockets' scoring because they will have shot clock violation about every other possession.

 

Several people had listed many valid reasons.
I've watched a lot of games 20+ yrs ago....

I think the main reason was that players rarely played defense back then. If you played "too much" defense, chances were that they'd call ticky-tack fouls on you.

There were practically no charging call back in those days either. You would often hear commentators said that charging was for college games, not pro.

Because of the above reason, coaches drafted more offensive players/ shooters than defensive players.

Players, on the avg, are also bigger and more athletic these days. The court is getting too small for them. I ran across a web site a while back that lists avg players' height and they are indeed a inch or 2 taller than they used to be some 20 yrs ago. You can also tell if you watch the games that they are faster, stronger ... too.

How do you correct current problem?
Call more fouls on defensive players. Give the advantage to the offensive players. More whistles will slow the game down a little at first but once the players adjust to them, they will stop playing defense.

Even right now, you can see that when a player gets a few fouls called on him, he will not challenge shooter as much and the shooter has easier time scoring.

 

The scoring is low because

1) Recent rule changes mostly benefit defense, not offense. Making the zone legal benefits defense, not offense. Making it legal to dbl-team a player who doesn't have the ball benefits defense, not offense. 8 second clock to bring ball across mid-court... Shot clock resetting to 14 seconds, instead of 24... 3 pt line back to further out....etc.. There were some rule changes to help offense (hand check, no-charge for under the hoop, etc) but they haven't been enough to offset the defense rules.

2) Fewer players are hungry. With so many trades and firings floating around, players have a reduced sense of team loyalty, a lack of hunger for championships, and a simple CTC mentality (as in Rasheed Wallace).

3) Me, Me, Me. Because of a lack of loyalty (see number 2 above) players are more concerned about their own numbers. This does poor things for team play.

4) Poor work ethic. Much as I hate Karl Malone, I can say that the guy busts his butt (on and off the court) to win. But Barkley is right - most younger and talented players don't have the heart to do what it takes to be a champion.

5) NBA is not nearly strict enough on substance abuse offenders. And, yes, this IS reflected in game play.

Note: my above statements are generalizations for the NBA, and yes, I am aware that there are teams/players who don't support my opinions.

-- droxford

 

I think in certain ways money and sport just can't coexist.
How many players in the NBA sincerely love the game? and how many are just there to CTC?

Guys like rasheed is a disgrace... so is O. miller and shawn kemp.. people who just eat their ways to mediocrity. Why is O. miller still in the league, does he care about winning or losing.. does he care about the game? I don't really think so. He is probably just there for the money.

Rasheed is still in ok shape.. still putting up some kind of numbers... just enough to make you want to sign him for some ridiculous money... but he has never ave. over 10 rebounds a game.. a guy with his length.. talent... mobility.. and hands.. can't ave 10 boards ?? whereas troy murphy did it in his second year?

I wonder where would sheed be after he signs another long term contract which probably cover him up through his 30s.

how many of them choose basketball?? and how many of them had basketball chose them??

anyway... NBA is just a corporation afterall. where profit is probably more important than anything else. d. stern is not a sport man.. he is a businessman.... so is most owners in the league.
the league is way overexpanded.. expanding to europe talk is just garbage.... they dont' make enough in america.. and they want to take the euro too... I thought the idea behind expansion is because they have too many good players... and not enough teams... but obviously that's not how they do it.

I think fire d. stern would be a first step toward helping the scoring...
and then contract a few teams... (like atlanta, who got blown out by the shaq less.. malone less lakers.. and then by the jazz... ridiculous, don't they have any pride?)

I think sooner or later.. there will be another basketball league.. if nothing changes.. in which more pure form of basketball would be played. They won't be as talented.. but they will be much more fun.

 

I think a big reason is just the pace of the game today. Watch a game 20 years ago and they run up and down the floor each time and take a shot pretty quickly. These days the pg WALKS down the floor instead of running, and usually dribbles for at least 5-10 seconds before running a play. I think there are much less shots attempted these days. Very few teams try to run a fast break off of missed shots anymore - usually only after a steal will they run.

Another reason is the defense. Players would foul out in 5 minutes if they played defense 20 years ago like they do now. The NBA has slowly let the defenders use more and more contact to slow the offensive player.