4 ms·

That's not a huge difference. 3% is like an average of 3 extra misses, which is probably not even that noticeable with variance. 3 pointers are not replacing 2

That's not a huge difference. 3% is like an average of 3 extra misses, which is probably not even that noticeable with variance. 3 pointers are not replacing 2 pointers with equal percentages, but they are creating opportunities for higher percentage 2 pointers. > Crowding is not necessarily bad. A contested shot is interesting; an uncontested shot, not so much. Even uncontested dunks are less interesting than contested dunks. That's because you're thinking of a really cool dunk, not a big man backing down his man for like 20 seconds and throwing up a clanker that gets rebounded into another 20 second post possession. Realistically that's what a lot of offense was like back in the day. There's just selective nostalgia for the really cool plays.

lapcat 2y ago
> That's not a huge difference. 3% is like an average of 3 extra misses More like 5 extra misses per game. And we're getting more uncontested misses today. > a big man backing down his man for like 20 seconds and throwing up a clanker that gets rebounded into another 20 second post possession. Realistically that's what a lot of offense was like back in the day. But this clearly wasn't happening 64% of the time. The irony is that contemporary players are better shooters. Yet their overall shooting % is lower, because they're consistently taking longer, harder shots.
- cma 2y ago
  Can't it be that defense got better too? Free throw percentage is up since '95 so they aren't just less accurate in general at that distance.
  - kenjackson 2y ago
    Perimeter defense is way better now. In the old days most 3s were uncontested. It’s a shot they just wanted you to take.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    If shooting and defense got better simultaneously, then all other things equal, overall shooting % should have stayed about the same, not gone down. Also, as hardwaregeek mentioned: "And in turn, the game has become less crowded and more spread out, leading to a higher percentage on dunks and layups."
    - cma 2y ago
      > If shooting and defense got better simultaneously, then all other things equal, overall shooting % should have stayed about the same, not gone down. Why? Getting better simultaneously doesn't imply getting better in a way to perfectly equal out.
kingraoul 2y ago
The disrespect for the low post game. I sentence you to watch McHale nightlights.

lapcat 2y ago

> That's not a huge difference. 3% is like an average of 3 extra misses More like 5 extra misses per game. And we're getting more uncontested misses today. > a big man backing down his man for like 20 seconds and throwing up a clanker that gets rebounded into another 20 second post possession. Realistically that's what a lot of offense was like back in the day. But this clearly wasn't happening 64% of the time. The irony is that contemporary players are better shooters. Yet their overall shooting % is lower, because they're consistently taking longer, harder shots.

cma 2y ago
Can't it be that defense got better too? Free throw percentage is up since '95 so they aren't just less accurate in general at that distance.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  Perimeter defense is way better now. In the old days most 3s were uncontested. It’s a shot they just wanted you to take.
- lapcat 2y ago
  If shooting and defense got better simultaneously, then all other things equal, overall shooting % should have stayed about the same, not gone down. Also, as hardwaregeek mentioned: "And in turn, the game has become less crowded and more spread out, leading to a higher percentage on dunks and layups."
  - cma 2y ago
    > If shooting and defense got better simultaneously, then all other things equal, overall shooting % should have stayed about the same, not gone down. Why? Getting better simultaneously doesn't imply getting better in a way to perfectly equal out.

kingraoul 2y ago

The disrespect for the low post game. I sentence you to watch McHale nightlights.