People always say Steph Curry changed the game…

[threattonature]

the answer is #KILL.THE.ZONE.*

It would be really interesting to see what the game would look like with the focus on generating three point looks. Would teams playing against a Jokic or Embiid be willing to live with them feasting on postups to avoid leaving the three point shooters.

 

[010101]

It would be really interesting to see what the game would look like with the focus on generating three point looks. Would teams playing against a Jokic or Embiid be willing to live with them feasting on postups to avoid leaving the three point shooters.

balance..........*

 

[inndaskKy]

How did we get here so fast

Read the fine stipulations in the OP.


At your own risk

 

[FTBS]

It would be really interesting to see what the game would look like with the focus on generating three point looks. Would teams playing against a Jokic or Embiid be willing to live with them feasting on postups to avoid leaving the three point shooters.

Make it a fair fight. Make them choose. Give the post players a little freedom like you give the perimeter players. I'd love to see it. But the fact that they changed it in the first place and they aren't changing it back kinda tells you what the league thinks would happen.

 

[mbewane]

I still contend that it was Houston that actually changed the game when they had a bunch of mid ass 3 point shooters firing them up and damn near beat Golden State. That showed teams that you don't need great three point shooters to build your offense around generating three point looks.

Facts. What Steph (and Klay to a lesser extent) was/are doing still felt like an exemption, in the sense that everyone knows those two are two of the best shooters all time, they're anomalies that just so happen to play for the same team. But other GS players were taking "normal" 3 point shots, off of good ball movement and when they were open. GS was always heavy on mid-range shots and getting all the way to the rim. GS was mostly playing "normal" basketball, but with the anomalies that were Steph and Klay. On the other hand Houston literally had random players jacking up 3 point shot after 3 point shot with minimal ball movement. GS could (still can) win when the 3 is not falling, but Houston was the real "Live and die by the 3" team. Trash basketball.

 

[Jplaya2023]

But was it for the better?


I’m In the shower, ass naked thinking about Steph Curry and the game of basketball.[/ISPOILER]

Better 4 him worse 4 everyone else who cant replicate what he does

 

[Imyremeshaw]

Steph was the final straw. There had been a concerted effort to open the game up and speed to the game up and boost scoring. The 3 was becoming more and more important. Him and the way the Warriors played (and won) was the final step.

No its not good IMO because there is no room for variety. Everybody gotta shoot a billion 3s. We cant get a fair post game vs 3pt shooting battle because everything is titled towards the perimeter with the zone and freedom of movement on the perimeter only. Two great players cant play togethet if one doesnt shoot 3s.

Great post!! The rule changes with Ball handling, perimeter defensive rules giving leverage to the offensive players are just as biggest factors as Steph

I recently had a discussion with someone regarding big man play in the NBA, Wilt/Kareem/ Russell could never get away with the things Shaq did in the late 90s/early 2000s, that offensive leverage was unprecedented

We see the Roy Hibbert effect with verticality in 2010-2014 which allowed the Pacers to be contenders with the Heat...

Rule changes and officiating have had more effect on the game in my opinion, the great players of each era would still be awesome but their individual effectiveness would be reduced....

 

[Devil Plisken…CMS]

Yes

 

[NYC Rebel]

Judging by your username, looks like your account has been hacked.

 

[SpursFanSinceNovember2017]

Put up a poll so people can vote on it

 

[MyApps]

No, it's not for the better.

But neither was Jordan and hero ball either.

So what difference does it make?

 

[High quality poster]

No, it's not for the better.

But neither was Jordan and hero ball either.

So what difference does it make?

Shut up.

 

[MyApps]

Shut up.

Thanks for answering my question.

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

Analytics.

If Jamal the Hooper takes 100 shots from 3, and shoots 35% = 105 points

If Jamal the Hooper takes 100 shots from 2, and shoots 52% = 104 points

Shooting above 50% inside the arc is considered pretty good while shooting 35% from three is "ok" but not exactly elite.

If you're average in shooting ability (from an NBA perspective), it probably makes more sense to jack up 3s unless you have a unique ability to get your shot off the dribble like a prime D-Wade or D-Rose.

 

[nieman]

No, it's not for the better.

But neither was Jordan and hero ball either.

So what difference does it make?

There's still hero ball now, and will always be so as long as there are superstars.

I still contend that it was Houston that actually changed the game when they had a bunch of mid ass 3 point shooters firing them up and damn near beat Golden State. That showed teams that you don't need great three point shooters to build your offense around generating three point looks.

I think it's a combo, but I agree that it's Houston that spearheaded the team play 3pt shooting. Houston D'Antoni 3-ball showed that you could play in an extreme videogame style and still win games...good for league execs pockets, but GS and their anomaly shooters showed that a jump shooting team could be dominant contenders. Ignoring that they won by building around the strengths of their best players...not plug n play.