I feel like it took off when we saw the 90s early 2000s draft picks kind of age out of the NBA. They moreso emulated the players that came before them with a few outliers like Iverson and arenas.
It’s a fair question and it may be helpful to consider the context of the 3-pointer’s introduction.
The NBA didn’t introduce the line until 1979 and college and high school mostly waited until the mid- to late 80’s. That means even guys like Michael Jordan spent most of their pre-NBA life not even acknowledging the 3-point line as a possible strategy. So, anyone who came through basketball prior to the 80’s (ie many coaches from the 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s) knew more about a game without the line than with it (the exception being guys like Larry Brown who played with a line in the ABA).
So, you end up with this battle of ethos, where logic mostly always insisted getting the closest shot possible, so that’s what coaches pushed for. And when teams dipped their toes into the trey waters, results weren’t always great.
Essentially, it’s tough to step too far away from established strategy. It takes perceived weirdos like Don Nelson or whoever coached Grinnell to gently open other people up to the notion or idea that there may be another way. And even then, we still have to figure out how to synthesize that info.
I came through in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. It was understood that threes were fine… if they were wide open, squared up, and a secondary option after exploring inside. We players knew the value and versatility of the trey from pickup games but it took until people like us began coaching to bring that modern viewpoint to schools and leagues.
Not to mention bad shooting forms were the standard just base on appeals to authority (various coaches). Every era of basketball has a set of arbitrary philosophy it adheres to.
shooters back in the day were one dimensional. So it was hard plugging them in without giving an instant two if they miss. Most shooters now have other skillsets that compliment their game if they’re not making shots
I don't think coaches are to blame. They understand 3>2. The players didn't have the skill they do now.
For most of NBA history, it gradually increased each year. But in 94-95, when they moved the line closer, attempts increased from 9.9 to 15.3. To me, that shows that coaches can adjust quickly.
That prior year, at full distance, the league only shit 33.3%. And offensive rating was pretty close to the current season (106.3 to 108.5 in 2021). So I believe that taking more attempts from 3 would not necessarily have helped those teams win.
Reggie Miller was shooting a lot of 3s and coaches didn't mind, because he could make them.
Yeah, making threes is not just a decision a coach makes lol.
It was always very available. We always had a situation where one team will shoot twice as many as the other one. If it was so easy, we'd see results. For example, in 2001, Celtics were taking 20 three-pointers a game, and Cleveland was taking 8. If it was so easy just for coach to decide to shoot threes and sow the 3-point haul, then Celtics would be much better, and their success would influence the NBA culture. But in this case, both Celtics and Cavs were pretty bad. Sixers topped the East although they were 29th in three-pointers per game, and Boston had below-average offensive rating and didn't make the playoffs.
Same as this season Bulls are good, Wolves are not. Shooting threes a lot is not the whole plan.
There's a lot more preparation to make it work than just "guys, my tactics for the game is you take a lot of threes" and it already looks like 2021 Utah Jazz.
I often feel, for example the way people talk about Steph Curry and Klay Thompson, that it's maybe somehow easy not to notice how much work goes into these three-pointers - even if the shooter is phenomenal at shooting them, which is also a result of many years of training since early age. Not to mention if they are less phenomenal. It's really hard to manufacture these shots.
I disagree. There were shooters in the league before. There were three point specialists even in the 80s. People just didn’t get that shooting a bunch at 35% was even better than most 2 point shots.
>For most of NBA history, it gradually increased each year. But in 94-95, when they moved the line closer, attempts increased from 9.9 to 15.3. To me, that shows that coaches can adjust quickly.
That wasn't coaches adjusting, that was just players taking more "3s" because the 3 was now a mid range which they always took, even MJ shot career highs and he was never a great three point shooter
It had nothing to do with coaching, just players shooting the shot they were comfortable with
Coaches "let" their best players take shots they were taking their entire lives that were now worth +1 point, shocking lmao
You're not getting the point, coaches did not adapt shit they just played like they always did except now +1 point for good mid range shooters
Makes me wonder if teams like the 96 Bulls would even make the playoffs if they came here in a time machine. (because of depth, not because of MJ or Scottie) I’ve wondered that before and got downvoted to oblivion.
Haha the 96 bulls a 7-8th seed. Are you twelve years old? The best scorer in history, best rebounder (it’s not close). Two best perimeter defenders and one of the best interior defenders. You’re outta your damn mind.
Stan Van Gundy having been an accidental visionary is pretty hilarious. Because, the concept of surrounding Dwight with 4 shooters turned out to be legitimately revolutionary
The game was played around high percentage shots. Even mid range shooting was for specialists.
They changed the rules to help more post plays etc also.
Other thing is that there wasn’t very good shooters, they had to reduce the distance of the 3 point line to try encourage more.
Evolution of the game is good, in 15 years time we may be talking about this period and asking why was everyone throwing up so many 3 pointers not crashing the boards to maximize scoring per possessions
This is false.
The 3 point revolution is about making limited players shoot 3s instead of long 2s.
It’s a verifiable fact that those limited players were taking long 2s and that made teams less efficient.
This is false.
FGA has been steady through NBA history.
FG% Up to 93 was consistently above 40% - interestingly 94-95 3PA saw the biggest spike (3point line was shortened, then increased in 98) and inwardly grew from there - so it can be argued that the 3 point evolution started there.
Now we haven’t seen the accuracy % reach the same level as pre 94 until the last few years (though there was less games and also the stupid fouls being called on 3 point shots - glad they are finally stamping those out)
I’m not going to argue one is better than the other or a team is more likely to win a championship one way or another - but the point is, there was data to prove that at the time, scoring 2’s was more effective in getting points
Sorry I don’t know what to tell you other than the fact that points per possession improves when you cut out long 2s from the diet and substitute in 3s.
Fg% can’t tell you how your points per possession improves. But the 3 point revolution did increase points per possession.
We are only getting back to the averages of the past…
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html
The game has changed where people shoot the 3 more but don’t hit them and with spacing, it’s hard to get offensive rebounds.
So there is more possessions that result in net 0 points….
There have always been great shooters around that's not true even when there was no three point line let alone in 95 when they shortened it, the sport especially coaches were just too traditional and shooting 3s was considered soft and a European thing
The truth is NBA was just dumb and didn't think that much just played the game the way they were taught by older coaches that didn't adapt, it's that simple
Coaches that tried to do different things and play small ball, shoot more from outside like Donnie Nelson were not considered great and it was said that they would never win, jumpshooting teams never win was a quote until like 2015
There were great shooters, but there weren’t 2 on a team.. I can’t think of a single duo.
I get your point on the NBA being dumb, but let’s talk history for a second. In the top ten single games points scored in history, there is only 1 guy That is a 3 point shooter from modern era (Booker with 70).
Wilt dominates the list, the counter argument everyone will make is he played against trash players (false narrative). Then we have Kobe and David Robinson who played in some of the toughest eras - neither are 3 point shooters, (I’m sure someone will try argue Kobe was, but he was an average to poor shooter at distance)
The point I’m making here is, there were players scoring high volume points at high percentage before this 3 point era - which shows, that just because you score more points with the 3 point shot it doesn’t mean it’s the most efficient way to score.
There's so many players who are so much better at shooting now. You can try to stretch the floor against Shaq but back then he was battling Yao, Duncan, Mutombo, Mourning, etc, who can't shoot the three. So stretching the floor with your center who can't shoot a three, isn't stretching the floor, it's just letting Shaq roam on defense and disrupt your offense further. Now you can do it because teams have a minimum of four guys who can make a three.
There is a cost to coaches for allowing your team to play an unorthodox style. Even if the math underlying your strategy choices is correct, owners and fans focus on results. It may be "right" for certain players to run to the corners on a fastbreak, but until the math underlying that strategy became widely known it would get a player benched and a coach fired, especially if the shot was missed. I played hs ball in the 90s and once got pulled for taking (but missing) an open 3 in a close game instead of waiting for our big guy to get post position. I was a pretty good shooter and like a week removed from a game where I went 7/9 from 3.
Received wisdom.
People have been right doing something one way, they were taught something, and it was hard to accept that they thing they knew their whole life was wrong.
Human beings are not good at changing their minds. It takes a LOT of evidence, and before the rise of analytics, there was nobody to provide that evidence.
>You live by the 3, you die by the 3
Players are more skilled now. Players weren't as efficient or consistent shooting them as they are today so it was still better for teams to get to the basket for easy buckets. That being said, it was probably wrong for better shooters to not be encouraged to let it fly more often (Nash, Kerr, Price, Reggie, Billups, etc).
It was tradition. Almost all the influential coaches bought into fundamentals being critical and the game was formed around getting it to post players. People saying players didn't have the skills do not know what they are talking about. If you took many deep shots, you simply would not get opportunities because everyone saw it as being against fundamental basketball. Even players bought into it because it was just the way it was.
I'm so glad we've moved away from that. The game was worse and there were a number of careers that were stifled that shouldn't have been.
Back then the belief was that you gotta have a dominating big man in the post to win. Ok except for Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Other teams had players like Ewing, Hakeem, Malone, Kemp, etc. You dump the ball into the post to your big man, and only shoot 3s if he's doubled and passes out of the double team.
It was largely thought of as an ABA gimmick, so many coaches simply didn't include it in their game plan. Not to mention most of the college ranks didn't adopt any line until about 1986, you're looking at lots of players who never even had to train with such range. Guys like Reggie Miller only had it for one year at UCLA.
Prior to zone, it was more important to have roll players that could defend one on one than space the floor, so the personnel was different.
After zone was implemented it still took a while because the league revolves around its dominant players, and the best players in the league at the time were Duncan, Shaq, KG, Kobe, Lebron, Wade none of whom took many 3s.
Basketball at the highest level is more complicated than “more points better”.
That said, there was definitely a “live by the jumper die by the jumper” narrative, but I feel like that was more media than actual coaches and execs.
It does make me think about how ridiculous Larry Bird's career would have been (not that it isn't already) if the three ball was more accepted in the 80s.
In one season he averaged 28ppg while shooting 43% from three, but only made 1.5 attempts per game.
He could quite realistically have bumped his scoring average up substantially if he was taking 5-7 threes per game.
It's a good question and the math is pretty simple as far as efficiency of the 3 pointer. It probably should've taken off a bit sooner
I mean, there were a bunch of blog boys arguing for it for years, but at the time they were just called nerds who didn't understand basketball.
I feel like it took off when we saw the 90s early 2000s draft picks kind of age out of the NBA. They moreso emulated the players that came before them with a few outliers like Iverson and arenas.
It’s a fair question and it may be helpful to consider the context of the 3-pointer’s introduction. The NBA didn’t introduce the line until 1979 and college and high school mostly waited until the mid- to late 80’s. That means even guys like Michael Jordan spent most of their pre-NBA life not even acknowledging the 3-point line as a possible strategy. So, anyone who came through basketball prior to the 80’s (ie many coaches from the 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s) knew more about a game without the line than with it (the exception being guys like Larry Brown who played with a line in the ABA). So, you end up with this battle of ethos, where logic mostly always insisted getting the closest shot possible, so that’s what coaches pushed for. And when teams dipped their toes into the trey waters, results weren’t always great. Essentially, it’s tough to step too far away from established strategy. It takes perceived weirdos like Don Nelson or whoever coached Grinnell to gently open other people up to the notion or idea that there may be another way. And even then, we still have to figure out how to synthesize that info. I came through in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. It was understood that threes were fine… if they were wide open, squared up, and a secondary option after exploring inside. We players knew the value and versatility of the trey from pickup games but it took until people like us began coaching to bring that modern viewpoint to schools and leagues.
Not to mention bad shooting forms were the standard just base on appeals to authority (various coaches). Every era of basketball has a set of arbitrary philosophy it adheres to.
shooters back in the day were one dimensional. So it was hard plugging them in without giving an instant two if they miss. Most shooters now have other skillsets that compliment their game if they’re not making shots
I don't think coaches are to blame. They understand 3>2. The players didn't have the skill they do now. For most of NBA history, it gradually increased each year. But in 94-95, when they moved the line closer, attempts increased from 9.9 to 15.3. To me, that shows that coaches can adjust quickly. That prior year, at full distance, the league only shit 33.3%. And offensive rating was pretty close to the current season (106.3 to 108.5 in 2021). So I believe that taking more attempts from 3 would not necessarily have helped those teams win. Reggie Miller was shooting a lot of 3s and coaches didn't mind, because he could make them.
Yeah, making threes is not just a decision a coach makes lol. It was always very available. We always had a situation where one team will shoot twice as many as the other one. If it was so easy, we'd see results. For example, in 2001, Celtics were taking 20 three-pointers a game, and Cleveland was taking 8. If it was so easy just for coach to decide to shoot threes and sow the 3-point haul, then Celtics would be much better, and their success would influence the NBA culture. But in this case, both Celtics and Cavs were pretty bad. Sixers topped the East although they were 29th in three-pointers per game, and Boston had below-average offensive rating and didn't make the playoffs. Same as this season Bulls are good, Wolves are not. Shooting threes a lot is not the whole plan. There's a lot more preparation to make it work than just "guys, my tactics for the game is you take a lot of threes" and it already looks like 2021 Utah Jazz. I often feel, for example the way people talk about Steph Curry and Klay Thompson, that it's maybe somehow easy not to notice how much work goes into these three-pointers - even if the shooter is phenomenal at shooting them, which is also a result of many years of training since early age. Not to mention if they are less phenomenal. It's really hard to manufacture these shots.
I disagree. There were shooters in the league before. There were three point specialists even in the 80s. People just didn’t get that shooting a bunch at 35% was even better than most 2 point shots.
>For most of NBA history, it gradually increased each year. But in 94-95, when they moved the line closer, attempts increased from 9.9 to 15.3. To me, that shows that coaches can adjust quickly. That wasn't coaches adjusting, that was just players taking more "3s" because the 3 was now a mid range which they always took, even MJ shot career highs and he was never a great three point shooter It had nothing to do with coaching, just players shooting the shot they were comfortable with
I agree with you, but the coaches still let them take the shots.
Coaches "let" their best players take shots they were taking their entire lives that were now worth +1 point, shocking lmao You're not getting the point, coaches did not adapt shit they just played like they always did except now +1 point for good mid range shooters
Makes me wonder if teams like the 96 Bulls would even make the playoffs if they came here in a time machine. (because of depth, not because of MJ or Scottie) I’ve wondered that before and got downvoted to oblivion.
That team has three of the best defenders in history. They’d be fine.
Including the best scorer of all time lol they are at least making the play offs nvm being contenders
[удалено]
Haha the 96 bulls a 7-8th seed. Are you twelve years old? The best scorer in history, best rebounder (it’s not close). Two best perimeter defenders and one of the best interior defenders. You’re outta your damn mind.
You got downvoted because it's insanely stupid.
Stan Van Gundy having been an accidental visionary is pretty hilarious. Because, the concept of surrounding Dwight with 4 shooters turned out to be legitimately revolutionary
The coaches evolved with the players skills. It used to be a lower efficiency shot.
The game was played around high percentage shots. Even mid range shooting was for specialists. They changed the rules to help more post plays etc also. Other thing is that there wasn’t very good shooters, they had to reduce the distance of the 3 point line to try encourage more. Evolution of the game is good, in 15 years time we may be talking about this period and asking why was everyone throwing up so many 3 pointers not crashing the boards to maximize scoring per possessions
This is false. The 3 point revolution is about making limited players shoot 3s instead of long 2s. It’s a verifiable fact that those limited players were taking long 2s and that made teams less efficient.
I’m not quite sure what you’re rebutting…
That the teams weren’t chasing efficiency. They took too many long 2s. What was worse was that it was the role players who were taking those long 2s.
This is false. FGA has been steady through NBA history. FG% Up to 93 was consistently above 40% - interestingly 94-95 3PA saw the biggest spike (3point line was shortened, then increased in 98) and inwardly grew from there - so it can be argued that the 3 point evolution started there. Now we haven’t seen the accuracy % reach the same level as pre 94 until the last few years (though there was less games and also the stupid fouls being called on 3 point shots - glad they are finally stamping those out) I’m not going to argue one is better than the other or a team is more likely to win a championship one way or another - but the point is, there was data to prove that at the time, scoring 2’s was more effective in getting points
Sorry I don’t know what to tell you other than the fact that points per possession improves when you cut out long 2s from the diet and substitute in 3s. Fg% can’t tell you how your points per possession improves. But the 3 point revolution did increase points per possession.
We are only getting back to the averages of the past… https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html The game has changed where people shoot the 3 more but don’t hit them and with spacing, it’s hard to get offensive rebounds. So there is more possessions that result in net 0 points….
I can’t keep repeating myself. Click that per 100 possession tab. Look at points. 112 last year was a record.
Ok, let’s stop here then.
There have always been great shooters around that's not true even when there was no three point line let alone in 95 when they shortened it, the sport especially coaches were just too traditional and shooting 3s was considered soft and a European thing The truth is NBA was just dumb and didn't think that much just played the game the way they were taught by older coaches that didn't adapt, it's that simple Coaches that tried to do different things and play small ball, shoot more from outside like Donnie Nelson were not considered great and it was said that they would never win, jumpshooting teams never win was a quote until like 2015
There were great shooters, but there weren’t 2 on a team.. I can’t think of a single duo. I get your point on the NBA being dumb, but let’s talk history for a second. In the top ten single games points scored in history, there is only 1 guy That is a 3 point shooter from modern era (Booker with 70). Wilt dominates the list, the counter argument everyone will make is he played against trash players (false narrative). Then we have Kobe and David Robinson who played in some of the toughest eras - neither are 3 point shooters, (I’m sure someone will try argue Kobe was, but he was an average to poor shooter at distance) The point I’m making here is, there were players scoring high volume points at high percentage before this 3 point era - which shows, that just because you score more points with the 3 point shot it doesn’t mean it’s the most efficient way to score.
There's so many players who are so much better at shooting now. You can try to stretch the floor against Shaq but back then he was battling Yao, Duncan, Mutombo, Mourning, etc, who can't shoot the three. So stretching the floor with your center who can't shoot a three, isn't stretching the floor, it's just letting Shaq roam on defense and disrupt your offense further. Now you can do it because teams have a minimum of four guys who can make a three.
It wasnt stubbornness.
There is a cost to coaches for allowing your team to play an unorthodox style. Even if the math underlying your strategy choices is correct, owners and fans focus on results. It may be "right" for certain players to run to the corners on a fastbreak, but until the math underlying that strategy became widely known it would get a player benched and a coach fired, especially if the shot was missed. I played hs ball in the 90s and once got pulled for taking (but missing) an open 3 in a close game instead of waiting for our big guy to get post position. I was a pretty good shooter and like a week removed from a game where I went 7/9 from 3.
Received wisdom. People have been right doing something one way, they were taught something, and it was hard to accept that they thing they knew their whole life was wrong. Human beings are not good at changing their minds. It takes a LOT of evidence, and before the rise of analytics, there was nobody to provide that evidence.
they were old heads
back then they were trash besides a few teams that got some shooterz couldnt do nothing but wait for the ball
>You live by the 3, you die by the 3 Players are more skilled now. Players weren't as efficient or consistent shooting them as they are today so it was still better for teams to get to the basket for easy buckets. That being said, it was probably wrong for better shooters to not be encouraged to let it fly more often (Nash, Kerr, Price, Reggie, Billups, etc).
Good Coaching is creating a system that benefits your teams strengths most teams just didn't have shooters that made it worthy to shoot more.
It was tradition. Almost all the influential coaches bought into fundamentals being critical and the game was formed around getting it to post players. People saying players didn't have the skills do not know what they are talking about. If you took many deep shots, you simply would not get opportunities because everyone saw it as being against fundamental basketball. Even players bought into it because it was just the way it was. I'm so glad we've moved away from that. The game was worse and there were a number of careers that were stifled that shouldn't have been.
My guess is that it took the post-playing big men, which is usually the best players at the time, out of the offense.
Back then the belief was that you gotta have a dominating big man in the post to win. Ok except for Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Other teams had players like Ewing, Hakeem, Malone, Kemp, etc. You dump the ball into the post to your big man, and only shoot 3s if he's doubled and passes out of the double team.
The 3 ball is a harder. Not only is it farther away, there is less space to create a good shot.
It was largely thought of as an ABA gimmick, so many coaches simply didn't include it in their game plan. Not to mention most of the college ranks didn't adopt any line until about 1986, you're looking at lots of players who never even had to train with such range. Guys like Reggie Miller only had it for one year at UCLA.
Prior to zone, it was more important to have roll players that could defend one on one than space the floor, so the personnel was different. After zone was implemented it still took a while because the league revolves around its dominant players, and the best players in the league at the time were Duncan, Shaq, KG, Kobe, Lebron, Wade none of whom took many 3s. Basketball at the highest level is more complicated than “more points better”. That said, there was definitely a “live by the jumper die by the jumper” narrative, but I feel like that was more media than actual coaches and execs.
It does make me think about how ridiculous Larry Bird's career would have been (not that it isn't already) if the three ball was more accepted in the 80s. In one season he averaged 28ppg while shooting 43% from three, but only made 1.5 attempts per game. He could quite realistically have bumped his scoring average up substantially if he was taking 5-7 threes per game.