Hacker News Reader

Comment by hardwaregeek | Hacker News Reader

Thinking Basketball is one of my favorite resources for basketball analysis. He recently made a video debunking myths about the modern game [1]. While yes, there’s far more analytics and knowledge in the game, it hasn’t lead to monotony or poor quality. It’s instead resulted in a Cambrian explosion of tactics, counter tactics, and really diverse team strategies. But the commentary and analysis in mainstream basketball hasn’t caught up, so your average viewer is watching a chess match but not even understanding the basic moves. Which leads to frustration and confusion.

[1]: https://youtu.be/fp4but75EjY?si=YdOqZZ5-sH6lQHd9

View on HN

> your average viewer is watching a chess match but not even understanding the basic moves

Your average viewer isn't tuning in to watch a chess match. You'll notice that professional chess doesn't have the same viewership as basketball.

Regardless of the mathematical strategies, it sucks to watch a bunch of three pointers getting missed. The NBA team average is 36% on 38 attempts per game. Thus, in an average game, there are 76 three-point attempts and 49 misses.

The worst is when they take and miss a three-pointer early in the shot clock, maybe even from the logo. Shoot, clunk, possession over, yawn.

Draymond Green just said that the modern game is rarely a chess match. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/43860581/no-substance

> Green talked about a recent Warriors game against the Los Angeles Lakers and how it was "refreshing" to go against a thinker like LeBron James, who is notorious for finding weaknesses and exploiting them.

> "Every possession is some type of chess move," Green said. "You don't get that today in the NBA, often. ... You don't just get that on a regular basis. It's just who can run faster, who can hit more 3s. It's no substance. I think it's very boring."

So I agree that more complexity is not better and there’s a real risk of alienating fans with complicated schemes. But chess has made real inroads by providing good commentators and analysis. You can’t make teams play dumber but you can teach fans to be smarter.

As for missing, the video I linked debunks that. 3 pointers are replacing long 2 pointers which also had a low percentage. And in turn, the game has become less crowded and more spread out, leading to a higher percentage on dunks and layups. The pace has also dramatically increased, leading to more swings in scoring, which is pretty exciting.

Thinking Basketball is great. The people who complain about the 3s in basketball probably didn’t watch the NBA in the older days. Horrible defense and far less skill — and that’s the era I grew up and loved.

I have two major complaints about the game nowadays: (1) intentional fouling to get an advantage. It’s the only major sport where fouling can often work to your advantage. (2) The block call is so inconsistent it might as well be a coin flip.

Completely agree, but I would add the incessant need for counting, 3 seconds, 8 seconds, 24 seconds. But the current fouling situation really needs to be fixed urgently.

besides 7-footers chucking 3’s what “skills” do these new nba players have? there are maybe 10 that have any skills, the rest can shoot and that’s about fucking it.

90% of today’s players would play in D league two decades ago

> two decades ago

Are you talking about the age when teams gave contracts to any random player 6'10 and above just to soak up fouls from Shaq?

as opposed to now when davis betrans is pushing close $100 million in earnings? :) don’t be funny

Bertans is a close to 8PPG, 40%3P shooter in his career. Sounds like a useful role player to me. Not everyone has to be Lebron James.

if we paid $84m to role players NBA will need salary cap equal to US GDP :)

Are you thinking the salary cap hasn't changed from the 90s? The MLE is 12.3m this year, and that is a high-end role player. If one plays at that level for 8 years, they make that amount you're complaining about. And the cap is expected to go up significantly over the next few years (would have gone up more drastically, but the KD to Warriors situation convinced teams to adopt smoothing).

It is true that in general, super stars are underpaid, and role players are overpaid.

> (1) intentional fouling to get an advantage. It’s the only major sport where fouling can often work to your advantage.

nitpick: This happens in soccer as well. Oftentimes it's late in the game and you see the opponent has a counterattack that has a high probability of scoring. In that case, it's better for you to tactically foul them by taking them down before they reach your box and take the yellow card.

Came here to say this. It doesn’t have to be late in the game. The whole time tactical fouls is a valuable tool for defense. You try to make it non-violent enough and, when it’s a counterattack, early enough so the referee might not interpret as a foul to prevent a counterattack, so you don’t get a yellow card.

Also, exchanging a certain goal for a penalty+red card is a very common defense tactic. Check Uruguay vs Ghana, World Cup 2010.

The end of a basketball game feels almost completely unwatchable for me when they devolve into constant fouling, stopping the game every couple of seconds.

There are possessions where the defense has the sole objective of ignoring everything other than fouling as fast as possible, which feels boring and can stretch 30 seconds of in game clock time to 5+ minutes of back to back stoppage. I get that it might be the mathematical best play because it forces the winning team to take free throws and then turn the ball over without taking any clock time, but they could architect the rules to avoid it.

I totally agree with the block call being a coin flip.... I'd extend it to almost every other call. NBA reffing seems like it absolutely sucks for such a large scale professional league. Basketball is a fast paced game so I know they can't catch everything, but when you're watching on TV you see so many things that are so inconsistently called. Those calls end up changing the outcome of the game when one team has 20 more ft chances than the other.

The defense was much more on point back in the ‘90s because the defenders were allowed to be more physical without fouls getting called left and right. Nowadays it’s all a travesty, you’ve got scoresheets like 145-135 and nobody blinks an eye about it.

Horrible defense? You're kidding, right? Check out the mid-80's - 90's - early 2000's Bulls, Knicks, Celtics, 76'ers, and Pistons, or basically any team east of the Mississippi. The 95-96 Bulls were the best defensive team in NBA history. No one's played defense in the NBA for 20 years at least. And yeah, the 3 has completely changed the game into something more resembling NBA 2K1, which is exactly what the league wants.

> As for missing, the video I linked debunks that. 3 pointers are replacing long 2 pointers which also had a low percentage.

I'd much rather watch NBA players miss 3's than watch a 23 minute YouTube video of someone talking about missing 3's. ;-) But the NBA FG% in 2025 is 46.5%, while it was 49.1% in 1985, so I'm skeptical that 3 pointers are simply replacing long 2 pointers with equal percentages. Obviously the % would go down the farther you get from the basket.

> And in turn, the game has become less crowded and more spread out, leading to a higher percentage on dunks and layups

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 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.

> 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.

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.

Perimeter defense is way better now. In the old days most 3s were uncontested. It’s a shot they just wanted you to take.

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."

> 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.

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

I remember seeing part of a game in about 1985. IIRC, it was the Jazz against the Knicks. Utah won, something like 86-82. The Knicks offense was laughably bad. They came down the floor, wound up standing around the perimeter of the key, all five of them, each with a defensive player in front of them. They passed the ball around that perimeter. Nobody moved; they just stood there. Eventually somebody shot.

I know it was late in the game and people were tired. The shooting percentage may have been reasonably high. I don't care. That's terrible offense. And horrifically boring.

> I remember seeing part of a game in about 1985.

Cool story.

The 3’s are not replacing 2’s at the same shot percentage. The 3’s are slightly lower percentage, but they are high enough that the overall value is higher than the long 2’s they replaced. They came to the conclusion that the long 2 was a high risk play so they replaced it with a comparable play with a higher reward. It’s common sense. Frankly, it’s the long 2 that’s a stupid play.

The video is worth watching and I’m not even a basketball fan. It shows parts of 3 games from 3 eras back to back and it’s really interesting. Personally, I find the modern game to be the most engaging.

The skill level of the guys who aren’t superstars is clearly much higher than the old days. Outside of the stars, you had guys with certain body types that were pretty much one dimensional. It was neat seeing a big guy like Jokic in the video making ridiculous passes and hitting 3’s. Twenty years ago, all he would have done is hang out 4 feet from the basket.

> The skill level of the guys who aren’t superstars is clearly much higher than the old days.

This is inevitable though and would have happened even if the 3-point line were abolished.

Draymond Green is the Joe Rogan of the NBA. He's just optimizing for engagement and controversy.

If it were truly as you say, those players would get pulled. Logo 3s are rare. And when someone heats up and hits multiple consecutive, it's anything but boring.

> Draymond Green is the Joe Rogan of the NBA.

I personally dislike Green because of his on-the-court antics, but I don't think that comparison is fair. Rogan is a know-nothing meathead unqualified to challenge his guests, whereas Green is a veteran, elite, champion NBA player. His opinions, however controversial, have some basis in experience, expertise, and reality.

> If it were truly as you say, those players would get pulled.

Why? The mathematics are still on their side, due to the percentages and the value of the 3. I never claimed that jacking up 3's is irrational; I'm just claiming that it's ugly.

If I were commissioner, I'd abolish the 3. Then they can shoot logo 2's if they want. ;-)

> Logo 3s are rare.

Tell that to Dame.

Is there some magic percentage that must be passed to justify your aesthetic demands? I think the fact that guys like Dame hit 1/3, and seem to hit even more in the clutch, is wildly entertaining.

I really dislike this talking point.

1) That people who don't enjoy what they see are just unsophisticated.

2) That today's basketball is better because players have more skill and plays are more complex. I don't think that's the point at all.

I've personally found it hard to sit through games this season - it feels like there isn't much at stake.

What happens in the first quarter is a mere blip. And even in the fourth, it seems like just which shots happen to go in by chance.

I feel like the Thinking Basketball approach might be exactly what's unenjoyable - devaluing individual moments for the sake of theory.

"The regular season is too long" and "the first quarter doesn't matter" (make that anything before the last 5 minutes, really) are practically ancient complaints at this point. Decades long.

"Too many threes" is a more novel complaint but one that should self-correct in a couple of ways:

* the passing/screens/movement that leads to a good look at a three is often pretty fun

* taking bad threes has a lot less mathematical advantage and as defenses get better at shutting down the schemes for the good ones, the best teams will adjust what other looks they try to generate

I would also be fine with moving the line back, or getting rid of the corner three entirely. The fixed-distance shot is an easier skill than being able to hit jumpers from various distances so as long as its easy-enough then you're never gonna see players who don't otherwise have much offensive game train themselves to be 3pt specialists.

1. <- I think this is a good thing to focus on, and even lightly touched on in the video. The idea should be that you don't _need_ to be sophisticated to enjoy the sport. The NFL does well in this regard because it's pretty easy to understand that moving the ball forward is good, losing the ball is bad.

Where basketball misses there is that the "get the ball in the hoop" portion of that is _really_ boring now. I'd wager that people don't want to be concerned with some 3rd man setting a screen on the other side of the court allowing some 2nd man to set up behind a pick from a 4th man to get passed the ball from the 1st man to shoot a three... and then clank it off the rim. Then, rinse and repeat on both ends. The end result is that the "get the ball in the hoop" part just feels like a back-and-forth 3-point shootaround, even though the actual sequence is far more complex.

So missed shots are boring? I think most people would go the opposite way, wanting defenses to be more empowered and 3 pointers harder to make.

I love the modern game. I just think the pendulum has swung a tiny bit too far toward 3s in the past 3-4 years, that's all. Just a nudge in the other direction.

My ideal would be to try changing 2s and 3s to 3s and 4s. But that will never happen.

agree it'll never happen, but very cool idea.

I think it would be enough to simply move the 3 point line back a couple feet AND have it follow its natural arc out of bounds, thus eliminating the shorter and easier corner 3 shot.

couple of feet is not enough. the line needs to move far enough such that vast majority of the players (more than 95%) shoot less than 30% from there. so probably 8 to 10 feet back. absolutely should happen but they will likely do something awesome like shortening quarters to 10 minutes

Just fill the ball with water.

But not fully otherwise it becomes easy again.

What about tying 2 sets of players (one pair on each team) feet together, potato sack relay style?

curry and bol bol are two good candidates. in today’s nba you can’t tell difference between them on the court except for several feet of height difference. but practically same player as they shoot about the same shots

I’d rather defenses covered it better to give up more 2s in the paint. If we make it too far out it no longer spaces the floor and then we’re back to a game in the paint.

This is my preferred answer. Bring back physicality into the sport, especially on defense. There are moving screens on every play, and yet a defender can stand and get jumped into resulting in free throws.

> But that will never happen.

Yes, it will. However it will take depressed viewership to realize.

So, yeah. Never.

If the answer is “they have to make less money”, it’s just very unlikely to happen. Most sports, but especially the global behemoths that are basketball and football (soccer), have made more money over time just because of population.

I don't watch basketball, so I am speculating, but isn't this a case where defence hasn't yet adapted to the new attacking strategies? Wouldn't you expect that in a few years teams will be better at defending against 3s, reducing their expected value and therefore swinging the pendulum back towards more 2s?

The Nash equilibrium should be that the expected values of 2s and 3s are equal. If you're off, you would expect a trend toward that equilibrium, possibly with some overcorrection.

Ironically Steve Nash didn't shoot enough 3s, so his Nash equilibrium was pretty off.

In all seriousness, yes, there's a lot more to modern basketball than just "take more 3s". It's more like "try to get dunks and layups, but if that doesn't work get 3s, but also mid range is still valuable if it softens up defense". And defenses have learned to scramble and switch to cover a lot of 3 pointers, but that can still be exploited with cross court passing and switch hunting. Check out some cool plays here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-V_ujmMFo

This is a great question from a novice basketball watcher. What's with the downvotes?

I love thinking basketball but think he completely missed the point here. An apt quote is when he's talking about how much strategy the game has and says "its like high speed chess." The problem is that people dont want to watch high speed chess. The NBAs job is to be as entertaining as possible, not just as strategic as possible. Like it or not iso plays are entertaining even if theyre "bad basketball" in terms of winning. He says the only thing thats changed is that people take less mid range shots and more 3s as if thats a good thing but the league has replaced entertaining sets where you have to actually beat your defender with shooting contests(even if you have to run around a lot or step back to get the shot off) and the product has suffered because of it.

I think defense is a lot more interesting now and the media has done a horrible job capitalizing on that but end of the day people care more about offense.

Thinking Basketball needs a prime time spot for his analysis. Very good stuff.

Are you talking about NBA basketball? Golf is more exciting.

I am about as crazy of an nba fan as they come - or at least I used to be. I was averaging 80-90 games per year before, now I watch maybe 20 max, mostly in the playoffs. Surely there are people that prefer today's nba, I am not one of them. I think chucking 3's is the least interesting part of the game and it is so overwhelming in today's game that I lost interest in watching

Reply on news.ycombinator.com