WWW.PANTHERNATION.COM
GO PANTHERS!
welcome

Welcome to the best UNI Panther forum on the net!

Become a PN Supporting Member! Get exclusive access to the Panther Den forum and more. Click here for info.

30-minute show exclusively highlighting UNI Athletics. Click here for info.

  • You need to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
  • To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the help page by clicking this link.
  • If you have any questions please use the Contact Us form.
This website is not affiliated with the University of Northern Iowa or the UNI Panther Athletic Program.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Game 13- Valpo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Would be interesting to see what would happen if they reduced dunks and layups to 1 point shots. Would that lead to more mid range attempts?
    (not that that would ever happen)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by not a drake fan View Post

      Well, if you move it back far enough, it would lower the points-per-shot that you get from 3s and eventually get it to the point where it is about as attractive as a mid range shot. It's a sliding scale.

      I'm not saying that basketball needs these changes. I personally don't find the modern game harder to watch. But plays like this are hard to argue against:

      ​​​​https://twitter.com/DubMnE/status/14...806646275?s=20

      That play got me wondering recently if basketball is going to make any wholesale changes. Analytics broke through with baseball and it really kind of ruined the sport in the long run and made it hard to watch. Baseball didn't react quick enough; the game action decreased dramatically. And it's hard to really blame them for that, they were the guinea pigs. The questions I wonder are: is basketball going to feel like it needs to evolve, and will it?
      Yea, let's cut the baseball references. Call me crazy, but baseball is on a completely different planet analytically. I think it's a phase that'll pass, especially if they move the mind back like has been discussed. Look at a guy like Ichiro. Sure, he was an all time great, but the dude 100% had the ability to hit 40+ homers a year, but he knew it would cost him in a lot of other ways. Maybe I'm old school, but a guy who can hit .320+, take the ball to all the fields and hit for occasion power is a lot more valuable than a guy who hits .250 with a ton of power. Shooting a 23-24 footer over a 15-20 footer because it's worth 50% more points is just common sense when you really think about it. In the long run, there's a huge difference between stepping back a few feet for a shot that's worth an extra point vs an entire hitting philosophy of hitting 50 homers with a ton of Ks vs 30 homers, a lot of doubles, a lot of productive outs, etc.
      To avoid confusion - my username is baseball (Cy Young award) related, NOT for the Cyclones.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by orangetennis View Post
        Would be interesting to see what would happen if they reduced dunks and layups to 1 point shots. Would that lead to more mid range attempts?
        (not that that would ever happen)
        Terrible idea, because it would means less drives to the hoop, and less playmaking and creation on the fly. Basketball as a game is designed to showcase athleticism and playmaking ability. That should be rewarded. One point for shots in close would mean rosters full of slow footed players chucking up threes. Take the worst offenses from some mediocre UNI teams, put it on steroids, and there’s your game.

        Comment


        • #49
          Get rid of the three point shot?
          "My role is to lead, plain and simple. . . .I with the help of my staff and our administration, we will lead." --Ben Jacobson

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by not a drake fan View Post

            Well, if you move it back far enough, it would lower the points-per-shot that you get from 3s and eventually get it to the point where it is about as attractive as a mid range shot. It's a sliding scale.

            I'm not saying that basketball needs these changes. I personally don't find the modern game harder to watch. But plays like this are hard to argue against:

            ​​​​https://twitter.com/DubMnE/status/14...806646275?s=20

            That play got me wondering recently if basketball is going to make any wholesale changes. Analytics broke through with baseball and it really kind of ruined the sport in the long run and made it hard to watch. Baseball didn't react quick enough; the game action decreased dramatically. And it's hard to really blame them for that, they were the guinea pigs. The questions I wonder are: is basketball going to feel like it needs to evolve, and will it?
            Using one clip to prove some kind of larger point doesn't actually prove anything. Watching that play, the correct move to pull the ball back out was made. A short guard going up for that layup when he had a F/C right there to defend it is the right move. Now, you want to talk about him rushing a shot? Sure.

            People love the "Steph ruined basketball" bull****, and it just isn't true. Steph is an extension of guys like Reggie, Ray, Kyle Korver, Vince Carter (yes, he's known for his dunks but he's 6th al time in 3s), JJ Reddick, Jason Kidd and Steve Nash.Steph is the most prolific but he didn't create anything new. The idea of bigs no longer being tied to the block isn't because of Steph. Think of the numbers Reggie or Ray put in in this NBA. They were still playing in a 3 yards and a cloud of dust NBA. It's like looking at QB numbers. Yeah, dudes in the 90s put up great numbers - Marino, Elway, Aickman, Kelly, Cunningham, etc. Now imagine what they'd do with coaches that weren't brought up thinking that you have to run at least 2 out of every 3 downs. That anytime it was X and less than 5 the ball had to be handed off. Is anyone asking for passing TDs to be worth less than rushing TDs because "the game is ruined by this new offense"? No. Matt freaking Ryan is 9th all-time in passing yards. It is entirely possible he ends up top 5 by the time he's done. He has a few years left and he's less than 6000 yards away from passing Ben Roethlisberger for 5th. 6,000 yards in the NFL today is maybe a year and a half for top-end passers. It's 100% less than two for an "average" NFL QB. Based on his career average of roughly 270 per game he needs just 23 more games to get there, and that includes me rounding to make it take longer. 23 more games is less than a season and a half. Compare that to Fran Tarkenton, who retired as the all time passing yards leader and was decades a head of everyone else in the NFL when it came to style of play. He averaged 191 yards per game during the 60s and 70s. Look at the more prolific guys of the 80s and 90s with Dan Fouts, Dan Marino Jim Kelly and you are at 220-230 per game. Even the biggest names of that era - Young, Aickman, Simms, Kelly, etc. were all between 190-205 per game in their career.

            There were only two guys that played in the 90s (majority of the 90s, not guys that came in like Manning in 98) that crossed over the 225 mark - Favre at 235 and Marino at 253. Those two were considered untouchable in terms of passing numbers and now their numbers, per season/game are "meh". This season the lowest YPG is Ryan Tannehill at 215. Favre would be 24th in passing yards per game and Marino would be 13th.

            The game has changed. Game theory evolves. We learn it makes sense in football to throw the ball 35-40 times per game more than it makes sense to run the ball 40 times per game. Should passing yards and touchdowns be nerfed because 30 years ago when we watched as kids, learning to love the sport, it was different? Hell no. Should the field be made longer because yards are coming easier to teams because of the evolution of the passing game? Hell no.

            Why are we going to punish kids who are good at shooting? Because 30 years ago they weren't the norm? The line has already been moved back twice in the last 11 or 12 years. The 3% fell less than half a percent over that time, and it's now 2.5 feet further back than it was. You can play with the math on a per-shot basis to go "just keep moving it back to make a two-point shot more worth the effort". A team would need to shoot 2-pointers at a clip 50 percent higher than its 3-point percentage to achieve equivalent value per shot. From what I can find Division I teams combined have never done that over a full season, and the NBA has not had that happen since 1990-91. Because of the change in distance, college teams are now nearing that equilibrium at 49.8 percent from inside the arc (.996 points per shot) and 33.6 percent outside (1.008 points per shot). Based on numbers I found it is the second-smallest gap in value since the origin of the 3-pointer. Keep in mind that it includes ALL 2 point shots (dunks, layups, transition baskets, etc. If you break it down to half-court set offenses the gap widens, and it is exactly why teams shoot the 3.

            Basically what it all boils down to is "I don't like teams shooting the three-pointer. I think they should shoot 15 footers because that's what I grew up with" from 99% of the people who think the line needs to move or hate offenses designed around creating more efficient points per shot.

            Again, it isn't "trading a layup for a 3 pointer", regardless of what one-off twitter clips from an NBA game try to show. People aren't advocating for taking more 3s at the expense of inside 6 feet. What people, and coach Jake, are saying is it makes zero sense to shoot a 15 footer when you have a chance at a 3 point shot. Statistically, it is a horrible shot for about 95% of college players.

            Moving the 3 point line back to drop percentages enough to make the 16 footers a "better shot" that a 3 pointer isn't actually making the game better. I'd argue it makes it worse because the 16 footer isn't going to go up in %. It is what it is and has had nearly the same % the entirety of "modern" basketball (say the 60s or 70s). In stead of having scoring and making needs need to make shots/plays to win it just becomes a battle of missed shot after missed shot after missed shot after missed shot.

            Comment


            • #51
              I'm a huge advercate for getting rid of the three pernt shot. I played basketball my entire career without it, and it came into being just after I left high school.

              Like dunk, it's made a mockery of the game and turned it into just a whole bunch of REALLY sloppy playing. UNI basketball? Exhibit A, folks.
              Which winning percentage is better: 61% or 65%?

              Comment


              • #52
                I wasn't trying to use that Twitter clip to prove anything. I gave it as a counter argument to what I believe. I do not think Steph Curry or analytics has ruined basketball in any but I understand why some feel that it has/is.

                Sorry to all for my role in derailing this thread; where's the MSU game thread?

                Comment


                • #53
                  With so many players taking deeper and deeper 3 point shots, I'd actually like to see a 4 point shot. That will never happen but I think it'd be interesting to see

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by orangetennis View Post
                    With so many players taking deeper and deeper 3 point shots, I'd actually like to see a 4 point shot. That will never happen but I think it'd be interesting to see
                    Hahaha. I’m sure if you’re being funny. It would get really annoying. In today’s college bb, an offensive efficiency (essentially ppp) of over 1.2 should get the win the vast majority of the time. For a 4pt shot, you need to make 0.300 to get ppp=1.2.

                    So, if you paint that line at a distance that players can reach 0.300 or greater, then it’s going to get used a lot. In that case the game loses its flow and variety and truly becomes a chuck-fest.
                    Ans if you paint it back far enough that ~no players can get 0.300, then it becomes a seldom used hail-Mary. Which is fine, but it adds a bunch of distasteful randomness to game finishes.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X