[lapcat]

> 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.

[hardwaregeek]

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]

> 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]

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.

[lapcat]

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]

> 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.

[kenjackson]

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

[kingraoul]

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

[jm4]

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.

[lapcat]

> 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.

[AnimalMuppet]

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.

[lapcat]

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

Cool story.