The fact that he spends hours plotting and making these graphs for us to visualize instead of throwing information at our faces truly shows why jimmy is the GOAT of basketball RUclipsrs
Nah a lot of the time he just throws stats with no context. He like advanced stats, looks like a good way to judge basketball but in reality it’s not as important
I think about that scenario often, I tend to not believe that could actually happen. It was wild to watch live felt a bit rigged but I guess anything can happen
One thing that I think factors in, as someone in another comment section pointed out, is how much energy it takes to guard the Warriors offense with any effectiveness. It has an evident impact as the series goes on (see: game 6 and 7 situations), especially on the 3 point shots of these players that are playing their ass off chasing Curry and Klay around a bazillion screens
Jimmy: 3-pointers have ruined basketball Me: True. Something needs to be done. Jimmy: Actually, 3-pointers have kept the game balanced for decades since its inception Me: I agree. Please stop all these nonsense about nerfing it!
Actually, I don't think it needs to be done away with. I DO think the range is too available for too many players. Make it 1.5 to 2ft further back (and take it away completely from the sides) and you will see the game balance back out again. When it was first Instituted I think the idea was it was so far away that most teams wouldn't utilize it unless desperation time was necessary and most athletes back then simply couldn't or wouldn't shoot it. Now the range is doable by just about anyone that it's no longer a desperation shot. Make it so only a handful of Specialists can hit it and we get out fun back... and also remove the defensive 3 sec violation and bring big men back into the game (see my comment earlier)
@@the_happiest_gilmoure Did you watch the video? It makes a very solid argument for why the 3-point-line is drawn perfectly where it is. It allows for more versatile and engaging play since it apparently de-clogs the area around the ring. In essence: placing the 3-point line ecactly where it is makes the 2-point play even more attractive.
I think the best thing is to remove offensive and defensive 3 seconds. The 3 point shot has caught up to post play. Just remove the limitations on post post for balance
The reason why 2-pt FG% is up, might be because players stopped shooting the long 2s and replaced them with 3s. This removes ineffective low% 2s, it does not mean that the 3pt shot is creating better quality 2 pt shots. Another point is that fouls are called more often now, these shots does not count towards FG%. This again increases overall 2pt FG%
Siva you make a good point that the rise in 2pt effectiveness may not be due to skill but could be due to a behavioral change in long 2pt attempts due to the value of the 3pt shot, and to the offensive player looking for contact due I think to the rules changes over the past few decades to enhance offense. IAC the 2pt value increases so this is a working balance.
9:32 thank god - literally had zero idea which way this video was going - an art all in itself. What Morey forgets to add is his team was within 1% of the league average on long ball efficiency. Statistically this is on the money. 3 pointers are a self policing mechanism.
@@ryanli6599 so essentially what I'm getting from that statement is basically Would you rather take 10 shots that the league makes 45-65% of the time, or, 10 shots that the league makes 25-45% of the time. The risk of missing a bunch of 3s, from my perspective, is greater than the risk of missing a bunch of 2s. The reward being the opposite statement, of course.
12:24, the players haven’t gotten better at shooting 2-pointers. They’ve just stopped taking the low-percentage 18’ to 20’ shots because it’s more valuable to step back and shoot the three. So without those low-percentage shots, the overall percentage of two-pointers made has risen.
Abso-fucking-lutely true. You don’t see much longer range 2 pointer shots made unless the players open and they’re forced to make it, not voluntarily at least 🗣
@@user-yy7cw7fl8p I mean players nowadays shoot more paint jumpers and close midrange than long ass middys especially near the 3pt line (which are the worse shot ever to me) , like all is define by shot selections ,nowadays nog like in the early 2000s were you had good inefficient scorer taking a lot of bad shot
Yeah his example of what he meant was that when a team shoots 3s people guard up and leave higher percentage openings for 2s. So they've gotten better at it
This man straight up made me think 3 pointers need to be banned and then systematically dismantled my new found hatred for the 3 ball. Now i feel silly. Wat a vid bro
Honestly, I think one of the biggest unspoken changes of shooting so many 3s is the offensive rebounding potential. As every coach ever has said "long shots make long rebounds". As much as you can box out, the rebound off a 3 goes quite far, and if a team is not shooting well they NEED to hustle for these boards. The Warriors were able to win in games when they didn't shoot well because they hustled hard, but in this game they were not trying as hard for the boards and the Celtics were. Put simply: If you are not shooting well, everyone needs to hustle for ORebs because there is no easier offensive rebound then off of a 3.
Yep, this is why you see a lot of players take what looks like a really bad 3 point shot attempt when the reality is is that they got a guy already boxing out ready to hopefully grab a board if the shot doesnt drop.
I'd bet that there's already some teams considering this. Some shooters' three are much harder to predict than others - FVV's misses seem to be hard for defences to predict and the Raptors wings did well on ORBs from them
The evolution of the sport is really something to behold. I don’t know what else can change the sport like the 3 point evolution did. Shows curry’s greatness
That's what came back to bite Curry in the ass you wanna start just Jackin 3s all the time now there's a team that can do the same thing ➕ play defense the Warriors don't play good defense at all klay just came off a major injury u can't expect him 2 be the defender he was prior right away
But if you notice Curry can shoot 3s lights out until the games get tight or the defense gets amped up then all of a suddenly it's not so easy when he has a lead hes one of the best players when hes playing from behind he shuts down and folds up some times
Growing up for me, Steve Kerr was one of my favorites for his role in the Bulls as a perimeter threat. How fitting that he ended up coaching the guys that helped make the 3 pointer a go-to offensive tactic in todays basketball.
Jimmy this might be your best work. There’s no other NBA youtuber that leaves me more interested, more mindblown, and more in love with the sport. Seriously man, no one does it better. Incredible work!
@@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
i was at a bbq a few days ago and 4 kids from 10-16 were playing pick up games they were all shooting 3's. when i played basketball, shooting a 3 was a last resort only to be used when we couldnt penetrate the defense and go for a layup or midrange. The way kids play no is so different and the NBA style definitely has impacted the playstyle of even games for fun
My nephew loves basketball, his favorite player is Steph Curry, he challenged me to a game of 1v1 in the driveway and I had to remind him everything counted only as 1 point on the driveway. Now it’s a laughable disadvantage, I’m a grown man and he’s 11 (and I didn’t try to stomp him) he never even made an attempt to get to the basket, took everything from range. I couldn’t even try to let him win without it being obvious; he’d throw up a three, make some miss some, and get no rebounds or putbacks whatsoever. Sadly he still plays this way, all the kids want to be like Curry
@@omyn. And THAT'S the problem. As long as there is more than one player on the court wearing the same color -- and there are actually five on each side -- basketball is, and always has been a TEAM sport. But today's young players play basketball the same way they approach everything else in their lives. It's all about THEM, not the team. I will do what's fun for ME, and that's not passing the ball, or setting screens, or other team-related things that aren't fun for ME.
Expensive Samurais with their expensive Lamborghinis (war horses) fought in the distance with bows. F-35 lobe missile from nearly a hundred miles away. Leave the melee to the peasants. Ancient problems, modern problems, all require the same solution =)
In a way that’s why Shaq was so dangerous. He was so threatening close to the basket that the Lakers used him to create incredibly devastating 3-pointers. Amazing how many overturns this video has.
As an aside, Bill Laimbeer made him go mad a week before retirement by playing outside of the paint in a way centers really didn't back then (Laimbeer had a killer 3 pointer, especially for a center in the 80s/90s)
After rewatching this video multiple times, I've come to the conclusion that the biggest thing plaguing the watch-ability of today's game are fouls. Can you examine that for us Jimi?
They foul less and shoot fewer free throws now than they ever have, its a myth that old heads and poor commentators push that skews peoples' perception of the game
Bill Burr already give his take on this and I kinda agree with him. He said it was because of the refs and the needs to make an exciting late 4th quarter (more or less). Can't hurt to have it analyzed statistically tho.
@@jonjuko8859 Wrong. There are so many phantom fouls today than there has ever been. How can you be a fan and not be annoyed by these calls? I've seen fouls where it wasn't even a graze, the defender literally didn't touch the offensive player at all. I feel like 70% of the time I look at the replay and I ask myself "WHERE IS THE FOUL? I LITERALLY DON'T SEE ANYTHING".
@@One.Zero.One101 it’s a statistical fact I can link you the page with the year by year data if you need it. Phantom fouls and soft calls have always existed, go and watch a game from the 60’s you’ll find it nauseating the amount of stops there are. The commentators do a terrible job today, goes a long way into skewing peoples perception of the game
Jimmy you’re a master storyteller. The way you reveal the information is extremely well done. Everything else is 10/10 like video editing, your voice quality, the little moments you pause the music and just laugh for effect… but your flow of information is incredible. Love your vids. Also does anyone know what song plays around 9 minutes? Absolutely beautiful.
My major issue with the logic: As players become better shooters over the years, the average three point percentage is about the same because that value equates the value of two and three point attempts. What changes is that more three pointers are taken and their average difficulty increases (longer shots, more of them while guarded).
I think there are more 3 point specialists in the game now. You have a few players that take lots of difficult guarded 3s (Steph, Harden, Tatum, Luka, Dame, Mitchell, Levine, Trae, McCollum...9 players??). But you have plenty more that stand and wait for the corner 3. It's the opposite of back in the day when you had more players who could create their own like Gilbert Arenas, Iverson, or T-Mac.
Nope. It's all about the money, marketing, tv contracts and merch sales. It's very simple. Gradually devolve the game into a meaningless stylized caricature of itself and emphasize everything that used to be frowned upon and considered despicable and unsportsmanlike. This attracts more casual viewers who, on average, know/care less about the game thus more $$$. If by the off chance you convert a portion of these casual viewers into regular consOOmers of the sport, you've now convinced them that the sport is really about handles, swag and empty stats. The longer this goes on, the larger percentage of the fanbase becomes saturated and disconnected with how the game was meant to be played.
baskets were originally worth 1 point. and there was no dunking...so who exactly told you how the game was "meant" to be played. and shooting 3s is "unsportsmanlike"? Lol how high are u?@@derekwaters8683
@@derekwaters8683 They way it was meant to be played isn't as straightforward as it might seem. James Naismith invented the game in 1891 and it only had 13 rules. But overtime, things change. This happens to everything. No matter the catalyst, basketball was always going to forever evolve. It even makes logical sense that 3 pointers would, logically, become popular regardless of monetary gain. It's worth the most amount of points. Human nature inclines us towards the greatest gain.
The numbers don't lie, folks. I found the Warrior's era almost too boring to watch. Denver, however, played real basketball; they passed the ball, everyone had a chance to score, and the superstar went with the best chance for a bucket from his team. That's why the Nuggets and Jokic are world champions. .
I think there’s a hidden advantage with the three pointer worth mentioning. Passing the ball around the perimeter is fairly safe. Turnovers and blocks, which don’t show up on shot percentages, are far more common inside. So while the points per attempt may be even, the points per possession when a team tries to score a 2 pointer end up being lower.
Teams be shooting 11-34 on average from 3 and wonder why they lose by 6 points. How many of those missed 3s could've been an easy 2 points? If a team ever looks to score more 2 pointers they would dominate
@@fcarter3863 yeop a perfect team would be a lebron and curry team up wit ad like big man aswell. Basically a team that will focus on attacking the paint but can look to the outside and find curry and get. Good percentage of 3s as well
@@fcarter3863 for real… Especially if the team isn’t even known for 3-point shooting. Every time they run up the floor and throw up a quick 3, I be yelling… “Why didn’t you run your offense?” (Of course, it depends on who’s shooting and how open they are. But most of the time they are essentially just turning the ball over after a 5 second possession)
This is a typically ignorant comment. You're ignoring the fact that teams don't just pass the ball around the perimeter to get open 3s. They set on ball screens, off-ball screens, drive and kick, throw cross-court passes, and execute dribble hand-offs among other things to get open looks from 3. Those all present turnover risks. More importantly, getting to the rim results in more trips to the free-throw line than shooting a three. The stats presented by JimmyHighRoller on the value of 2s and 3s don't lie.
@@Muhahahahaz Those pull up 3s from transition are getting ridiculous. Like I get if you’re Steph or Dame but some of these dude really out here pulling up for 3 during a 2 on 1 like they’re not shooting under 30%.
I’d argue that the 24 second shot clock slightly edges out the 3 pointer in the biggest change to the sport of basketball - if for no other reason, because if that hadn’t been implemented, the NBA might’ve ultimately folded and the pace of the sport might have never accelerated in a manner that allowed other revolutionary changes (including the 3 pointer) to emerge.
I don’t think it is because to me the shit clock was more of a catalyst rather than the biggest change. It brought those changes into fruition but still wasn’t the thing that changed everything heavily
youre not wrong but thats also more of a business perspective rather to the evolution of the game. the shot clock is there to make the game more fast paced and therefore players are less hesitant to shoot but are affected by the time winding down, not to mention players have become smarter and more time efficient thanks to it. so virtually in my opinion it balances out the effects of the game but makes it more entertaining.
I suggest u watch thinkingbasketball if u want to actually be educated, they actually understand the data they are using and presenting to people rather than just finding a bunch of slightly relevant numbers and putting them all together with no concept of proportion
@@evangordon4672 Exactly, there are other channels that are way more in depth and accurate. Jxmy is just about embellished narratives and using skewed stats. Entertaining to watch, but not really the most informative content
Dont adjust the 3 pointer. Allow the defense to do more than just stand there. The player with the ball is basically untouchable now a days compare to the 90s defense.
The things is we're at an all-time low in fouls called a game despite being in an all time-high in possessions. The narrative that fouls are called cheap today does not conform with the factual numbers. The all-time top 10 list of most free-throws of a player, for instance, is majorly from 1960s to 1990s. Looking into that, the league is in fact not necessarily suppressing the defense. Defense virtually did not change, spaced offense just made it look like defense is not played, but it just became incredibly harder. So it must not be compared in the past eras. We are not bringing back the defense of the past eras because it didn't go away. We need to adjust the rules to favor the defense more.
@Crafty-Cam1992 casuals see it that way, but fouls are more lenient today. We are at an all-time low in fouls called per game in a league that is at an all-time high in possessions a game. Of course, boomers hate factual figures. They rely on confirmation bias and personal anecdotal evidence, not facts. Past era didn't know how to defend without fouling. Fouling doesn't make them better defenders than players today who gotta actually defend the whole floor and not just the inside.
Dude I LOVE the amount of research you put into these videos. It's mind boggling how you can present so much data into easy to understand presentations. You are the Michael Jordan of sports commentary.
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
I know it’s left field, but I would love to see you break down the efficiency of teams winning after CHOOSING to call a timeout for a last second play vs letting the team play it out. Mike Breen’s call on Curry’s famous shot against the thunder started it off for me; “they have a timeout, decide not to use it…” My confirmation bias keeps affirming that not using a timeout yields better results, but I want some jxmy stat graphs to paint the picture. No idea how to efficiently get this info though.
As a college basketball fan I’ve watched my team lose so many games because we didn’t call a timeout and we got a horrible shot so i’d like to see that video too
timeouts in important situations have always been about utilization of the team's momentum. where's the defense? if they're lagging, tired, or not in position for the play developing on the field, eh, just go for it. if they're crisp, and right on-BZZT timeout, let's figure this out. it's kind of like the 3pt shot, self balancing. your confirmation bias is almost assuredly correlated to the momentum on the floor.
I think what this shows is we’ve been through the “3 Point Era” and we’ll get a team soon that will bring something equivalent to Ajax’s total football. Achieving a perfect balance where the aim will be to increase point per shot as high as possible.
Kobe predicted this before he passed. Mentioned that he'd noticed the game seemed to change in cycles. That the three pointer was becoming the core of championship basketball, and that it's normalization would eventually result in a way to exploit 2pt opportunities further. His insight into the game was always so interesting.
@joakim What is interesting to me is the comment about cycles. How the game goes from one method of optimization to another multiple times and ends up finding itself not far from where it was. It was cool to hear for a soft-brain like me. 😅
My NBA knowledge has gone up dramatically since I started watching this channel, thank you Jxmy! If somebody knows the songs at 12:45 and 15:16 please let me know, you can be my girlfriend on runescape.
So interesting! When talking about value of the shot, we also need to factor in on other thing. The difference in the offensive rebound likelihood for 2-pointers and 3-pointers. This also slightly reduces the value of the 3-pointer.
@@andrewbomkamp3708 I think what he says is the following. If you shoot 4/12 for 3 you will have the same number of points on the same number of shots as 6/12 for 2. However you'll have more misses and therefore more opportunities for your opponent to score against you, therefore 6/12 for 2 is better than 4/12 for 3.
@@andrewbomkamp3708 If a 2 point shot occurs at or near the rim, the chance of rebounding your own missed shot is a lot higher than chucking up 3s. Big men especially, since you sometimes see them miss 2, 3 or 4 consecutive put backs before finally scoring.
@@roseroselyne9045 very valid statement. Defenders can’t even creep up into shooters “landing zone”. All they could do is do a side sweep jump and hope they block it or don’t get fakeoutted or simply stand in one spot without moving. It’s a shooters league now.
Exactly. The game was boring. That's why we need a new limit!. The 3 pt shot limit! Obviously you can still shoot from anywhere after the limit, but they only count as 2's. 25 feels right, I wouldn't set it too low. (you could base it on Pace of play from previous season) There would be a lot of strategy around this, saving 3's for the 4th and pounding it inside.. more importantly I think you'd get distinct team roles reintroduced and roster construction and team chemistry would be more interesting. Do it!.
@@kdub3288 3 pt shooters can't be breathed on, but a post guy can get his arm taken off after getting body checked 3 times, dunking and no foul. Yeah, the rules are very imbalanced.
Honestly, the 3 point line levels the playing field in Basketball. Before, the game used to be a big man's game where height and size made such a big difference because majority of shots were scored inside the paint. The addition of the 3 point line makes shooting skill regardless of size and height very valuable. You can be short but still make a valuable impact as long as you practice how to shoot the ball.
I don't care about the three-point shots. The reason why I haven't watched an NBA game in years? Because it's all about offense now. No one has to "fight" for points anymore, every idiot runs to the basket without any interference and scores, it's ridiculous and frustrating. For decades, I've been hoping for the rule on hand checking to change again. So that we can see exciting, good basketball again.
A few days ago, I had an awakening experience. I believe it's truly a matter of taste and, above all, a generational conflict. How did it come about? Well, I happened to watch a playoff game after years, my first game in ages (Clippers vs Mavs). At first, I was optimistic; both teams were playing tough defense, fighting for every point. One team was briefly up by almost 30 points. For me - an old 90s veteran - it seemed like a clear-cut game. When the commentator mentioned, "in basketball, such a game, such a score can turn around within minutes," I burst out laughing. But... unbelievably, he was right! In just one quarter, it was tied again. Some role player casually sunk six three-pointers in a row. Apparently, nothing exciting for the viewers anymore... The defenders seemed tired, almost lazy. I was so disappointed. What really left me speechless, though, was when a younger commentator was ecstatic about it, saying he was "finally" witnessing a great game! He then somewhat condescendingly remarked that "older viewers" prefer defensive battles. My conclusion: this poor, young generation of viewers today doesn't really know how exciting a basketball game can actually be. I no longer believe that anything will change there. The majority of young fans just seem to want to see a three-point contest for 48 minutes straight... What a pity...
It's incredibly harder to defend today because of the spacing (an average player can spot-up a well contested 3pt shot and just deadeye hit them), and rules favoring offense make it even harder. Defenders did not decline, offense just evolved so fast that defense had not caught up with it.
Gotta say man, your videos are so amazing. You got me back into basketball a few years back, and I really appreciate that. Keep up the amazing work man, good to see genuinely good content creators like you thriving!
@@knowsomething9384 yeah tts doesn't really do a good job of detecting that, I didn't even notice the first time. Easy fix, but you don't gotta be an as I know damn well you make errors too homie. 🤣
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
Hey Jimmy, just recently started playing your videos in my living room for my family. My grandparents and my dad absolutely ATE IT UP. EVERY. SECOND. You’re doing great things, all while making it palpable and easy to understand
My dude Jimmy, i have to bow to you. I watch a few other NBA RUclipsrs, but your videos.... are a whole another level. The work you put into them is just mind blowing, from the research, to the editing, to the graphs and selected videos. The excitement i get when i see you post another video is undescribed. In the name of all NBA fans, thank you Jimmy, you the real MVP
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
The way you break down historical statistics and explain them so clearly while keeping the audience engaged is a true gift. I'm sure it's backed by a tonne of hard work and effort too. Thank you so much, keep it going!
JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
"No idea why the league took so long to figure out", This really does show you that you have to give props to Steph Curry and to a slightly lesser degree Klay Thompson. Steph basically showed as a single individual that it can work if your good enough, Klay with Steph showed it was good enough for a team to be doing it.
Actually the importance of 3-point shot and how it could open the space up was discovered before Curry. A good example is 2009 Orlando: 4 shooters + big man. But GSW made it crystal clear to everyone, you’re right about that.
@@user-bx8vr9jq7v What was the the point of this dumb irrelevant comment? He’s just pointing out how good two players are at shooting, everyone knows this….
@@Dat.BoyJay warrior fans are just clowns. steph didn’t figure out anything he just had a green light. they didnt single handedly change the league. get off your knees. the step back shot changed the game more
I’ve long theorized this is related to the NBA2K game strategy. Generations of kids playing video games and exchanging three-pointers eventually grew up to do the same in the NBA.
This seems like a crazy theory but honestly, almost all of the young guys drafted since like 2010 played 2k at some point, and there are many guys in the nba like kyrie who still play 2k to this day. It definitely had influence, but I think Steph was the biggest contributor towards it.
I think the argument “one team out classed the other team, but they just hit their threes” is kinda silly because perimeter defense is a thing. Teams can literally just train the team to shoot better and defend better. It’s literally just teams that can’t shoot threes/ can defend them. I understand the argument against them, it’s just not a good one.
one thing both you and the video forgot to consider: if both average shot values are going up, that means that basketball is disproportionally favoring offense over defense. It's not that the 3-pointer is significantly better than the 2-pointer, it's that by having so many lanes of attack by moving the defending box farther from the paint, otherwise great defensive teams get snubbed. the motive is to even out the advantages of offense and defense so that both ends have equal action, NOT to stifle one form of offense
At the same time though, they changed the rules because pussies complained about George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, Shaquille O'Neal, and the Detroit Pistons.
Well it definitely ruined street ball. You can be up by one, open for a layup under the goal but someone decides to shoot a three instead of passing when your team need only one point, miss the shot and lose the game. This happened to me while hitting a majority of the points in the post. Damn youngins!
everyone wants to be hitting the game winning shot instead of being on the team that makes the game winning shot if that makes any sense. I personally rather win and get onto the next game lol
Exactly my dude. And for me at it's heart, bball is still street ball. For fans who watch; what would they rather see; teams throwing up threes, or teams going for athletic dunks and layups
@@Christoff070 The ratings speak for themselves. We would rather see a physical game in the paint with teams picking their spots all around the court for the highest percentage look, rather than hucking up 3's all game at a 30% success rate.. Yeah, Im sure the analytics will show 3's may be more "efficient", but the NBA is an entertainment product. If there was no fans, they wouldnt be playing now would they. The fans are just as important, if not moreso, than the players. Look at the WNBA. They need to be subsidized by the NBA and cannot even afford to pay their players or pay stadium fees. Thee NBA needs to pay it for them.. Well the NBA is heading in that direction with its current ratings. THe regular season is also becoming more and more meaningless, which is another huge red flag.
Really interesting and balanced argumentative video. However I disagree on the last graph: If a 3 pointer had been worth only 2.5 points, the defence would have focused less on defending them, making it easier to shoot 3 pointers. This would result in a higher points per 3 point attempt.
You have a point. the drop in thee point value does seem a bit exaggerated. But at the end of the day, it would most likely still be worth less than a common 2 point shot. Honestly if a team shoot's better than another team, then OK they get more 3s. All the other team has gotta do is learn to shoot the three themselves to balance them. Why is that seen as such a huge problem? Their is no rule against teams learning/using the same moves as their opponents. BOTH teams are allowed to use 3s so if you think it's broken for one side, it will be EQUALLY as broken for the other side. How is something "broken" if both sides are allowed to do it? Unlike paint moves, which gets more broken the more physically dominant a player is, a three is a skill that anybody can learn, and the defense isn't gonna get injured from getting shot on like they would getting mowed over by a bigman drive. When wilt was babying everybody in the league, they didn't say anything about making a 2 point shot worth 1.5 points. It seem like there's just a hatred towards shooting being a good option, instead of it being something you do because your trapped.
but 2.5 is less sexy, imagine a match finishing with a score like 99.5 - 102.5, i think its better like this, and after all we can always move back the line a little bit (except for corners) if players become too efficient from 24 feet
Not just this, but teams would naturally move toward only taking threes with the most efficient shooters in the most efficient situations. Things will always find some balance, so "is the 3 balanced?" isn't quite the right question. The question is: do you find whatever balance the game settles in enjoyable to watch? I think an interesting stat that I wish Jxmy had charted is what percentage of total points scored come from the 3-pointer. I'm not checking every season so these could be outliers, but THAT had a big change between 2002 and this year. 2001-02 featured 16% of points from 3s/65% from 2s/19% from FTs, whereas 21-22 was 34%/51%/15%. Going to 2.5 points beyond the arc would certainly reverse that trend. Another potentially fruitful line of research into this would be to track the correlation between different team stats and wins. Given the numbers above, I'd be willing to wager that 3-point accuracy is more important in whether a team is good or bad than it used to be. Ideally, you want no stat to be too highly correlated with winning, so that teams are using various styles and strategies.
It’s hard to cover that much ground in multiple possessions. Rotations are where you can try to make up the percentages but it’s never going to be 100%
lol yeah does it feel like it's balancing out 🤣🤣🤣 cos I'll tell you right now basketball is absolutely the most boring sport to watch in America right now
Around the 10:00 mark when you're talking about the 'only slight increase in 3P% over time' you need to take into account that the 3PT shot has been defended much more closely in the last 2 decades than it ever was when it was first introduced, which will of course alter the % of makes. The fact that it has risen so dramatically, despite being defended harder is a huge achievement and indicative of how good shooters are these days and in recent years.
The whole standard of shooting has went up, Steph Curry is more efficient from 3 than Allen Iverson from the the entire field. The problem is when players don't adapt, settle for 3s and keep shooting when cold.
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
Not only that, but that statistic doesn't take into account the success of teams that are elite at shooting the 3 ball. Like a GSW for example, or like we literally saw Dallas do "survive" by shooting 3's. Limiting attempts could be interesting, but I think extending the line, and removing the corner 3 will make the 3 pt shot much harder and achieve balance.
In a way some teams overvalue the 3 (ex: keep shooting 3's even when they keep missing) but at the same time this is the evolution of the game. This is the same way the shot clock revolutionized the game. The same way the 3 point line did. The same way MJ revolutionized the game. The game is continuously evolving. Doesn't mean the strategy is foolproof. No strategy is perfect. I'd hesitate to say it's ruining basketball. Blame the coaches for that. Unless you're a team like the Warriors - don't rely on 3 point shooting.
this a weird won especially after the gsw celtics game,gsw being the best 3 point shooting team in nba history, lost cuz al harford brought his team back in the 4 th with his three….that’s balance …celtics was literally losing all game then came back with a three… not saying jimmer wrong but bad timing …when the warriors were unbeatable mayb when this vid was needed
@@beankobe8205 thats because the celtics are a very good inside team as well though, if they could only shoot threes the warriors would of never let al horford even shoot. But because they know jaylen brown and tatum can drive they are forced to guard that
while watching 3v3 bball in the Olympics, I kept thinking how the pros would wreck this ruleset by never shooting one-pointers and only shooting behind the line for two-pointers
I don't mind three-pointers when it's a team that makes them. What bothers me to no end is the teams who don't have the roster to emulate great shooting teams and they force them. There's nothing wrong with being a team more akin to Milwaukee or Chicago who have mid-range specialist that make the games more balanced.
The analytics have basically proven that mid range jumpers are inefficient. All my favorite players could drive the basket, hit a pull up jumper and drain a 3. (Jordan, Kobe, AI, Penny, Billups, etc.) However, the pull up jumper is no longer viable and it makes the game significantly less interesting. This analysis completely ignores the fact that 2-pointers are now more efficient, but that is simply because teams are much more selective of their two-point attempts. At the end of the day, the fans dictate what they like and the NBA is as popular as ever, but I personally believe that it is a much more interesting game with no 3-point line at all.
While I agree that the shot is pretty balanced, the fact remains that there were way too many BORING games this postseason. Teams shooting 10-50 from three and losing within the first half seemed like a regular occurrence.
The problem is team don't stop shooting when they are missing. It would be like a NFL team continuing to throw after multiple 3rd down incompletions, at some point you gotta run the ball/drive to the lane.
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
Back when there was no 3 pointers. Whenever a team with a odd number points or scores was because of missed free throws. But teams when even numbers scores still had missed free throws too.
When my father started playing basketball they were all taught to shoot underhand ('Granny-style') free-throws as at the time it had the highest percentage of success. Crazy how things change!
Shame how macho culture prevents this from still being the norm. The granny shot is simply superior in the absence of defenders. You get a more consistent shooting motion, a softer touch, and more backspin. Very few players wouldn't see marked improvement in their FT%, perhaps only the elite shooters not seeing much benefit. Rick Barry shot granny his entire career and had the 4th highest career FT%, behind only Price, Nash, and Steph.
Funny because I had a friend (female) who was horrible at basketball but was surprisingly efficient with the granny shot. Made a few of us cringe but we also got some letters from it while playing HORSE with her 😂
This proves how the golden state system is well designed. They have great 3 point shooters but they use it according to how the defense plays. if the defense pressures them outside they put the ball low inside for easy 2s, if they sag off, curry unleashes from deep. It's not about just heaving threes, it's about taking what the defense gives you.
Ohhh boeeee,come on,like in modern nba do know what defense is...what a bunch of bs.i have seen games being throw away because the 3 point madness. Back on the day 3 point shooters were specialists, nowadays even centers are throwing bricks
It's important to remember that most players and definitely most coaches did not develop in a heavy 3pt era like this one. I think the league is still adapting to the new reality and a lot of these issues will resolve themselves in the future.
Id say the "3pt focus" evolution is not complete. The kids that started playing while watching steph hit 3s like nothing have yet to come. Its probably gonna get worse
It's a great point, and a good reason not to do away with the 3 pointer. It's been part of the game for 40 years. You don't throw something like that out just because players start excelling at it and coaches start game-planning with success for it.
I'm a HS coach, I can assure you, every kid in HS and lower are chucking 3's. And even how shooting is taught, at younger levels now, takes into the reality of the 3. My 6'4, 250 lb 9th grade big man shoots a regular 33% 3pt now and it's helped his game develop more fully instead of just being an inside banger, he can catch, shoot, fake drive. Combined with a shot clock the 3 makes for more skilled players and better defenders.
This is why the Jordan era was best. Good mix of the whole game inside the paint and at the arc. Now it's just 3 after 3 after 3. No contact no problem
You seriously have one of the best channels on RUclips. You rarely see any other channels go in depth on a subject like this video after video. The amount of research done for each video is apparent. Keep up the good work Jxmy!
Jimmy, he's done it again!!!....he made another heavily flawed video. First, he ignored how effective field goal % has skyrocketed but we will get to that later. "Have Three Pointers Ruined Basketball" is a question about the entertainment value of the the game. The game use to be more spread out and more diverse -- layups + post play + mid range + 3's. But now it's just layups and 3's., hardly any mid-range or post play. You didn't really answer that question. As for the analysis, it's also heavily flawed. It's not perfectly balanced because the 3pt line is the perfect distance and worth the perfect amount (3pts) -- it's balanced because defenses had to give up on defending the 2 to defend the 3 even harder. So if you move the line forward like in the mid 90's, you will see the same happen -- tougher D on the 3 and the 2pt shots become even more easily thus balancing itself. Same if you move the 3 line out further -- they will relax D on the 3 shot and the 2 shot will become harder to shoot. Jimmy completely missed that point. As a result of the 3pt being worth too much for the distance it is at, effective field goal % has shot up. In last 2 years, it's been around 53.5 effective fg%. As a comparison, it was around 47% in the early 2000's before some rule changes in 2004. Jimmy mentioned in the mid 90's when the 3 line was moved in -- effective fg% was only around 50%. Before that in the 80's and early 90's, it was mostly around 48%. So for the most part, effective fg% was around 48% in the 80's through 2004. Then mid 2000's to about 2015, it was around 50%. Then the 3's started to be shot like crazy and effective fg% is now pushing 54%!!!! There is a massive difference between 48% effective fg and 54%. In a game with 80 field goal attempts, that difference is nearly 10pts!!
@@NicoLaffey Why must someone make a better video in order to say it's heavily flawed? I'm guessing you have not once in your life complained that a movie sucked?
@@helsinki The downside of this is that once the defense extends to defend the 3, you'd have a massive runway for guys to get to the rim. Pace and space would end up creating tons of dunks and mid-air collisions
i think right now the game is in a good place, there’s a good mix of athletic plays at the rim, three point snipers, and a sprinkle of mid range assassins
That requires a bigger court cause the sides of the line would have to extend farther.. and if not, the significant shortness of the corners would be the only threes taken
Thank you! People have been saying the three point shot has been ruining the game for years, but just cuz the warriors got beat at their own game they now want to talk about is the three point shot ruining the game of basketball gtfoh
I'll be honest, I'm from Australia and have never been into the NBA or basketball, but jimmy makes theses so interesting (probably helps I enjoy statistics) I think I'll start watching some games. Keep up the great work :)
My emotions are all over the place with this video. I went in thinking *"The 3pt is perfect, you're insane."* Moments later like *"Omfg the 3pt is so broken it needs to be removed from the game!"* Ultimately finishing with *"The 3pt is a perfectly balanced, self governing mechanic."* I had no idea I was this impressionable, and my mind could be so easily changed over the course of 16 minutes. Ultimately this is why we should relegate our opinions on such topics to those that are educated. He claims that a 36% fg would break the game; like it did in the 90's, but when acknowledging that the fg percentage has gone from 33% to 36% now, it's somehow not broken? What's his formula to determine the metric, and what dictates fg attempts vs percentage? Either 36% is broken or it's not; more attempts shouldn't alter his opinion on tht topic. I think his perception of the data is skewed.
@@GodzzzSon Or that you're open to your mind being changed based on facts and good arguments and reasoning, rather than stubbornly sticking by whatever opinion you have. It depends.
What I got from this vid in relation to ur question, IMO, because of how the players and coaches react to that 3pt numbers (% etc.) now, defensively and offensively, with 33% to 36% now the shot value between 3pts and 2pts is still balanced, compared to the 90s with that 36% fg but the shot value gap was too big it was considered broken/imbalanced. CMIIW 😁
the average 2pt% has increased to a point where it’s worth just as much on average as a 3pt shot attempt. 36% was broken in the 90s when most players shot around 45% from 2, however 36% works now because the average player shoots closer to 50% from 2. it’s about the ratio not necessarily the percentages.
Maybe the half court line could be worth 4 points? That could be interesting. It wouldn't change the appearance of the court with ugly extra linework and its not really a shot, but a heave. Could be cool for buzzer beaters, especially considering how rarely they go in.
As a ball fan; I was so prepared to type a speech on how you were wrong.... but as a Jimmy fan; I knew to watch the whole video. Amazing work as always
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
When I was a kid and just starting on the game of Basketball; I used to have dreams of taking the rock to the basket through lots of contact, big men and finishing up with a layup or the very rare dunk. As a 5'11 player now in my 40s, I have developed my game for energy saving and less banging which has given me longevity. I have been playing every single day at 5:30 in the morning Monday to Sunday for the last 22 years (except for covid 😡). The evolution of the game has allowed me to continue to play and be an offensive threat via the 3 point shot. In fact my scoring average has gone up by 40% in the last coupe of years. Now in my 40's I still go to bed dreaming of basketball and in my dreams I am no longer driving through traffic as much but shooting 3's typically while using a screen. I eat, breath and live basketball and I have an almost romantic relationship with the game. I dread the day that I will have to hang up the shoes by it's laces for the last time and I know that content like this will allow me to reminiscence on those nostalgic days after I am forced to abandon that relationship. I love you basketball and I live these videos. Thanks Jimmy.
Nice video. An alternative to making the long shot worth 2.5 points is to make shots outside the arc worth 4 points and shots inside the arc worth 3 points. This is still a nerf to the long shot, but a lesser nerf. Something left out of the video is what to do about free throws. In the system I described, you could keep the free throw at 1 point, and then attempts would go up on fouls. This would change the strategy on fouling (somehow).
This is by far my favorite of your videos. Really well done, I’ve always felt that the aggressive attack of 3-pointers was unjustified, thank you for providing such a fascinating set of statistics. Keep up the great work!
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
I would love to see something about the variance of 3-heavy strategies. It seems inherently more high risk/high reward which seems like it would lead to higher variance.
It USED to be. But now MANY more players are practicing 3's just as much as layups...or dunks. It's becoming a "higher " percentage shot that it was before. So they NEED to move back the 3 point line again.
Great video, as always. However, I/question the math you provided. I would suggest that you made the case for why the 3-pt shot is overvalued. Players attempted far more of this difficult shot without efficacy dropping. So much so that efficiencies have increased in the « easier » shot. Defences had to adapt. This opened up the 2-pt. To balance the game, pushing back the line to 25-ft would definitely help. Defensively you guard the corner three, but the new line at 25-ft helps defend the top of the arc.
I say that the 3 pt shot is fine where it is because players are taking difficult 3 pt shots since teams base their offense on it, so the league percentage hasn't gone up very much over the last 20 or so years, so the distance doesn't need to be extended.
@@homer23422000 so i say that there is a balance in numbers but what you see in the field is a bit different, for example a way better team that should destory the opponent somehow getting halted because the other team sinks in 2 3pointers once in a while and still survives. Thats not really fair is it?
I love the detail and composition of your videos. I come from a futbol background but have always loved basketball being from the states as well as the similarities between the two sports. In soccer there's a lot of analysis coming from the tactical and technical point of view, which always felt was sorely lacking in basketball in place of more personal and inflammatory takes. Your channel is king when it comes to analyzing the nuts and bolts of the game. Your channel is not just awesome for basketball fans, but for anyone that is a sports purist. Keep up the good work bruh.
4:55 That was extremely circumstantial. During the next series, Dallas tried that many times, only 3-pointers aren't that easy, and they couldn't get as much percentage that time.
Your videos are one of the reasons why I have gotten into basketball so much the last few seasons, the tifo football of NBA videos. Cheers Jimmy, keep up the great analytics.
Steph led the way, and other shooters started firing away from distance at volume roughly 5 minutes ago. Defenses need to adapt for the specific purpose of stopping these shooters more effectively. And they will start to adapt- but it will be uneven at first. Only a few of the very best teams will be able to figure it out, and those same teams will be less good at stopping big men inside.
Exactly. Just cause the Warriors are fantastic at 3s doesn’t mean other teams will be….Steph is an anomaly. But guys like Harden think they are throw up 15 3s a night and think they’ll win….that’s why Mike the coach never won a ring because of this mentality.
Analytics did this, not Curry. The math guys got the basketball guys convinced that 3 pointers are the most efficient shots, Curry helped prove that it’s true. These analytics are the same that has made baseball do so many shifts and h it so many home runs, and the same analytics that has made NFL team go for it much more often on 4th down.
The problem is that the three pointer is still ultimately dictating the entire shot chart on the floor. You still need a bunch of three point players out there. Defenses have basically become stop the three at all costs, and are more than okay most times with allowing easier 2s if it meant you stopped a 3. Stylistically, teams are still basically going all out 3s, and that's kind of the problem. Basketball sucks now because all 30 teams are sort of a carbon copy offense, some teams are just doing it better with better players, but they're all hunting 3s at all costs.
Lol.. I would've turn my eyes off basketball completely if those 3 didnt exist at all.. People are gonna start ignore the attempt for 2.5 pts too.. Imagine being defender and one thing in their minds are only about stopping any shot attempt from inside 3pts arc.. That would be so boring and creates more n more problem.. Doesnt mean when you see something that you would call a problem, means that it isnt the best solution for that situation.. Dont just see and complain about it.. Think further, about the consequences of removing/adjusting 3pts .. Its so dang easy if you try..👍
@@slatecity Professional sports exist because of the fans. Otherwise, no one is paying anyone anything to shoot a basketball. If fans are getting bored with the game due to 3 pointers, it may be worth considering changing it.
@@jonathanbaird8109 they clearly arent seeing as every game is sold out and packed. back inna days of the 90s and 2000s it was common to see unpopular teams have empty seats in the stadium
I remember the NBA in the 90's and early aughts. Pat Riley had gone from the Showtime Lakers to the Thug Knicks, slowing the game down and clogging up the lane, centers and power forwards constantly battling for "easy" baskets. Teams winning games with scores like 87-80. When all that was going on, I was saying the way to solve the problem was enlarge the court, because it seemed like the court had become too small for ten players. I was wrong about the court's size, of course. The problem was the players weren't utilizing enough of it. When teams started shooting more 3 pointers, the court opened back up again. The three pointer makes "pace and space" possible, first by creating inside / outside movement, then by lateral movement. Then, as more players become efficient long range shooters, you start needing more mobile big men and sometimes no big men at all. Teams can go small and fast, outrunning opponents to prime shooting areas. I don't think the three has ruined pro basketball; it's raised the degree of difficulty for defenses, and that's not a bad thing. Points have always been easiest to come by in basketball as opposed to the other main sports and it should stay that way. But the 3 pointer is just difficult enough. It opens up the court. It makes players move instead of stand around. There are a lot of things I don't like about basketball, but the renewed focus on movement isn't one of them.
pretty much look at how much COURT players like JA or LUKA utilize to make plays for themselves or others, even OG Bron like down hill bron, dribbling from outside the 3 to the rack....on close out/plays.
I agree with many of your points, it's not like 90s basketball was way better, it's just that the baskets where made from all over the place. Thing is, three pointers might raise the degree of difficulty for defenses, yet you can't do much nowadays without handchecks and by incorporating zone into the NBA. In fact, although the defenses look like they need more effort now, it's not shown inside the court, which makes the three point itself a repetitive thing. I believe that the three pointer IS actually an evolution. The fact that is repetitive is not because of the three pointer itself though but other factors of the game, like the rules of the defense.
It's the change in officiating and the way rules are enforced that have changed the game and turned it into a three point contest. You see the exact same thing in football. They've hamstringed the defense.
Never stop making videos. Best basketball youtuber out there and it's not even close. Your videos always teach us something new and we love them. JxmyHighroller the real GOAT.
You may think it's all the fancy basketball speech and elegant graphs that make this channel so good, but it's actually Jxmy's script writing skills. Logical development, perfect transitions, excellent pacing. Dude's blowing it out of the water with his writing skills.
Another consideration for the 3 ball is that when missed it’s usually a long rebound. How many 2nd chance opportunities come from launching 3’s, even with a smaller team? I agree though that the game is balanced. For every problem or matchup problem coaches and players have to be able to continuously adjust to their opponent.
I came here to say this too. This needed to be looked at to have a really good assessment on the situation. And free throw attempts etc Edit: even the ability to have more defense has to play a role in the success of the team. You often have more players committed to the basket for a two pointer
Jimmy I have been debating guys about this for the past few years. The reason why three's are good is because it opens up the game & makes ball movement and flow so much better. Thanks for the data to prove a point initiative I've always felt!
I feel like you're not taking into account the inverse relationship between scale and efficiency here. Yes, the % of 3s hit has stayed the same but that's with way more (and more difficult) 3s being taken now. The efficiency of 2s and 3s was always going to naturally reach an equilibrium as teams figure out the analytical side, but this was reached with a very high (and high-difficulty) amount of 3s being taken.
@@91aben isnt that his whole point though? Theyre taking more difficult 3s because teams are adapting, thus reducing its efficiency and making 2s more valuable
This is basically a chicken & egg dilemma where you have to take the entire timeline/sequence of events (e.g., historical, defensive adaptations) to understand the current phenomenon. That is the very definition of “evolution” which is what jxmy kept repeating about the game of basketball, or sports in general
I grew up an ABA fan, and the 3-point shot was an accessory - icing on the cake. It was perfect for boosting our league’s game, without smothering it. Loved the 3pter then!
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
@@vcarter86 That’s an intriguing idea, but it sounds like a coaching nightmare. It would just be so frustrating getting the message across of when to take it, unless it was all pre-planned (which would either lead to a lot of set plays and no freelance, or terrible shots.) It’d be a constant headache. Making the rim smaller would be an interesting one because it would also have an effect on 2s, just much less so.
@@vcarter86 dude you're copy pasting this everywhere. This doesn't make sense. Is he wrong or right? You agree that the 2.5 would be obsolete because the shot percentage is the same and there wouldn't be much incentive to even try at that point so why bother? It's just a risk/reward option and teams that don't adapt around it fail.
@@DaArcaneNinja No, i agree 2.5 would be a bad approach only because i think there is a better approach. And Jimmy is wrong only about that final graph because he made the biggest flaw what he could have done in analytic and it is that he analyzed a stat in vacuum i had to draw everybody's attention to that. Thats why i copy pasted it to everythere Because people take this and beleive it blindly without any thinking.
This is exactly the kind of video I like. It's titled in such a way as to ask if you agree or not and you stay to either confirm or debunk your own hypothesis/belief. Well done Jimmy. I love a good three and a midrange two under pressure. Makes me think of the time Uncle Rukkus complained about dunks. Keep up the good work.
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
One thing though is games are often decided by who is hot on threes, meaning if one team is hot on 3’s in a night then it’s very hard for the other team to win against it, and if they have a terrible night on 3’s it’s very hard for that team to make up for it with 2’s. These ups and downs could cause many more games being dictated by 3’s than the collective data would suggest. The points per possession teams have on one night compared to another night probably swings a lot more with the addition of the 3 I would think. But, i haven’t researched the numbers on this, and also I don’t care. It’s entertaining anyway, and there’s definitely more to it than just this, such as how the two point shot opens up the 3 and vice versa.
Jimmy, he's done it again!!!....he made another heavily flawed video. First, he ignored how effective field goal % has skyrocketed but we will get to that later. "Have Three Pointers Ruined Basketball" is a question about the entertainment value of the the game. The game use to be more spread out and more diverse -- layups + post play + mid range + 3's. But now it's just layups and 3's., hardly any mid-range or post play. You didn't really answer that question. As for the analysis, it's also heavily flawed. It's not perfectly balanced because the 3pt line is the perfect distance and worth the perfect amount (3pts) -- it's balanced because defenses had to give up on defending the 2 to defend the 3 even harder. So if you move the line forward like in the mid 90's, you will see the same happen -- tougher D on the 3 and the 2pt shots become even more easily thus balancing itself. Same if you move the 3 line out further -- they will relax D on the 3 shot and the 2 shot will become harder to shoot. Jimmy completely missed that point. As a result of the 3pt being worth too much for the distance it is at, effective field goal % has shot up. In last 2 years, it's been around 53.5 effective fg%. As a comparison, it was around 47% in the early 2000's before some rule changes in 2004. Jimmy mentioned in the mid 90's when the 3 line was moved in -- effective fg% was only around 50%. Before that in the 80's and early 90's, it was mostly around 48%. So for the most part, effective fg% was around 48% in the 80's through 2004. Then mid 2000's to about 2015, it was around 50%. Then the 3's started to be shot like crazy and effective fg% is now pushing 54%!!!! There is a massive difference between 48% effective fg and 54%. In a game with 80 field goal attempts, that difference is nearly 10pts!!
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows. 2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays. I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that he spends hours plotting and making these graphs for us to visualize instead of throwing information at our faces truly shows why jimmy is the GOAT of basketball RUclipsrs
Fr
Gotta put Smoove at number 1 since I've been watching him for 9 years.
That's why he gets around 500k to 1m views each vid, quality over quantity
Nah a lot of the time he just throws stats with no context. He like advanced stats, looks like a good way to judge basketball but in reality it’s not as important
Spends hrs making money crazy
The Rockets missing 27 straight 3s in a game 7 is still one of the craziest things to happen in sports. It's like they were meant to lose that series
I think about that scenario often, I tend to not believe that could actually happen. It was wild to watch live felt a bit rigged but I guess anything can happen
Most of those shots were heavily contested, like jimmy said, defenses adjust but the rockets didn’t
One thing that I think factors in, as someone in another comment section pointed out, is how much energy it takes to guard the Warriors offense with any effectiveness. It has an evident impact as the series goes on (see: game 6 and 7 situations), especially on the 3 point shots of these players that are playing their ass off chasing Curry and Klay around a bazillion screens
If they had CP3 they woulda won game 6 or 7
As the saying goes: Live by the 3, die by the 3.
Jimmy: 3-pointers have ruined basketball
Me: True. Something needs to be done.
Jimmy: Actually, 3-pointers have kept the game balanced for decades since its inception
Me: I agree. Please stop all these nonsense about nerfing it!
People, teams and couches who complain about 3 point shots cant gaurd the outside perimeter. Maybe get better at defense
@@Hater20X THANK YOU!
Actually, I don't think it needs to be done away with. I DO think the range is too available for too many players. Make it 1.5 to 2ft further back (and take it away completely from the sides) and you will see the game balance back out again.
When it was first Instituted I think the idea was it was so far away that most teams wouldn't utilize it unless desperation time was necessary and most athletes back then simply couldn't or wouldn't shoot it. Now the range is doable by just about anyone that it's no longer a desperation shot. Make it so only a handful of Specialists can hit it and we get out fun back... and also remove the defensive 3 sec violation and bring big men back into the game (see my comment earlier)
@@the_happiest_gilmoure Did you watch the video? It makes a very solid argument for why the 3-point-line is drawn perfectly where it is. It allows for more versatile and engaging play since it apparently de-clogs the area around the ring. In essence: placing the 3-point line ecactly where it is makes the 2-point play even more attractive.
I think the best thing is to remove offensive and defensive 3 seconds. The 3 point shot has caught up to post play. Just remove the limitations on post post for balance
The reason why 2-pt FG% is up, might be because players stopped shooting the long 2s and replaced them with 3s. This removes ineffective low% 2s, it does not mean that the 3pt shot is creating better quality 2 pt shots. Another point is that fouls are called more often now, these shots does not count towards FG%. This again increases overall 2pt FG%
Siva you make a good point that the rise in 2pt effectiveness may not be due to skill but could be due to a behavioral change in long 2pt attempts due to the value of the 3pt shot, and to the offensive player looking for contact due I think to the rules changes over the past few decades to enhance offense. IAC the 2pt value increases so this is a working balance.
Long two pointers are inefficient because the difficulty of a 20 footer vs a 24 footer is very similar, but one is worth more
some data on avg 2pt shot distance year-over-year etc, correlated with the Point-per-shot graph would be interesting on this..
@@TylerMcCool ruclips.net/video/yh5c3duQQ1w/видео.html
Read your bible! (KJV, preferably) ♥
9:32 thank god - literally had zero idea which way this video was going - an art all in itself. What Morey forgets to add is his team was within 1% of the league average on long ball efficiency. Statistically this is on the money. 3 pointers are a self policing mechanism.
“3 pointers are a self policing mechanism.” Very well said.
@@JxmyHighroller fax
why are they a self policing mechanism? i don't really get it
Nice to hear you like basketball
@@ryanli6599 so essentially what I'm getting from that statement is basically
Would you rather take 10 shots that the league makes 45-65% of the time, or, 10 shots that the league makes 25-45% of the time.
The risk of missing a bunch of 3s, from my perspective, is greater than the risk of missing a bunch of 2s. The reward being the opposite statement, of course.
12:24, the players haven’t gotten better at shooting 2-pointers. They’ve just stopped taking the low-percentage 18’ to 20’ shots because it’s more valuable to step back and shoot the three. So without those low-percentage shots, the overall percentage of two-pointers made has risen.
Abso-fucking-lutely true. You don’t see much longer range 2 pointer shots made unless the players open and they’re forced to make it, not voluntarily at least 🗣
@@user-yy7cw7fl8p I mean players nowadays shoot more paint jumpers and close midrange than long ass middys especially near the 3pt line (which are the worse shot ever to me) , like all is define by shot selections ,nowadays nog like in the early 2000s were you had good inefficient scorer taking a lot of bad shot
Yeah his example of what he meant was that when a team shoots 3s people guard up and leave higher percentage openings for 2s. So they've gotten better at it
Goofy das not good at all. They professionals! They should be able to score anywea
Also, FT% has been static for decades.
This man straight up made me think 3 pointers need to be banned and then systematically dismantled my new found hatred for the 3 ball. Now i feel silly. Wat a vid bro
straight up lmfao
Lmaoo yeah. I was like "You right Jimmy, 3-ball needs to get limited" and then I got bamboozled 😩
Had me in the first half, not gunna lie
I was thinking that too 1st part of the video
He literally constructed an argument AGAINST the 3;
only to destroy said argument in the same video.
That's excellent debate skills, right thurr.
I personally think that the problem isn't the three ball, it's that the rules have made teams play soft defense and post moves harder to pull off.
Hand checks.
Agree 100%.
A dennis rodman in his prime without the baby contact rules and these dudes would be sniping no more
@@radicalxg8282 a glorified role player ain't stopping shit
@@unkown981 tell that to Shaq in 90s I'd Dennis could stop that mountain sure thing any child from today
Honestly, I think one of the biggest unspoken changes of shooting so many 3s is the offensive rebounding potential. As every coach ever has said "long shots make long rebounds". As much as you can box out, the rebound off a 3 goes quite far, and if a team is not shooting well they NEED to hustle for these boards. The Warriors were able to win in games when they didn't shoot well because they hustled hard, but in this game they were not trying as hard for the boards and the Celtics were. Put simply:
If you are not shooting well, everyone needs to hustle for ORebs because there is no easier offensive rebound then off of a 3.
Yep, this is why you see a lot of players take what looks like a really bad 3 point shot attempt when the reality is is that they got a guy already boxing out ready to hopefully grab a board if the shot doesnt drop.
I'd bet that there's already some teams considering this. Some shooters' three are much harder to predict than others - FVV's misses seem to be hard for defences to predict and the Raptors wings did well on ORBs from them
This is the recipe for Memphis' success this season, Oreb were key
Looney was killing the Celtics in the offensive board but Kerr went small during that run.
Players don't even box out to begin with.
The evolution of the sport is really something to behold. I don’t know what else can change the sport like the 3 point evolution did. Shows curry’s greatness
Defense is more about missed shots than forcing bad shots
Kobe or bird?
That's what came back to bite Curry in the ass you wanna start just Jackin 3s all the time now there's a team that can do the same thing ➕ play defense the Warriors don't play good defense at all klay just came off a major injury u can't expect him 2 be the defender he was prior right away
But if you notice Curry can shoot 3s lights out until the games get tight or the defense gets amped up then all of a suddenly it's not so easy when he has a lead hes one of the best players when hes playing from behind he shuts down and folds up some times
he is not great
Growing up for me, Steve Kerr was one of my favorites for his role in the Bulls as a perimeter threat. How fitting that he ended up coaching the guys that helped make the 3 pointer a go-to offensive tactic in todays basketball.
Very fitting as many more traditional coaches might have not supported this style. So big ups on Kerr for letting it roll.
You loved a 5ppg guy who played like 10minutes?😂
@@Ninjersey1 Kerr has more talent in his pinky than you've ever had in your entire life.
@@Thebucs14625 please lol guy was a spot up bum played garbage time mostly lol MJ and Duncan made him
@@Ninjersey1 he has more rings then them L
3 pointers arent the problem, its the rules regarding defense that need to be updated
Jimmy this might be your best work. There’s no other NBA youtuber that leaves me more interested, more mindblown, and more in love with the sport. Seriously man, no one does it better. Incredible work!
Relax bro.
Try Jaywarvz
The man that introduced the 2.5 pointer....
@@MOHAMMAD66 Ngl, what he said was actually pretty much an understatement lol.
True
This dude Jimmy is just… WOW!!
MUCH RESPECT
unexpected appearance in the comments but welcome hecker
Lol hecker watching basketball
hecker
hecker a hooper?!
hecker going to the nba?
I just love how he shows the graphs and explains with it , just a beautiful way to educate. Thanks jxmy
Much appreciated! 🙌🏽
@@JxmyHighroller ratio
@@Jmez. L
@@Jmez. counter-ratio+🫃🏿
@@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
i was at a bbq a few days ago and 4 kids from 10-16 were playing pick up games
they were all shooting 3's. when i played basketball, shooting a 3 was a last resort only to be used when we couldnt penetrate the defense and go for a layup or midrange. The way kids play no is so different and the NBA style definitely has impacted the playstyle of even games for fun
Agreed. At my local Y that is LITERALLY all kids practice now. Absolutely nothing else whatsoever. It was atrocious to watch.
My nephew loves basketball, his favorite player is Steph Curry, he challenged me to a game of 1v1 in the driveway and I had to remind him everything counted only as 1 point on the driveway. Now it’s a laughable disadvantage, I’m a grown man and he’s 11 (and I didn’t try to stomp him) he never even made an attempt to get to the basket, took everything from range. I couldn’t even try to let him win without it being obvious; he’d throw up a three, make some miss some, and get no rebounds or putbacks whatsoever. Sadly he still plays this way, all the kids want to be like Curry
@@omyn. And THAT'S the problem. As long as there is more than one player on the court wearing the same color -- and there are actually five on each side -- basketball is, and always has been a TEAM sport. But today's young players play basketball the same way they approach everything else in their lives. It's all about THEM, not the team. I will do what's fun for ME, and that's not passing the ball, or setting screens, or other team-related things that aren't fun for ME.
Expensive Samurais with their expensive Lamborghinis (war horses) fought in the distance with bows. F-35 lobe missile from nearly a hundred miles away.
Leave the melee to the peasants. Ancient problems, modern problems, all require the same solution =)
I refuse to play with them . They brick everything
In a way that’s why Shaq was so dangerous. He was so threatening close to the basket that the Lakers used him to create incredibly devastating 3-pointers.
Amazing how many overturns this video has.
And don't forget about _"Haq-A-Shaq"!_ This man really changed the game.
As an aside, Bill Laimbeer made him go mad a week before retirement by playing outside of the paint in a way centers really didn't back then (Laimbeer had a killer 3 pointer, especially for a center in the 80s/90s)
After rewatching this video multiple times, I've come to the conclusion that the biggest thing plaguing the watch-ability of today's game are fouls. Can you examine that for us Jimi?
They foul less and shoot fewer free throws now than they ever have, its a myth that old heads and poor commentators push that skews peoples' perception of the game
Bill Burr already give his take on this and I kinda agree with him. He said it was because of the refs and the needs to make an exciting late 4th quarter (more or less). Can't hurt to have it analyzed statistically tho.
@@jonjuko8859 Wrong. There are so many phantom fouls today than there has ever been. How can you be a fan and not be annoyed by these calls? I've seen fouls where it wasn't even a graze, the defender literally didn't touch the offensive player at all. I feel like 70% of the time I look at the replay and I ask myself "WHERE IS THE FOUL? I LITERALLY DON'T SEE ANYTHING".
@@One.Zero.One101 it’s a statistical fact I can link you the page with the year by year data if you need it.
Phantom fouls and soft calls have always existed, go and watch a game from the 60’s you’ll find it nauseating the amount of stops there are. The commentators do a terrible job today, goes a long way into skewing peoples perception of the game
He has examined fouls in a previous video
Jimmy you’re a master storyteller. The way you reveal the information is extremely well done. Everything else is 10/10 like video editing, your voice quality, the little moments you pause the music and just laugh for effect… but your flow of information is incredible. Love your vids.
Also does anyone know what song plays around 9 minutes? Absolutely beautiful.
My major issue with the logic: As players become better shooters over the years, the average three point percentage is about the same because that value equates the value of two and three point attempts. What changes is that more three pointers are taken and their average difficulty increases (longer shots, more of them while guarded).
I think there are more 3 point specialists in the game now. You have a few players that take lots of difficult guarded 3s (Steph, Harden, Tatum, Luka, Dame, Mitchell, Levine, Trae, McCollum...9 players??). But you have plenty more that stand and wait for the corner 3. It's the opposite of back in the day when you had more players who could create their own like Gilbert Arenas, Iverson, or T-Mac.
Nope. It's all about the money, marketing, tv contracts and merch sales. It's very simple. Gradually devolve the game into a meaningless stylized caricature of itself and emphasize everything that used to be frowned upon and considered despicable and unsportsmanlike. This attracts more casual viewers who, on average, know/care less about the game thus more $$$. If by the off chance you convert a portion of these casual viewers into regular consOOmers of the sport, you've now convinced them that the sport is really about handles, swag and empty stats. The longer this goes on, the larger percentage of the fanbase becomes saturated and disconnected with how the game was meant to be played.
baskets were originally worth 1 point. and there was no dunking...so who exactly told you how the game was "meant" to be played. and shooting 3s is "unsportsmanlike"? Lol how high are u?@@derekwaters8683
@@derekwaters8683 They way it was meant to be played isn't as straightforward as it might seem. James Naismith invented the game in 1891 and it only had 13 rules.
But overtime, things change. This happens to everything. No matter the catalyst, basketball was always going to forever evolve. It even makes logical sense that 3 pointers would, logically, become popular regardless of monetary gain. It's worth the most amount of points. Human nature inclines us towards the greatest gain.
The numbers don't lie, folks. I found the Warrior's era almost too boring to watch. Denver, however, played real basketball; they passed the ball, everyone had a chance to score, and the superstar went with the best chance for a bucket from his team. That's why the Nuggets and Jokic are world champions.
.
I think there’s a hidden advantage with the three pointer worth mentioning. Passing the ball around the perimeter is fairly safe. Turnovers and blocks, which don’t show up on shot percentages, are far more common inside. So while the points per attempt may be even, the points per possession when a team tries to score a 2 pointer end up being lower.
Teams be shooting 11-34 on average from 3 and wonder why they lose by 6 points. How many of those missed 3s could've been an easy 2 points? If a team ever looks to score more 2 pointers they would dominate
@@fcarter3863 yeop a perfect team would be a lebron and curry team up wit ad like big man aswell. Basically a team that will focus on attacking the paint but can look to the outside and find curry and get. Good percentage of 3s as well
@@fcarter3863 for real… Especially if the team isn’t even known for 3-point shooting. Every time they run up the floor and throw up a quick 3, I be yelling… “Why didn’t you run your offense?”
(Of course, it depends on who’s shooting and how open they are. But most of the time they are essentially just turning the ball over after a 5 second possession)
This is a typically ignorant comment. You're ignoring the fact that teams don't just pass the ball around the perimeter to get open 3s. They set on ball screens, off-ball screens, drive and kick, throw cross-court passes, and execute dribble hand-offs among other things to get open looks from 3. Those all present turnover risks. More importantly, getting to the rim results in more trips to the free-throw line than shooting a three. The stats presented by JimmyHighRoller on the value of 2s and 3s don't lie.
@@Muhahahahaz Those pull up 3s from transition are getting ridiculous. Like I get if you’re Steph or Dame but some of these dude really out here pulling up for 3 during a 2 on 1 like they’re not shooting under 30%.
I’d argue that the 24 second shot clock slightly edges out the 3 pointer in the biggest change to the sport of basketball - if for no other reason, because if that hadn’t been implemented, the NBA might’ve ultimately folded and the pace of the sport might have never accelerated in a manner that allowed other revolutionary changes (including the 3 pointer) to emerge.
I don’t think it is because to me the shit clock was more of a catalyst rather than the biggest change. It brought those changes into fruition but still wasn’t the thing that changed everything heavily
not even hating, but everyone can put together a sentence like this - it’s a yt comment broski❤️ don’t treat it like a college essay
@@ykbwapo alright yeah he was doin a lot with this comment, but I agree with him + I’ve seen a lot worse
youre not wrong but thats also more of a business perspective rather to the evolution of the game. the shot clock is there to make the game more fast paced and therefore players are less hesitant to shoot but are affected by the time winding down, not to mention players have become smarter and more time efficient thanks to it. so virtually in my opinion it balances out the effects of the game but makes it more entertaining.
@@ykbwapo Haha, fair enough. I’m currently in grad school, so maybe some of the writing habits carried over.
Jimmy educates the nba community more than any news or sports reporting site/station
Traditional media is awful, whether its politics or sports.
FACTS FACTS ON FACTS
nbs
I suggest u watch thinkingbasketball if u want to actually be educated, they actually understand the data they are using and presenting to people rather than just finding a bunch of slightly relevant numbers and putting them all together with no concept of proportion
@@evangordon4672 Exactly, there are other channels that are way more in depth and accurate. Jxmy is just about embellished narratives and using skewed stats. Entertaining to watch, but not really the most informative content
Dont adjust the 3 pointer. Allow the defense to do more than just stand there. The player with the ball is basically untouchable now a days compare to the 90s defense.
THIS.
The things is we're at an all-time low in fouls called a game despite being in an all time-high in possessions. The narrative that fouls are called cheap today does not conform with the factual numbers. The all-time top 10 list of most free-throws of a player, for instance, is majorly from 1960s to 1990s. Looking into that, the league is in fact not necessarily suppressing the defense. Defense virtually did not change, spaced offense just made it look like defense is not played, but it just became incredibly harder.
So it must not be compared in the past eras. We are not bringing back the defense of the past eras because it didn't go away. We need to adjust the rules to favor the defense more.
@renziair the defenders just aren't even trying cause they know they'll get a foul call
@Crafty-Cam1992 casuals see it that way, but fouls are more lenient today. We are at an all-time low in fouls called per game in a league that is at an all-time high in possessions a game. Of course, boomers hate factual figures. They rely on confirmation bias and personal anecdotal evidence, not facts. Past era didn't know how to defend without fouling. Fouling doesn't make them better defenders than players today who gotta actually defend the whole floor and not just the inside.
@renziair nah it's defenders not trying to play defense. Defense is weak bro
Dude I LOVE the amount of research you put into these videos. It's mind boggling how you can present so much data into easy to understand presentations. You are the Michael Jordan of sports commentary.
Facts
Flawed analysis tho
@@clyvelawrence8820 how
@@clyvelawrence8820 flawed comment
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
I know it’s left field, but I would love to see you break down the efficiency of teams winning after CHOOSING to call a timeout for a last second play vs letting the team play it out. Mike Breen’s call on Curry’s famous shot against the thunder started it off for me; “they have a timeout, decide not to use it…”
My confirmation bias keeps affirming that not using a timeout yields better results, but I want some jxmy stat graphs to paint the picture.
No idea how to efficiently get this info though.
As a college basketball fan I’ve watched my team lose so many games because we didn’t call a timeout and we got a horrible shot so i’d like to see that video too
Great concept. Jxmy could take that and add his own flair to it, and that would make an awesome video
timeouts in important situations have always been about utilization of the team's momentum. where's the defense? if they're lagging, tired, or not in position for the play developing on the field, eh, just go for it. if they're crisp, and right on-BZZT timeout, let's figure this out. it's kind of like the 3pt shot, self balancing. your confirmation bias is almost assuredly correlated to the momentum on the floor.
Celtics vs Nets game 1 as well
This!
I think what this shows is we’ve been through the “3 Point Era” and we’ll get a team soon that will bring something equivalent to Ajax’s total football. Achieving a perfect balance where the aim will be to increase point per shot as high as possible.
Oi that ajax comparison in peng on tho ngl
Ajax 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Worm739 y u laugh
@@dajay2k He is probably a Feyenoord or PSV supporter.
@@JorgenKremer either that or they don’t know football history 😂.
I am not 100% supporting every point you make, but I fully appreciate the angles you fight hard to drill. Excellent video!
Kobe predicted this before he passed. Mentioned that he'd noticed the game seemed to change in cycles. That the three pointer was becoming the core of championship basketball, and that it's normalization would eventually result in a way to exploit 2pt opportunities further.
His insight into the game was always so interesting.
That makes sense. You can never just rely on 3 pointers
Just make dunks worth 3 points as well
Kobe also predicted a helicopter would get him to his daughters game in less than an hour....
@joakim What is interesting to me is the comment about cycles. How the game goes from one method of optimization to another multiple times and ends up finding itself not far from where it was.
It was cool to hear for a soft-brain like me. 😅
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson I'll give you credit for trying EXTRA hard to get some attention. Good boy!
Do it again and I might give you a widdle kiss 🥺👉👈
My NBA knowledge has gone up dramatically since I started watching this channel, thank you Jxmy!
If somebody knows the songs at 12:45 and 15:16 please let me know, you can be my girlfriend on runescape.
😂😂 same
Damn soup , whatcha doing here ?
Ratio + yb better + nobody cares + this u 🤓🤓👶🏽👨🏼💻👨🏼💻
Osrs and Nba, perfectly balanced as all things should be
Threes are good if you're making them not when you're shooting 11 out of 62
So interesting! When talking about value of the shot, we also need to factor in on other thing. The difference in the offensive rebound likelihood for 2-pointers and 3-pointers. This also slightly reduces the value of the 3-pointer.
Wouldn't you be more likely to get an offensive rebound on a 3 because it's bouncing off harder? The defense is gonna be closer to the basket.
@@andrewbomkamp3708 I think what he says is the following. If you shoot 4/12 for 3 you will have the same number of points on the same number of shots as 6/12 for 2. However you'll have more misses and therefore more opportunities for your opponent to score against you, therefore 6/12 for 2 is better than 4/12 for 3.
Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
@@andrewbomkamp3708 If a 2 point shot occurs at or near the rim, the chance of rebounding your own missed shot is a lot higher than chucking up 3s. Big men especially, since you sometimes see them miss 2, 3 or 4 consecutive put backs before finally scoring.
@@nnnp634 Your opponents are guaranteed to get the ball back after you make a shot, but not after you miss.
endless 3 pointers are also *terribly* boring to watch
I think the one thing that impacted the NBA more than the 3 point shot was adding in the shot clock.
@@peteMickeal33 how to defend when the sports take away defense foo
W
@@roseroselyne9045 very valid statement. Defenders can’t even creep up into shooters “landing zone”. All they could do is do a side sweep jump and hope they block it or don’t get fakeoutted or simply stand in one spot without moving. It’s a shooters league now.
Exactly. The game was boring. That's why we need a new limit!. The 3 pt shot limit! Obviously you can still shoot from anywhere after the limit, but they only count as 2's. 25 feels right, I wouldn't set it too low. (you could base it on Pace of play from previous season) There would be a lot of strategy around this, saving 3's for the 4th and pounding it inside.. more importantly I think you'd get distinct team roles reintroduced and roster construction and team chemistry would be more interesting. Do it!.
@@kdub3288 3 pt shooters can't be breathed on, but a post guy can get his arm taken off after getting body checked 3 times, dunking and no foul. Yeah, the rules are very imbalanced.
As a rockets fan, showing every 3 point miss from 2018 cut me deep. Thanks for making me relive that.
And they were in the game…. Weren’t blown out…. Yea the 3 is a huge advantage especially shot in volume with a balanced mid range game…….
we mainly lost that bc of refs and injuries so that in mind cuts even deeper 😭
Not a rockets fan but I wanted GSW to lose that series and I watched that game 7 in its entirety.
Definitely a traumatic experience smh
@@Luke_Emia their inside game was on point though? You forgot that part
@@keithmadeit i wanted the rockets to win. but then i was like
you dumbasses missed 27 straight. maybe they didn't deserve to win
Honestly, the 3 point line levels the playing field in Basketball. Before, the game used to be a big man's game where height and size made such a big difference because majority of shots were scored inside the paint. The addition of the 3 point line makes shooting skill regardless of size and height very valuable. You can be short but still make a valuable impact as long as you practice how to shoot the ball.
Bro you haven't even watched the video yet.
Kobe or bird?
@@heylol3400 so? Lol
@Don't Read My Profile Photo ok
Bro he mentioned that y’all be slow asf and always miss the point. Watch the damn video before you make a judgment
I don't care about the three-point shots. The reason why I haven't watched an NBA game in years? Because it's all about offense now. No one has to "fight" for points anymore, every idiot runs to the basket without any interference and scores, it's ridiculous and frustrating. For decades, I've been hoping for the rule on hand checking to change again. So that we can see exciting, good basketball again.
there are still good defenders its just rare
T
A few days ago, I had an awakening experience. I believe it's truly a matter of taste and, above all, a generational conflict. How did it come about? Well, I happened to watch a playoff game after years, my first game in ages (Clippers vs Mavs). At first, I was optimistic; both teams were playing tough defense, fighting for every point. One team was briefly up by almost 30 points. For me - an old 90s veteran - it seemed like a clear-cut game. When the commentator mentioned, "in basketball, such a game, such a score can turn around within minutes," I burst out laughing. But... unbelievably, he was right! In just one quarter, it was tied again. Some role player casually sunk six three-pointers in a row. Apparently, nothing exciting for the viewers anymore... The defenders seemed tired, almost lazy. I was so disappointed.
What really left me speechless, though, was when a younger commentator was ecstatic about it, saying he was "finally" witnessing a great game! He then somewhat condescendingly remarked that "older viewers" prefer defensive battles. My conclusion: this poor, young generation of viewers today doesn't really know how exciting a basketball game can actually be. I no longer believe that anything will change there. The majority of young fans just seem to want to see a three-point contest for 48 minutes straight... What a pity...
It's incredibly harder to defend today because of the spacing (an average player can spot-up a well contested 3pt shot and just deadeye hit them), and rules favoring offense make it even harder. Defenders did not decline, offense just evolved so fast that defense had not caught up with it.
Gotta say man, your videos are so amazing. You got me back into basketball a few years back, and I really appreciate that. Keep up the amazing work man, good to see genuinely good content creators like you thriving!
@@knowsomething9384 yeah tts doesn't really do a good job of detecting that, I didn't even notice the first time. Easy fix, but you don't gotta be an as I know damn well you make errors too homie. 🤣
@@Puttsters don't mind him, this aint school
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
Hey Jimmy, just recently started playing your videos in my living room for my family. My grandparents and my dad absolutely ATE IT UP. EVERY. SECOND. You’re doing great things, all while making it palpable and easy to understand
My dude Jimmy, i have to bow to you. I watch a few other NBA RUclipsrs, but your videos.... are a whole another level. The work you put into them is just mind blowing, from the research, to the editing, to the graphs and selected videos. The excitement i get when i see you post another video is undescribed.
In the name of all NBA fans, thank you Jimmy, you the real MVP
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
Really good documentary, well done. Impeccably presented, narrated and paced.
Jimmy churned out content for us so on point even during the finals week love to see it. GOAT of Basketball RUclips
@Bandup Zay bruv😂😂😂
I never even liked basketball before - but the statistical-analysis-heavy angle he takes was enough to get me interested!
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
The way you break down historical statistics and explain them so clearly while keeping the audience engaged is a true gift. I'm sure it's backed by a tonne of hard work and effort too. Thank you so much, keep it going!
JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
"No idea why the league took so long to figure out", This really does show you that you have to give props to Steph Curry and to a slightly lesser degree Klay Thompson. Steph basically showed as a single individual that it can work if your good enough, Klay with Steph showed it was good enough for a team to be doing it.
lol my god bro get off your knees
Actually the importance of 3-point shot and how it could open the space up was discovered before Curry. A good example is 2009 Orlando: 4 shooters + big man. But GSW made it crystal clear to everyone, you’re right about that.
@@user-bx8vr9jq7v What was the the point of this dumb irrelevant comment? He’s just pointing out how good two players are at shooting, everyone knows this….
@@Dat.BoyJay warrior fans are just clowns. steph didn’t figure out anything he just had a green light. they didnt single handedly change the league. get off your knees. the step back shot changed the game more
@@user-bx8vr9jq7v Celtics tan huh? You can’t say steph didn’t change the game lmao
I’ve long theorized this is related to the NBA2K game strategy. Generations of kids playing video games and exchanging three-pointers eventually grew up to do the same in the NBA.
This seems like a crazy theory but honestly, almost all of the young guys drafted since like 2010 played 2k at some point, and there are many guys in the nba like kyrie who still play 2k to this day. It definitely had influence, but I think Steph was the biggest contributor towards it.
I think the argument “one team out classed the other team, but they just hit their threes” is kinda silly because perimeter defense is a thing. Teams can literally just train the team to shoot better and defend better. It’s literally just teams that can’t shoot threes/ can defend them. I understand the argument against them, it’s just not a good one.
fax what i was thinking too
i was thought it was a weak argument too.
one thing both you and the video forgot to consider: if both average shot values are going up, that means that basketball is disproportionally favoring offense over defense. It's not that the 3-pointer is significantly better than the 2-pointer, it's that by having so many lanes of attack by moving the defending box farther from the paint, otherwise great defensive teams get snubbed.
the motive is to even out the advantages of offense and defense so that both ends have equal action, NOT to stifle one form of offense
At the same time though, they changed the rules because pussies complained about George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, Shaquille O'Neal, and the Detroit Pistons.
Precisely
Well it definitely ruined street ball. You can be up by one, open for a layup under the goal but someone decides to shoot a three instead of passing when your team need only one point, miss the shot and lose the game. This happened to me while hitting a majority of the points in the post. Damn youngins!
everyone wants to be hitting the game winning shot instead of being on the team that makes the game winning shot if that makes any sense. I personally rather win and get onto the next game lol
@@harveyhouk775 you’re right about. Winning means more play or exercise for my old age! Lol
Exactly my dude. And for me at it's heart, bball is still street ball. For fans who watch; what would they rather see; teams throwing up threes, or teams going for athletic dunks and layups
@@Christoff070 The ratings speak for themselves. We would rather see a physical game in the paint with teams picking their spots all around the court for the highest percentage look, rather than hucking up 3's all game at a 30% success rate.. Yeah, Im sure the analytics will show 3's may be more "efficient", but the NBA is an entertainment product. If there was no fans, they wouldnt be playing now would they. The fans are just as important, if not moreso, than the players. Look at the WNBA. They need to be subsidized by the NBA and cannot even afford to pay their players or pay stadium fees. Thee NBA needs to pay it for them.. Well the NBA is heading in that direction with its current ratings. THe regular season is also becoming more and more meaningless, which is another huge red flag.
@@JonHop1 100%
Really interesting and balanced argumentative video.
However I disagree on the last graph: If a 3 pointer had been worth only 2.5 points, the defence would have focused less on defending them, making it easier to shoot 3 pointers. This would result in a higher points per 3 point attempt.
You have a point. the drop in thee point value does seem a bit exaggerated. But at the end of the day, it would most likely still be worth less than a common 2 point shot.
Honestly if a team shoot's better than another team, then OK they get more 3s.
All the other team has gotta do is learn to shoot the three themselves to balance them. Why is that seen as such a huge problem? Their is no rule against teams learning/using the same moves as their opponents.
BOTH teams are allowed to use 3s so if you think it's broken for one side, it will be EQUALLY as broken for the other side.
How is something "broken" if both sides are allowed to do it?
Unlike paint moves, which gets more broken the more physically dominant a player is, a three is a skill that anybody can learn, and the defense isn't gonna get injured from getting shot on like they would getting mowed over by a bigman drive.
When wilt was babying everybody in the league, they didn't say anything about making a 2 point shot worth 1.5 points.
It seem like there's just a hatred towards shooting being a good option, instead of it being something you do because your trapped.
but 2.5 is less sexy, imagine a match finishing with a score like 99.5 - 102.5, i think its better like this, and after all we can always move back the line a little bit (except for corners) if players become too efficient from 24 feet
Not just this, but teams would naturally move toward only taking threes with the most efficient shooters in the most efficient situations. Things will always find some balance, so "is the 3 balanced?" isn't quite the right question. The question is: do you find whatever balance the game settles in enjoyable to watch? I think an interesting stat that I wish Jxmy had charted is what percentage of total points scored come from the 3-pointer. I'm not checking every season so these could be outliers, but THAT had a big change between 2002 and this year. 2001-02 featured 16% of points from 3s/65% from 2s/19% from FTs, whereas 21-22 was 34%/51%/15%. Going to 2.5 points beyond the arc would certainly reverse that trend.
Another potentially fruitful line of research into this would be to track the correlation between different team stats and wins. Given the numbers above, I'd be willing to wager that 3-point accuracy is more important in whether a team is good or bad than it used to be. Ideally, you want no stat to be too highly correlated with winning, so that teams are using various styles and strategies.
Nah, it would be considered a worse shot than now.
No it wouldn’t matter because nobodies calling it a 2.5 pointer
this is one of the best video breakdowns I've ever seen. Absolutely love it.
I think as more teams adapt to shoot 3 points, defenses are also adapting getting better at covering the 3 points so its balancing itself.
Depends, but it is not physically possible to cover all that space so not really, but to some degree
Ye it’ll balance out a bit
It’s hard to cover that much ground in multiple possessions. Rotations are where you can try to make up the percentages but it’s never going to be 100%
No it’s not balancing itself at all. 3 point shots are up 40% from 8 years ago. It’s awful for the sport.
lol yeah does it feel like it's balancing out 🤣🤣🤣 cos I'll tell you right now basketball is absolutely the most boring sport to watch in America right now
Around the 10:00 mark when you're talking about the 'only slight increase in 3P% over time' you need to take into account that the 3PT shot has been defended much more closely in the last 2 decades than it ever was when it was first introduced, which will of course alter the % of makes.
The fact that it has risen so dramatically, despite being defended harder is a huge achievement and indicative of how good shooters are these days and in recent years.
The whole standard of shooting has went up, Steph Curry is more efficient from 3 than Allen Iverson from the the entire field. The problem is when players don't adapt, settle for 3s and keep shooting when cold.
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
Yup that was a huge oversight that completely describes the issue with today's game.
Yes I wanted to say that, too. What a stupid point.
Not only that, but that statistic doesn't take into account the success of teams that are elite at shooting the 3 ball. Like a GSW for example, or like we literally saw Dallas do "survive" by shooting 3's.
Limiting attempts could be interesting, but I think extending the line, and removing the corner 3 will make the 3 pt shot much harder and achieve balance.
In a way some teams overvalue the 3 (ex: keep shooting 3's even when they keep missing) but at the same time this is the evolution of the game. This is the same way the shot clock revolutionized the game. The same way the 3 point line did. The same way MJ revolutionized the game. The game is continuously evolving. Doesn't mean the strategy is foolproof. No strategy is perfect. I'd hesitate to say it's ruining basketball. Blame the coaches for that. Unless you're a team like the Warriors - don't rely on 3 point shooting.
Beautifully said 👏
They'll lose if they don't. That's the point of why 3s suck
this a weird won especially after the gsw celtics game,gsw being the best 3 point shooting team in nba history, lost cuz al harford brought his team back in the 4 th with his three….that’s balance …celtics was literally losing all game then came back with a three… not saying jimmer wrong but bad timing …when the warriors were unbeatable mayb when this vid was needed
MJ retired because of the new defensive rules.
@@beankobe8205 thats because the celtics are a very good inside team as well though, if they could only shoot threes the warriors would of never let al horford even shoot. But because they know jaylen brown and tatum can drive they are forced to guard that
while watching 3v3 bball in the Olympics, I kept thinking how the pros would wreck this ruleset by never shooting one-pointers and only shooting behind the line for two-pointers
I don't mind three-pointers when it's a team that makes them. What bothers me to no end is the teams who don't have the roster to emulate great shooting teams and they force them. There's nothing wrong with being a team more akin to Milwaukee or Chicago who have mid-range specialist that make the games more balanced.
The analytics have basically proven that mid range jumpers are inefficient. All my favorite players could drive the basket, hit a pull up jumper and drain a 3. (Jordan, Kobe, AI, Penny, Billups, etc.) However, the pull up jumper is no longer viable and it makes the game significantly less interesting. This analysis completely ignores the fact that 2-pointers are now more efficient, but that is simply because teams are much more selective of their two-point attempts. At the end of the day, the fans dictate what they like and the NBA is as popular as ever, but I personally believe that it is a much more interesting game with no 3-point line at all.
While I agree that the shot is pretty balanced, the fact remains that there were way too many BORING games this postseason. Teams shooting 10-50 from three and losing within the first half seemed like a regular occurrence.
The problem is team don't stop shooting when they are missing. It would be like a NFL team continuing to throw after multiple 3rd down incompletions, at some point you gotta run the ball/drive to the lane.
Id say thats a failure from the team to adjust
yeah, sometimes it just feels like the lottery, whoever is on a good day and hits threes at the beginning takes over the game
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
@@vcarter86 Great comment. I knew something wss off with his last graph but i couldn't figure out what
This man's choice of topic for a video is just god tier, he knows whats on everybody's mind 👍
on god i just recently started watching NBA and recently knew how good steph curry was and i thought myself 3 pointers kinda op if you think about it
@@yousefhussain15 he meant real fans bruh. Curry aint the only one abusing three pointers, u jus dont watch basketball
Back when there was no 3 pointers. Whenever a team with a odd number points or scores was because of missed free throws. But teams when even numbers scores still had missed free throws too.
When my father started playing basketball they were all taught to shoot underhand ('Granny-style') free-throws as at the time it had the highest percentage of success. Crazy how things change!
Shame how macho culture prevents this from still being the norm. The granny shot is simply superior in the absence of defenders. You get a more consistent shooting motion, a softer touch, and more backspin. Very few players wouldn't see marked improvement in their FT%, perhaps only the elite shooters not seeing much benefit.
Rick Barry shot granny his entire career and had the 4th highest career FT%, behind only Price, Nash, and Steph.
@@TheGuyCalledX man thats true i always liked the granny shot but my nobody ever respected it
Funny because I had a friend (female) who was horrible at basketball but was surprisingly efficient with the granny shot. Made a few of us cringe but we also got some letters from it while playing HORSE with her 😂
@@TheGuyCalledX wilt chamberlain shot underhand too I believe. Shaq could’ve learned a thing or too
Haha! I’m a huge fan of the granny shot! More NBA players need to recognize!
This proves how the golden state system is well designed. They have great 3 point shooters but they use it according to how the defense plays. if the defense pressures them outside they put the ball low inside for easy 2s, if they sag off, curry unleashes from deep. It's not about just heaving threes, it's about taking what the defense gives you.
Having a strong perimeter game opens up the inside, the most basic principle in basketball
It have more 3pts attempts because the removed the hand check, otherwise it will never happen. Is like they removed that rule for more 3 pointers
Ohhh boeeee,come on,like in modern nba do know what defense is...what a bunch of bs.i have seen games being throw away because the 3 point madness. Back on the day 3 point shooters were specialists, nowadays even centers are throwing bricks
@@Carlos.Rivera Yeah you gotta actually play defense instead of pushing someone into another defender
I was about to say that, basket secret is unpredictability
It's important to remember that most players and definitely most coaches did not develop in a heavy 3pt era like this one. I think the league is still adapting to the new reality and a lot of these issues will resolve themselves in the future.
Id say the "3pt focus" evolution is not complete. The kids that started playing while watching steph hit 3s like nothing have yet to come. Its probably gonna get worse
Nba doesnt feel the same anymore, its completely different than the game I was taught and love. kinda bittersweet
It's a great point, and a good reason not to do away with the 3 pointer. It's been part of the game for 40 years. You don't throw something like that out just because players start excelling at it and coaches start game-planning with success for it.
@@febagi 3’s are gonna start be falling from beyond the arc consistently
I'm a HS coach, I can assure you, every kid in HS and lower are chucking 3's. And even how shooting is taught, at younger levels now, takes into the reality of the 3. My 6'4, 250 lb 9th grade big man shoots a regular 33% 3pt now and it's helped his game develop more fully instead of just being an inside banger, he can catch, shoot, fake drive. Combined with a shot clock the 3 makes for more skilled players and better defenders.
This is why the Jordan era was best. Good mix of the whole game inside the paint and at the arc. Now it's just 3 after 3 after 3. No contact no problem
It wasnt
3:10 Damn bruh, the last time my Knicks won a chip the three point line didn't even exist that's how long we have been losing for 💀😭
You seriously have one of the best channels on RUclips. You rarely see any other channels go in depth on a subject like this video after video. The amount of research done for each video is apparent. Keep up the good work Jxmy!
Jimmy, he's done it again!!!....he made another heavily flawed video. First, he ignored how effective field goal % has skyrocketed but we will get to that later. "Have Three Pointers Ruined Basketball" is a question about the entertainment value of the the game. The game use to be more spread out and more diverse -- layups + post play + mid range + 3's. But now it's just layups and 3's., hardly any mid-range or post play. You didn't really answer that question.
As for the analysis, it's also heavily flawed. It's not perfectly balanced because the 3pt line is the perfect distance and worth the perfect amount (3pts) -- it's balanced because defenses had to give up on defending the 2 to defend the 3 even harder. So if you move the line forward like in the mid 90's, you will see the same happen -- tougher D on the 3 and the 2pt shots become even more easily thus balancing itself. Same if you move the 3 line out further -- they will relax D on the 3 shot and the 2 shot will become harder to shoot. Jimmy completely missed that point.
As a result of the 3pt being worth too much for the distance it is at, effective field goal % has shot up. In last 2 years, it's been around 53.5 effective fg%. As a comparison, it was around 47% in the early 2000's before some rule changes in 2004. Jimmy mentioned in the mid 90's when the 3 line was moved in -- effective fg% was only around 50%. Before that in the 80's and early 90's, it was mostly around 48%.
So for the most part, effective fg% was around 48% in the 80's through 2004. Then mid 2000's to about 2015, it was around 50%. Then the 3's started to be shot like crazy and effective fg% is now pushing 54%!!!! There is a massive difference between 48% effective fg and 54%. In a game with 80 field goal attempts, that difference is nearly 10pts!!
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson no one cares
@@NicoLaffey I care. It's true that this video is heavily flawed. What's wrong with pointing out the horrible flaws?
@@NewsGuyFred make a better video then you can call this video horrible, Fred.
@@NicoLaffey Why must someone make a better video in order to say it's heavily flawed? I'm guessing you have not once in your life complained that a movie sucked?
If we were ever to actually need to “nerf” the 3-pointer I think the most realistic option is making it farther away
'Makes no difference to me' - Steph...probably
@@helsinki The downside of this is that once the defense extends to defend the 3, you'd have a massive runway for guys to get to the rim. Pace and space would end up creating tons of dunks and mid-air collisions
i think right now the game is in a good place, there’s a good mix of athletic plays at the rim, three point snipers, and a sprinkle of mid range assassins
@@jakobdeleon1214 yeah but people want dunks only 🥴 I don't get it
That requires a bigger court cause the sides of the line would have to extend farther.. and if not, the significant shortness of the corners would be the only threes taken
I dont even watch basketball anymore. No defense and every game looks like a 3 point contest. Thats why they're losing viewers
Are they really losing viewers?. Are there not still enough airheads who watch nba?
What are you watching, the All Star game? Theres way more to basketball then that
Warriors win off threes- “the three pointer is the greatest shot in the game”
Warriors lose bc of threes- “are three pointers really worth too much?”
Spot on!
Thank you! People have been saying the three point shot has been ruining the game for years, but just cuz the warriors got beat at their own game they now want to talk about is the three point shot ruining the game of basketball gtfoh
@@kingaye372 who is they?
warriors fanboys smh
I know I feel like people are gonna hate the Celtics if they keep shooting good from the 3
I'll be honest, I'm from Australia and have never been into the NBA or basketball, but jimmy makes theses so interesting (probably helps I enjoy statistics) I think I'll start watching some games. Keep up the great work :)
Its also partly because access to NBA is difficult or expensive in Australia. The NBA app is probably the most accessible way.
@@andrewj1754 nah just watch highlights on yt.
I don't watch basketball/NBA either but I love watching Jimmy's videos and the TNT crew. Go figure.
Say that again. Perfect analysis
My emotions are all over the place with this video. I went in thinking *"The 3pt is perfect, you're insane."* Moments later like *"Omfg the 3pt is so broken it needs to be removed from the game!"* Ultimately finishing with *"The 3pt is a perfectly balanced, self governing mechanic."* I had no idea I was this impressionable, and my mind could be so easily changed over the course of 16 minutes. Ultimately this is why we should relegate our opinions on such topics to those that are educated.
He claims that a 36% fg would break the game; like it did in the 90's, but when acknowledging that the fg percentage has gone from 33% to 36% now, it's somehow not broken? What's his formula to determine the metric, and what dictates fg attempts vs percentage? Either 36% is broken or it's not; more attempts shouldn't alter his opinion on tht topic. I think his perception of the data is skewed.
That just means you can't think for yourself
@@GodzzzSon Or that you're open to your mind being changed based on facts and good arguments and reasoning, rather than stubbornly sticking by whatever opinion you have. It depends.
We need a "Four-Pointer."
What I got from this vid in relation to ur question, IMO, because of how the players and coaches react to that 3pt numbers (% etc.) now, defensively and offensively, with 33% to 36% now the shot value between 3pts and 2pts is still balanced, compared to the 90s with that 36% fg but the shot value gap was too big it was considered broken/imbalanced. CMIIW 😁
the average 2pt% has increased to a point where it’s worth just as much on average as a 3pt shot attempt. 36% was broken in the 90s when most players shot around 45% from 2, however 36% works now because the average player shoots closer to 50% from 2. it’s about the ratio not necessarily the percentages.
Even MJ said he didn't concentrate too much on the 3 point shot because it took away some of the exciting aspects to his game, I Agree.
Remember when people would talk about the NBA adding a 4 point line? Imagine how boring basketball would become. Thanks Adam Silver
Maybe the half court line could be worth 4 points? That could be interesting. It wouldn't change the appearance of the court with ugly extra linework and its not really a shot, but a heave. Could be cool for buzzer beaters, especially considering how rarely they go in.
@@Kn1ght_Shade17 we're going to get a half court curry if 4 points shots exists
@@Kn1ght_Shade17 but then players will practice at half court more and it will become a lot. More common
@@TJ_Reactz no because they already practice a lot at the 3 and this video proves they don’t make 3’s any more than they did in 2002
Imagine they put it somewhere in front of the half court and three point line and dudes start making 5 point plays off of fouls🤦🏾♂️
As a ball fan; I was so prepared to type a speech on how you were wrong.... but as a Jimmy fan; I knew to watch the whole video.
Amazing work as always
Cringe
@@ayooj5850
Let me guess. You chuck up 3's at your local park lol
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
When I was a kid and just starting on the game of Basketball; I used to have dreams of taking the rock to the basket through lots of contact, big men and finishing up with a layup or the very rare dunk. As a 5'11 player now in my 40s, I have developed my game for energy saving and less banging which has given me longevity. I have been playing every single day at 5:30 in the morning Monday to Sunday for the last 22 years (except for covid 😡). The evolution of the game has allowed me to continue to play and be an offensive threat via the 3 point shot. In fact my scoring average has gone up by 40% in the last coupe of years. Now in my 40's I still go to bed dreaming of basketball and in my dreams I am no longer driving through traffic as much but shooting 3's typically while using a screen. I eat, breath and live basketball and I have an almost romantic relationship with the game. I dread the day that I will have to hang up the shoes by it's laces for the last time and I know that content like this will allow me to reminiscence on those nostalgic days after I am forced to abandon that relationship. I love you basketball and I live these videos. Thanks Jimmy.
Get a girlfriend bro, trust me it sounds like it could change ya life!!!
@@slumpdpapiii8038 very unnecessary comment.
@@slumpdpapiii8038 says the virgin
Right
My 8 year old son would wreck you on the court
Nice video. An alternative to making the long shot worth 2.5 points is to make shots outside the arc worth 4 points and shots inside the arc worth 3 points. This is still a nerf to the long shot, but a lesser nerf. Something left out of the video is what to do about free throws. In the system I described, you could keep the free throw at 1 point, and then attempts would go up on fouls. This would change the strategy on fouling (somehow).
It'd also change all the stats. LeBron breaking Kareem's scoring record now won't matter
@@tien90802agree also why NBA won’t change point value bc the same problem still exhists with the 2.5 point idea
@@tien90802 Technically you can just multiply all the values so they match up when comparing records. But yeah, that isn't ideal.
This breakdown is better than any fluff piece or take you will see on ESPN or any televised sports show. Great content here.
ESPN is WOKE GARBAGE!
@@vickrunalza8057 agreed. Disney owns most of what we watch. Abc espn etc...
This is by far my favorite of your videos. Really well done, I’ve always felt that the aggressive attack of 3-pointers was unjustified, thank you for providing such a fascinating set of statistics. Keep up the great work!
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
6:40 Michael Phelps did the same with the butterfly kick and Olympic swimming.
Thank you for making my day every week with these nba videos. Thank for updating me with the straight facts. You’re one of my favorite NBA RUclipsrs
I would love to see something about the variance of 3-heavy strategies. It seems inherently more high risk/high reward which seems like it would lead to higher variance.
It USED to be. But now MANY more players are practicing 3's just as much as layups...or dunks.
It's becoming a "higher " percentage shot that it was before.
So they NEED to move back the 3 point line again.
@@BudTezzy2345 I think the video debunks that.
NBA should change the rule to limit 3pt attempt to 35 each team. After 35 attempts it only counts as 2pts, teams would use it more strategically.
@@dudestravel8934 no that’s stupid
@@dudestravel8934 that is one of the most stupidest things I've ever heard lmaooo
Great video, as always. However, I/question the math you provided. I would suggest that you made the case for why the 3-pt shot is overvalued. Players attempted far more of this difficult shot without efficacy dropping. So much so that efficiencies have increased in the « easier » shot.
Defences had to adapt. This opened up the 2-pt.
To balance the game, pushing back the line to 25-ft would definitely help. Defensively you guard the corner three, but the new line at 25-ft helps defend the top of the arc.
how about shortening the dimmensions of the court so that defenses can recover quicker?
@@jmgonzales7701 or lowering the rims to make offense easier for everyone
I say that the 3 pt shot is fine where it is because players are taking difficult 3 pt shots since teams base their offense on it, so the league percentage hasn't gone up very much over the last 20 or so years, so the distance doesn't need to be extended.
@@homer23422000 so i say that there is a balance in numbers but what you see in the field is a bit different, for example a way better team that should destory the opponent somehow getting halted because the other team sinks in 2 3pointers once in a while and still survives. Thats not really fair is it?
@@leooooooooooooooooooooo nah i think thats bs, this ain't the wnba.
Man I don’t even watch basketball, but this video was extremely entertaining! Kudos
I love the detail and composition of your videos. I come from a futbol background but have always loved basketball being from the states as well as the similarities between the two sports. In soccer there's a lot of analysis coming from the tactical and technical point of view, which always felt was sorely lacking in basketball in place of more personal and inflammatory takes. Your channel is king when it comes to analyzing the nuts and bolts of the game. Your channel is not just awesome for basketball fans, but for anyone that is a sports purist. Keep up the good work bruh.
You should watch Thinking Basketball aswell then.
4:55 That was extremely circumstantial. During the next series, Dallas tried that many times, only 3-pointers aren't that easy, and they couldn't get as much percentage that time.
Your videos are one of the reasons why I have gotten into basketball so much the last few seasons, the tifo football of NBA videos. Cheers Jimmy, keep up the great analytics.
Praise be upon you JxmyHighroller.....you don't speak.....you PREACH
Steph led the way, and other shooters started firing away from distance at volume roughly 5 minutes ago. Defenses need to adapt for the specific purpose of stopping these shooters more effectively. And they will start to adapt- but it will be uneven at first. Only a few of the very best teams will be able to figure it out, and those same teams will be less good at stopping big men inside.
Exactly. Just cause the Warriors are fantastic at 3s doesn’t mean other teams will be….Steph is an anomaly. But guys like Harden think they are throw up 15 3s a night and think they’ll win….that’s why Mike the coach never won a ring because of this mentality.
@@ewjiml Mike also had some shit luck and a cheap ass owner to deal with during his time with the Suns
Analytics did this, not Curry.
The math guys got the basketball guys convinced that 3 pointers are the most efficient shots, Curry helped prove that it’s true.
These analytics are the same that has made baseball do so many shifts and h it so many home runs, and the same analytics that has made NFL team go for it much more often on 4th down.
Steph just got lucky that he started in the era he did. He would have been a regular player back in 80s 90s and 2000s
@@ssj2camaro21 cap, no one could shoot like him
The Celtics stole Game 1 by the 3 pointer, and they barely got to the Finals by a missed 3 pointer. It's a fascinating phenomenon.
They won with defense/ warriors not scoring at all in the 4th
@@pickleman40 also had to do with Derrick White and Al Horford making dumb amounts of 3s
they splashed all over the splash bros in their backyard
@@pickleman40 true but, going basically 100% from three in the fourth made it pretty much impossible for the warriors to win that game.
@@axron810 the Celtics will be fooling themselves if they think they can win a 3 pt shootout the rest of the series
The problem is that the three pointer is still ultimately dictating the entire shot chart on the floor. You still need a bunch of three point players out there. Defenses have basically become stop the three at all costs, and are more than okay most times with allowing easier 2s if it meant you stopped a 3. Stylistically, teams are still basically going all out 3s, and that's kind of the problem. Basketball sucks now because all 30 teams are sort of a carbon copy offense, some teams are just doing it better with better players, but they're all hunting 3s at all costs.
Yea, 100% agree, the physically and intensity is gone, replaced with flashiness,blowouts & the same formula for winning
Lol..
I would've turn my eyes off basketball completely if those 3 didnt exist at all..
People are gonna start ignore the attempt for 2.5 pts too..
Imagine being defender and one thing in their minds are only about stopping any shot attempt from inside 3pts arc..
That would be so boring and creates more n more problem..
Doesnt mean when you see something that you would call a problem, means that it isnt the best solution for that situation..
Dont just see and complain about it..
Think further, about the consequences of removing/adjusting 3pts ..
Its so dang easy if you try..👍
do u expect ppl to play inefficiently just to satisfy your need to see post moves and mid ranges?
@@slatecity Professional sports exist because of the fans. Otherwise, no one is paying anyone anything to shoot a basketball. If fans are getting bored with the game due to 3 pointers, it may be worth considering changing it.
@@jonathanbaird8109 they clearly arent seeing as every game is sold out and packed. back inna days of the 90s and 2000s it was common to see unpopular teams have empty seats in the stadium
As a short player I can say without 3 pointers I would probably be playing baseball right now.
I remember the NBA in the 90's and early aughts. Pat Riley had gone from the Showtime Lakers to the Thug Knicks, slowing the game down and clogging up the lane, centers and power forwards constantly battling for "easy" baskets. Teams winning games with scores like 87-80. When all that was going on, I was saying the way to solve the problem was enlarge the court, because it seemed like the court had become too small for ten players.
I was wrong about the court's size, of course. The problem was the players weren't utilizing enough of it. When teams started shooting more 3 pointers, the court opened back up again. The three pointer makes "pace and space" possible, first by creating inside / outside movement, then by lateral movement. Then, as more players become efficient long range shooters, you start needing more mobile big men and sometimes no big men at all. Teams can go small and fast, outrunning opponents to prime shooting areas.
I don't think the three has ruined pro basketball; it's raised the degree of difficulty for defenses, and that's not a bad thing. Points have always been easiest to come by in basketball as opposed to the other main sports and it should stay that way. But the 3 pointer is just difficult enough. It opens up the court. It makes players move instead of stand around. There are a lot of things I don't like about basketball, but the renewed focus on movement isn't one of them.
pretty much look at how much COURT players like JA or LUKA utilize to make plays for themselves or others, even OG Bron like down hill bron, dribbling from outside the 3 to the rack....on close out/plays.
"early aughts" man you must be like a hundred years old bro
I agree with many of your points, it's not like 90s basketball was way better, it's just that the baskets where made from all over the place. Thing is, three pointers might raise the degree of difficulty for defenses, yet you can't do much nowadays without handchecks and by incorporating zone into the NBA. In fact, although the defenses look like they need more effort now, it's not shown inside the court, which makes the three point itself a repetitive thing. I believe that the three pointer IS actually an evolution. The fact that is repetitive is not because of the three pointer itself though but other factors of the game, like the rules of the defense.
It's the change in officiating and the way rules are enforced that have changed the game and turned it into a three point contest. You see the exact same thing in football. They've hamstringed the defense.
I only want them to fix the reffing and flopping problem
Never stop making videos. Best basketball youtuber out there and it's not even close. Your videos always teach us something new and we love them. JxmyHighroller the real GOAT.
Kobe or bird
AM hoops is pretty good too cuz he posts more.
Well, he’s up there but Korzemba is better
It’s basic stuff
@Don't Read My Profile Photo Don't worry, no one cares.
You may think it's all the fancy basketball speech and elegant graphs that make this channel so good, but it's actually Jxmy's script writing skills. Logical development, perfect transitions, excellent pacing. Dude's blowing it out of the water with his writing skills.
The shot clock is the greatest basketball innovation.
Another consideration for the 3 ball is that when missed it’s usually a long rebound. How many 2nd chance opportunities come from launching 3’s, even with a smaller team? I agree though that the game is balanced. For every problem or matchup problem coaches and players have to be able to continuously adjust to their opponent.
interesting, didnt think of that
I came here to say this too. This needed to be looked at to have a really good assessment on the situation. And free throw attempts etc
Edit: even the ability to have more defense has to play a role in the success of the team. You often have more players committed to the basket for a two pointer
that exact point is what 90% of coaches don't understand....duh.....very obvious rebounding advantage especially if you are a smaller sized team
Jimmy I have been debating guys about this for the past few years. The reason why three's are good is because it opens up the game & makes ball movement and flow so much better. Thanks for the data to prove a point initiative I've always felt!
I feel like you're not taking into account the inverse relationship between scale and efficiency here. Yes, the % of 3s hit has stayed the same but that's with way more (and more difficult) 3s being taken now. The efficiency of 2s and 3s was always going to naturally reach an equilibrium as teams figure out the analytical side, but this was reached with a very high (and high-difficulty) amount of 3s being taken.
Was gonna say exactly this. They take much more, harder and longer threes now than 30 or 40 years ago.
@@91aben isnt that his whole point though? Theyre taking more difficult 3s because teams are adapting, thus reducing its efficiency and making 2s more valuable
This is basically a chicken & egg dilemma where you have to take the entire timeline/sequence of events (e.g., historical, defensive adaptations) to understand the current phenomenon. That is the very definition of “evolution” which is what jxmy kept repeating about the game of basketball, or sports in general
I grew up an ABA fan, and the 3-point shot was an accessory - icing on the cake. It was perfect for boosting our league’s game, without smothering it. Loved the 3pter then!
I’ve been pondering this for years, and you framed the answers to my questions perfectly. Great job.
@JxmyHighroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
@@vcarter86 That’s an intriguing idea, but it sounds like a coaching nightmare. It would just be so frustrating getting the message across of when to take it, unless it was all pre-planned (which would either lead to a lot of set plays and no freelance, or terrible shots.) It’d be a constant headache. Making the rim smaller would be an interesting one because it would also have an effect on 2s, just much less so.
@@vcarter86 dude you're copy pasting this everywhere. This doesn't make sense. Is he wrong or right? You agree that the 2.5 would be obsolete because the shot percentage is the same and there wouldn't be much incentive to even try at that point so why bother? It's just a risk/reward option and teams that don't adapt around it fail.
@@DaArcaneNinja No, i agree 2.5 would be a bad approach only because i think there is a better approach.
And Jimmy is wrong only about that final graph because he made the biggest flaw what he could have done in analytic and it is that he analyzed a stat in vacuum i had to draw everybody's attention to that. Thats why i copy pasted it to everythere Because people take this and beleive it blindly without any thinking.
This is exactly the kind of video I like. It's titled in such a way as to ask if you agree or not and you stay to either confirm or debunk your own hypothesis/belief. Well done Jimmy. I love a good three and a midrange two under pressure. Makes me think of the time Uncle Rukkus complained about dunks. Keep up the good work.
I think what made two pointers more valuable than threes this season was the league giving more power to the defense to be able to guard the three.
Yeah but they stopped actually doing that halfway through the season.
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.
One thing though is games are often decided by who is hot on threes, meaning if one team is hot on 3’s in a night then it’s very hard for the other team to win against it, and if they have a terrible night on 3’s it’s very hard for that team to make up for it with 2’s. These ups and downs could cause many more games being dictated by 3’s than the collective data would suggest. The points per possession teams have on one night compared to another night probably swings a lot more with the addition of the 3 I would think.
But, i haven’t researched the numbers on this, and also I don’t care. It’s entertaining anyway, and there’s definitely more to it than just this, such as how the two point shot opens up the 3 and vice versa.
This is easily the most compelling and informational basketball video I’ve ever watched. Wonderfully said and visualized. 👏🏾👏🏾
Jimmy, he's done it again!!!....he made another heavily flawed video. First, he ignored how effective field goal % has skyrocketed but we will get to that later. "Have Three Pointers Ruined Basketball" is a question about the entertainment value of the the game. The game use to be more spread out and more diverse -- layups + post play + mid range + 3's. But now it's just layups and 3's., hardly any mid-range or post play. You didn't really answer that question.
As for the analysis, it's also heavily flawed. It's not perfectly balanced because the 3pt line is the perfect distance and worth the perfect amount (3pts) -- it's balanced because defenses had to give up on defending the 2 to defend the 3 even harder. So if you move the line forward like in the mid 90's, you will see the same happen -- tougher D on the 3 and the 2pt shots become even more easily thus balancing itself. Same if you move the 3 line out further -- they will relax D on the 3 shot and the 2 shot will become harder to shoot. Jimmy completely missed that point.
As a result of the 3pt being worth too much for the distance it is at, effective field goal % has shot up. In last 2 years, it's been around 53.5 effective fg%. As a comparison, it was around 47% in the early 2000's before some rule changes in 2004. Jimmy mentioned in the mid 90's when the 3 line was moved in -- effective fg% was only around 50%. Before that in the 80's and early 90's, it was mostly around 48%.
So for the most part, effective fg% was around 48% in the 80's through 2004. Then mid 2000's to about 2015, it was around 50%. Then the 3's started to be shot like crazy and effective fg% is now pushing 54%!!!! There is a massive difference between 48% effective fg and 54%. In a game with 80 field goal attempts, that difference is nearly 10pts!!
Jxmy Highroller 1. Your graph at the end of your video is wrong (the adjusted 3pointer into 2.5point) because you didnt take into account that if it were worth only 2.5 points players wouldnt take it so much (less attempts) the defense are not as much forced to defend vs it. So that closes up spaces inside the 3 point line which leads more contested shots there aswell . As a result 2pointers wouldnt be as effective either as the current graph shows. And obviously the 2.5 point have been taken by only elite shooters because it would worth less so that means its efficiency graph would look like so much different. So comparing that like you did is inaccurate. But that doesnt mean you are not right i am just saying the gap isnt as wide as the graph shows.
2. There is another thing which should take into account the variance of the 3 pointers. I think that is not good at any team and not good from point of view of entertainment either for the fans because i think there are less close games todays.
I think the 2.5point solution is lame i dont agree with that. But limiting the 3 point attempts (max 25) would be a good solution as a result only those players would shot 3s who are really good at it which would lead to less variance and more close games.