NBA 2018-2019

[Headhunter]

Mathematically? The numbers have always been there, and it's still that you're more likely to brick. Curry and the gangs irregular efficiency made it a bad fad.

You're more likely to brick any kind of jump shot. Outside of layups which you can't just get any time you want, threes are the most efficient shots.

[Reign in Blood]

Mathematically? The numbers have always been there, and it's still that you're more likely to brick. Curry and the gangs irregular efficiency made it a bad fad.

You're more likely to brick any kind of jump shot. Outside of layups which you can't just get any time you want, threes are the most efficient shots.

What in the fuck is this shit. The further you are away, the better shit gets.

[Headhunter]

Mathematically? The numbers have always been there, and it's still that you're more likely to brick. Curry and the gangs irregular efficiency made it a bad fad.

You're more likely to brick any kind of jump shot. Outside of layups which you can't just get any time you want, threes are the most efficient shots.

What in the fuck is this shit. The further you are away, the better shit gets.

Expected points value. If I hit 36% of my 26 foot shots and hit 40% of my 19 foot shots, which is the better shot to take?

[Reign in Blood]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

[Headhunter]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

Why are you trying to make analogies to sports where the value of a longer shot isn't greater than a shorter one?

[Headhunter]

This would be like if a 60 yard TD was worth 9 points instead of 6. If the longer putt was worth 0.7 strokes instead of 1 on the card.

[Reign in Blood]

Mathematically? The numbers have always been there, and it's still that you're more likely to brick. Curry and the gangs irregular efficiency made it a bad fad.

You're more likely to brick any kind of jump shot. Outside of layups which you can't just get any time you want, threes are the most efficient shots.

What in the fuck is this shit. The further you are away, the better shit gets.

Expected points value. If I hit 36% of my 26 foot shots and hit 40% of my 19 foot shots, which is the better shot to take?

Look Tre Curry, if your teh suck at the 3, don't take the 3.

[Reign in Blood]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

Why are you trying to make analogies to sports where the value of a longer shot isn't greater than a shorter one?

A long shot in football isn't greater?

[Headhunter]

Average shooting % from 3-10 feet is 38%. 10-16 feet is 40%. 16-24 feet is 39%. And three point shots are 35%. So you're just barely more likely to score off 2 point jumpers than threes, but you get 50% more point value from a three. I never said it was easier to shoot threes, I said it was more efficient (than anything but layups).

[Headhunter]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

Why are you trying to make analogies to sports where the value of a longer shot isn't greater than a shorter one?

A long shot in football isn't greater?

Is a touchdown ever worth more than 6 points before XP/conversion?

[Reign in Blood]

Happy Gilmore shows closing quicker on a hole with the long shot pays dividends.

[Reign in Blood]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

Why are you trying to make analogies to sports where the value of a longer shot isn't greater than a shorter one?

A long shot in football isn't greater?

Is a touchdown ever worth more than 6 points before XP/conversion?

Getting a 60 yard conversion for a field goal or touchdown versus punt is.

[Headhunter]

Are you trolling?

[Headhunter]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

Why are you trying to make analogies to sports where the value of a longer shot isn't greater than a shorter one?

A long shot in football isn't greater?

Is a touchdown ever worth more than 6 points before XP/conversion?

Getting a 60 yard conversion for a field goal or touchdown versus punt is.

What are you even saying here?

[Reign in Blood]

Wait, and isn't a homerun a long shot! How's that working out for the Dodgers versus playing small ball?

[Reign in Blood]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

Why are you trying to make analogies to sports where the value of a longer shot isn't greater than a shorter one?

A long shot in football isn't greater?

Is a touchdown ever worth more than 6 points before XP/conversion?

Getting a 60 yard conversion for a field goal or touchdown versus punt is.

What are you even saying here?

Nothing. You're right, outside of Golf, where the quicker you get to the hole does pay off, most sports don't give greater value for the longer shot perse.

[Headhunter]

That put, if it was just 6 ft away instead of 1, I would have birdied. That receiver, if he was 60 yards down the field instead of 20, I would have nailed him in the hands. That batter, if I was twice as many feet off the mound, I would have struck him out with that fast ball.

Why are you trying to make analogies to sports where the value of a longer shot isn't greater than a shorter one?

A long shot in football isn't greater?

Is a touchdown ever worth more than 6 points before XP/conversion?

Getting a 60 yard conversion for a field goal or touchdown versus punt is.

What are you even saying here?

Nothing. You're right, outside of Golf, where the quicker you get to the hole does pay off, most sports don't give greater value for the longer shot perse.

The three point shot is like a casino giving you a 55% chance to win in roulette.

[Foo]

I think the scoring system in basketball overvalues the difficulty of the three-point shot in the sense that it's not significantly harder to make than a long two, so it's kind of crazy that teams weren't taking advantage of it more for 30+ years. Basic math should have dictated this transition long ago.

Old timers. Same reason baseball was valuing a lot of things that turned out to be wrong, and still continued to even after it being demonstrated mathmstically for decades.

Part of me wants to believe the NBA might make a rule change to reduce the ugliness of the current offense, but they continue to become a bigger and bigger global presence, and are popular with kids, so it will get worse.

Power forwards and centers now practice corner threes like free throws. Awful.

Do you really think the current offense is ugly, especially compared to what the NBA was like 15-20 years ago? Teams are playing with pace and moving the ball again.

Yeah, because I think playing for a lower percentage shot that is easier to get is silly but made desirable by a 50% increase in points for a make.

In the NFL, it would be like lingering around the 40 yard line to kick a long field goal that is worth 10 points.

[Foo]

When you adjust for the 50% bonus, basically anything that is not a dunk, layup, or three is not a good shot.

I feel like you should be rewarded more for good looks closer to the basket, as they are harder to get. What would it look like if the scoring system was:

4 points in the lane
3 points outside of the lane
2 points beyond the arc

?

Probably a lot more like basketball. Remember when team strategy involved "Defending the paint" as a primary tenant?

[Reign in Blood]

I think the scoring system in basketball overvalues the difficulty of the three-point shot in the sense that it's not significantly harder to make than a long two, so it's kind of crazy that teams weren't taking advantage of it more for 30+ years. Basic math should have dictated this transition long ago.

Old timers. Same reason baseball was valuing a lot of things that turned out to be wrong, and still continued to even after it being demonstrated mathmstically for decades.

Part of me wants to believe the NBA might make a rule change to reduce the ugliness of the current offense, but they continue to become a bigger and bigger global presence, and are popular with kids, so it will get worse.

Power forwards and centers now practice corner threes like free throws. Awful.

Do you really think the current offense is ugly, especially compared to what the NBA was like 15-20 years ago? Teams are playing with pace and moving the ball again.

Yeah, because I think playing for a lower percentage shot that is easier to get is silly but made desirable by a 50% increase in points for a make.

In the NFL, it would be like lingering around the 40 yard line to kick a long field goal that is worth 10 points.

IOW, Garbage.