The NBA is broken.

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,833
Reaction score
16,620
But the other thing not counted is the long rebounds. Much better chance of getting an offensive rebound from a 3.
True but I'm not sure that's as true for corner 3's. I haven't done any research but it seems to me that most of the deep offensive rebounds occur on shots above the extended free throw line.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,833
Reaction score
16,620
Just eliminate the 3 point line entirely

The whole idea that a basket is worth more just because it is further away is whacked
It was a long shot idea intended to help fix the game without throwing a lot of money into the fix. The real fix needed to be expanding the court and raising the hoop but the court expansion was always deemed to be too impractical.
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
17,499
Reaction score
12,708
Location
Tempe, AZ
It was a long shot idea intended to help fix the game without throwing a lot of money into the fix. The real fix needed to be expanding the court and raising the hoop but the court expansion was always deemed to be too impractical.

Court expansion now would be too costly in terms of adjusting arenas as well as sacrificing high dollar seating. Unfortunately they have the "preservation of the game" argument now also since they allowed something to go unaddressed for too long.

It feels like yesterday the NBA was celebrating 50 years and now we're almost at 80. Even for the Suns, traded for Barkley and that was year 25 to now when they drafted Aaron was year 50 but Aaron has long since finished his rookie contract and we're closer to 60 than his rookie campaign.
 

Dback Jon

Doing it My Way
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
82,556
Reaction score
42,524
Location
South Scottsdale
It was a long shot idea intended to help fix the game without throwing a lot of money into the fix. The real fix needed to be expanding the court and raising the hoop but the court expansion was always deemed to be too impractical.
Then they need to move it back and eliminate the corner three to make it an actual skill shot that rewards a minority of the players versus everyone chucking threes
 

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
25,593
Reaction score
18,581
Location
The Giant Toaster
There is no question 90's and 2000's NBA was a much better product.

The reason we have superstars is they do something spectacular - shooting a 3 isn't that spectacular unless you are Curry and can dribble in a circle and hurl it in a half second and it miraculously will go in. He's about the only one that can do that though.

I’d say 94-04’ was an awful product we just didn’t know it. The NBA was in big trouble going into the 2000’s.
 

Suns_fan69

Official ASFN Lurker
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
3,666
Reaction score
2,065
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
There is no question 90's and 2000's NBA was a much better product.

The reason we have superstars is they do something spectacular - shooting a 3 isn't that spectacular unless you are Curry and can dribble in a circle and hurl it in a half second and it miraculously will go in. He's about the only one that can do that though.
Hard disagree there. The iso heavy defensive slugfests of the late 90s and early 2000s were too far in the opposite direction. Peak basketball for me were late 80s to early 90s and then mid 2000s to mid 2010s.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,833
Reaction score
16,620
Court expansion now would be too costly in terms of adjusting arenas as well as sacrificing high dollar seating. Unfortunately they have the "preservation of the game" argument now also since they allowed something to go unaddressed for too long.

It feels like yesterday the NBA was celebrating 50 years and now we're almost at 80. Even for the Suns, traded for Barkley and that was year 25 to now when they drafted Aaron was year 50 but Aaron has long since finished his rookie contract and we're closer to 60 than his rookie campaign.
I know, that's what I meant when I said it was deemed impractical. And these changes/costs would have had to filter down to every other level too.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,833
Reaction score
16,620
I’d say 94-04’ was an awful product we just didn’t know it. The NBA was in big trouble going into the 2000’s.
It was, and IMO it was by far the worst era of basketball in my lifetime. Although I'm not sure that "we just didn't know it". It was talked about quite a bit at the time.
 

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
25,593
Reaction score
18,581
Location
The Giant Toaster
It was, and IMO it was by far the worst era of basketball in my lifetime. Although I'm not sure that "we just didn't know it". It was talked about quite a bit at the time.

We knew MJ coming back saved the NBA from being hockey in the US. The CBA was also nuts. #1 picks could be unrestricted after 3-4 years. Shaq left Orlando, Webber Golden St and Duncan nearly left for Orlando in 2000. Crazy to think about someone like Wemby being able to hit FA in 2026.
 

1tinsoldier

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Posts
1,482
Reaction score
556
Location
AZ
i applaud the aggressive, progressive approach of this thread to improve the entertainment value of the game. Dealing with 3's is a good start but, unfortunately:

1. reducing the 3pt line to the back-court area would have the opposite effect because defenses could cover it more effectively.
2. we need the 3 late in games to keep the losing team in it. In fact, i'd add a 4pt shot from half-court so there's a remote chance before the buzzer sounds. A way of limiting 3's might be good, but not in the 4th.

the greatest thing about a football game is the variety of ways an opponent can come-back in the end
 

Dback Jon

Doing it My Way
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
82,556
Reaction score
42,524
Location
South Scottsdale
i applaud the aggressive, progressive approach of this thread to improve the entertainment value of the game. Dealing with 3's is a good start but, unfortunately:

1. reducing the 3pt line to the back-court area would have the opposite effect because defenses could cover it more effectively.
2. we need the 3 late in games to keep the losing team in it. In fact, i'd add a 4pt shot from half-court so there's a remote chance before the buzzer sounds. A way of limiting 3's might be good, but not in the 4th.

the greatest thing about a football game is the variety of ways an opponent can come-back in the end
So in football term, a 50 yard pass play should be worth eight points a kick off return for a touchdown. Should be worth 10 points.

A 1 yard run should only be worth four points
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
17,499
Reaction score
12,708
Location
Tempe, AZ
i applaud the aggressive, progressive approach of this thread to improve the entertainment value of the game. Dealing with 3's is a good start but, unfortunately:

1. reducing the 3pt line to the back-court area would have the opposite effect because defenses could cover it more effectively.
2. we need the 3 late in games to keep the losing team in it. In fact, i'd add a 4pt shot from half-court so there's a remote chance before the buzzer sounds. A way of limiting 3's might be good, but not in the 4th.

the greatest thing about a football game is the variety of ways an opponent can come-back in the end

1 isn't a negative so much as the intent. Make is easier to defend, make the offense adjust. Good players/teams will.

2 heaves from halfcourt or beyond being worth 4 would only cause more ridiculousness. It's not entertaining to watch guys like Ayton* in warmups chuck halfcourt shots for 5-10 minutes. It wouldn't improve the game from a spectator perspective. A 4 point line shouldn't even be up for discussion until the game is improved from a viewer perspective now and largely those who have tuned out point to how it's become a 3pt contest instead of the game they remember.

*which is what he did regularly, good riddance
 

boisesuns

Standing Tall And Traded
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Posts
4,077
Reaction score
336
Location
Boise, ID
I started losing interest during the bubble along with many of the challenges in 2020, most sports really took a back seat and you could say my diehard status was removed. We got the carrot of the finals run only to fumble it away. (Typical suns)

I’ve been more into college football with Boise States success this year, but even that sport has turned into a giant mess with paying players and transfers.

For me the NBA will probably be like college basketball: turn it on in the postseason if it looks interesting
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
Posts
355
Reaction score
128
Location
Earth
I also hate that the NBA's idea of a winning offense is to chuck three-point shots. I believe Mike Budenholzer should not be the current Suns coach in the first place, because he is trying to make Devin Booker do more of that and fewer of the mid-range shots he specializes in. He's unwisely trying to fit Devin Booker into a system rather than fitting the system to Booker. He's Devin Booker, not Stephon Curry. And wanting big men to be three-point chuckers is ridiculous. That's a waste of their physical stature, unless they're just oversized glorified guards like Bol Bol.

I keep up with Suns progress because I care about the Suns, not because I still like the NBA.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
Posts
355
Reaction score
128
Location
Earth
Here is why things will probably change in the near future: money. the NBA's ratings are supposedly down. I know the TV deal is already signed but lower ratings will harm prospects for the next one. The NBA doesn't care about anything but money. Money was prrrobably why this obnoxious trend of three-point-heavy offense started in the first place. Think about it: players banging near the basket, as in the 90s, probably cost teams mo' money because players got injured more easily (and ratings theoretically might suffer). They probably get injured less chucking endless three-point shots; if so, that saves their teams and the league money.

I might also explain that the main reason I detest the normalization of the three-point shot is simple: it took away the romance of the three. It's not special anymore. If a team claws its way back into a game and wins due to three-point shots, so what. It probably happens all the the time now, and was probably why the other team was leading in the first place. That team was hotter from long-distance; then they went cold while the losing team heated up.
 
Last edited:

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
119,098
Reaction score
59,713
Here is why things will probably change in the near future: money. the NBA's ratings are supposedly down. I know the TV deal is already signed but lower ratings will harm prospects for the next one. The NBA doesn't care about anything but money. There is no point in linking to my source, because the article is locked behind a paywall.

Money was prrrobably why this obnoxious trend of three-point-heavy offense started in the first place. Think about it: players banging near the basket, as in the 90s, probably cost teams mo' money because players got injured more easily (and ratings theoretically might suffer). They probably get injured less chucking endless three-point shots; if so, that saves their teams and the league money.

IMO, the new CBA has diminished interest in the larger markets because wealthier NBA teams are no longer able to spend to improve their teams with all the restrictions. Parity may not the answer in the NBA like it is in the NFL.

In regard to injuries, there seems to be more injuries today in the NBA than ever before, so I don't think the three point shot has lessened that problem.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2022
Posts
355
Reaction score
128
Location
Earth
In regard to injuries, there seems to be more injuries today in the NBA than ever before, so I don't think the three point shot has lessened that problem.
Yeah, but they seem to be less serious. Fewer players suffering ACL tears or other career-threatening injuries. To remember the last time the Suns had a devastating injury that took a player out of the season/series or even kept the player out for a long time, I would have to go all the way back to Dario Saric. That injury during the 2021 NBA finals that largely ended his Suns career, just as I was starting to pay attention again. I didn't know yet who Dario Saric was. Since then, the Suns players keep losing handfuls of games but not large parts of the season. As far I recall, I note that Devin Booker has never ruined a knee, broken a hand or foot, etc. Certainly not recently.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
119,098
Reaction score
59,713
Yeah, but they seem to be less serious. Fewer players suffering ACL tears or other career-threatening injuries. To remember the last time the Suns had a devastating injury that took a player out of the season/series or even kept the player out for a long time, I would have to go all the way back to Dario Saric. That injury during the 2021 NBA finals that largely ended his Suns career, just as I was starting to pay attention again. I didn't know yet who Dario Saric was. Since then, the Suns players keep losing handfuls of games but not large parts of the season. As far I recall, I note that Devin Booker has never ruined a knee, broken a hand or foot, etc. Certainly not recently.

I think one has to look at all 30 teams, not just one.

I'm not going to look through injury reports to confirm it, but a lot of NBA players are out for the season or have serious injuries.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
555,655
Posts
5,428,551
Members
6,329
Latest member
cardinals2025
Top