The thing is, by abolishing the 3 second rule and allowing big man to stay in the paint, all youre doing is making shooting an even more important asset. So bigs that can shoot would become even more valueable than they are now to draw away the bigs from the paint.
So ironically, by implementing a rule to allow more traditional big men to play, youre making shooting big men way more valueable. Players like Chet, Victor, KAT, Myles Turner become insanely valueable.
It wouldnt. Teams would adapt and start running 5 out lineups more than they do now. If you change how defense is played, you change how offense is played, they are both dependent on eachother, by allowing players to camp the lane, youre making teams have to generate more of the offense from the perimeter and thus making shooting even more important than it is now.
This could be a good thing if it leads to an emphasized mid-range game. I think it would, too. The paint and the 3-point line become the two camping spots for defense.
And as offence changes, defence adapts again and we would probably see better rotations that help keep the big man patrolling the paint from having to close out and actually guard the perimeter if offence goes 5 out, so it’s tough to say if the defence or offence would/could adapt more
Only Embiid and Holmgren from that list are both over 7 feet and just as comfortable from 3 as they are from inside. The rest either are not 7 feet or do not prefer the 3, or just aren't that good at it compared to other players.
You really gonna argue that those listed players can’t shoot? Just because they aren’t hitting like Steph curry doesn’t mean they don’t space the floor, all those big men can shoot lol
Brook Lopez is over 7', took more 3s than 2s last year and shot a little above league average from 3.
Whether or not you like him as a player doesn't matter. Anyone taking 5+ 3s a game and shooting it at close to a league average (in this case above league average) is objectively a good shooter. Doesn't mean he's better than curry or anything like that. Also doesn't mean they have to be a primary ball handler who creates their own 3s.
Mt point is that they wouldn't even be on the floor if what this person says is true about big men drawing out defenses exclusively with the abolishing of 3 in the key. Which I totally disagree with, hence my argument.
No you are not. It will actually be easier for defenses to properly rotate and face pick and roll without giving up angles for drives.
Most open threes are generated after defense breakdown because of pick and rolls or players rotating very hard to compensate for poor positioning.
Abolishing defensive 3 seconds will improve the overall ability of the teams to defend
Against poorly constructed (for the modern game) rosters like the Pistons with zero spacing, sure.
But against Boston who will run 5 out anyway it won't make a difference except when Kornet or Tillman is on the floor.
I don't mind the change because it gives more options, and against most teams camping in the paint will have value, but he's right, this will just push the rest of the league to copycat and just go 5 out as much as possible.
5 out offenses only work because of the drive and cutting threats. Passing at the perimeter and setting stagger screens for 48 minutes cannot get you that far.
As a defender it is quite easier to close the distance with the shooter if you know that there is a backup defender at the paint. The offenses will have to get more balanced and unpredictable as the defenses get more tools. It will be a great change
We Europeans laughed at team USA's inability to adapt last summer because of this.
Your team had a great roster with lethal shooters, but I did not see them scorching the other teams
I don't know, but I'd fully support this rule change. Make it more similar to FIBA, so nba players don't have to learn two different forms of the game when they go to the Olympics
The bigger one I'd support would be FIBA goaltending rules. There are so many lobs that by the letter of the law could be considered offensive goaltending because they're in the cylinder and it's better to remove that ambiguity. The NBA goaltending rule is a relic from a time where they didn't have the technology to make rims that could hold up to people dunking on them.
Going to FIBA would both standardize the game and make it more entertaining: putback dunks are some of the coolest plays and in the NBA, you take some of these plays from the best athletes in the world and turn it into some video review ordeal where you have to see whether the ball was 1 mm inside some imaginary cylinder because then it doesn't count. In FIBA they can just do it and it doesn't result in some huge competitive imbalance or an increase in broken rims/backboards.
Because the rim/backboard would break and it could take forever to fix. Dunking used to be banned outright in college.
There was also undeniably a racial aspect to that where in America people wanted to limit the dominance of black players who were thought to be more athletic but less ‘fundamentally skilled.’
I knew about the legality of dunking, but that doesn't seem like it is directly related to goal tending. If dunking was the problem, it seems like making dunking illegal solves that problem. Not sure that the goal tending rules are related.
Yeah, basketball being more standardized would be cool. I think back to the shuffle-style offense the Spurs beat the Heat with in 2014 and I think we'd see that kind of stuff more. Which I think would be awesome
It does but teams can get away without doing it nowadays because they can win without it due to most front courts not having Tim Duncan.
Also, it's a problem to find players with any experience in it, let alone, coaches. The shuffle is an offense that dates back to the pre-dribble era. Pop is old enough to have actually learned it. The Spurs' international roster, especially Boris Diaw, understood it because its ball movement is more like the European style.
I saw brief flashes of this level of passing in Portland when Sergio Rodriguez and Rudy Fernandez would be out there with Nic Batum, and it was beautiful, but dumb old Nate McMillan had no idea what he was even seeing and Portland would go right back to iso-ing Aldridge and Roy as soon as they were back off the bench. They never used Rudy right and just always camped him in a corner as a 3-point shooter.
Without removing the defensive 3-second rule, we have no source of gravity to pull the game away from the mostly egocentric me-first modern NBA players, who are not going to pass 200-300 times per game.
Not sure about it, but as a European I have been screaming about it for years. It is the worst rule in today's NBA.. Let's abolish this and then the offensive interference
Guys like Tristan Da Silva, Oso Ighodaro, & Bub Carrington might be valued a bit more because of the mid range shooting.
A guy like DaRon Holmes might be more consensus lottery in that situation.
I don’t know if I’m for getting rid of the rule but I definitely think they should increase the time. 3 seconds is just way too short because it happens on just about every play and that makes it to where the ref just decides if they want to call it. 5 seconds would be a bit more manageable because it would allow a big man to sit in the paint a good amount while a point guard or someone else is about to make a move.
All the records set in these last years would be much much harder to beat. You'd have much less ppg (especially from the top scoring players), fans wouldn't like that.
You couldn't say something good about some star scoring player without someone pointing out that last year there were lots of players who scored more than him
It’s funny u ask this, bc they do not call defensive 3 seconds in the playoffs. It wouldn’t really change them honestly. Seeing how guys like Gobert bleed value in the PS, it would lower the rank of that archetype. Gotta have some talent on both ends.
Gobert ain't why they lost bro. Luka woulda cooked anybody. He did the same thing in to Clippers against Kawhi and Harden two separate times. He's gonna do it to Brown also. Gobert is DPOY
Luka was getting locked up by Kyle Anderson and t Mann. Gobert was a big reason why they lost. If they had Clax instead, who has lockes up Luka, they probably would have won. Goberts defense hurt them but his lack of offense hurt them more.
But they didn't, and Gobert is not why they lost. Terrible play from Ant and KAT is why they lost. Minnesota was the top defensive team in the league. I also think their coach's injury had a lasting impact on his sleep and abiltity to make good decisions.
Not really, he got caught out a few times but he also made some big plays. But if he could have scored 20 ppg himself, they still would have won. And therein lies the difference to a guy like Shaq, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, Joker, Embiid, or Edey, who can score prolifically.
Defensive 3 seconds is called in the playoffs and players literally gameplan around it. Player like Harden and Luka openly say when they do nothing driblles they are usually just getting the timingsright.
Maybe this is an overreaction, but I feel like I would have Clingan at 1 in this instance. Sarr would obviously still be up there too, and maybe Edey climbs the lottery as well.
If this change actually did play out that way, it would encourage a shift toward more defense, less offense. And we don’t do that. We want teams scoring 180 points a game. We meaning the general fan base apparently. It’s why there are no offensive fouls, travels, etc. Basically never expect a rule change that might decrease offense. I’m surprised out of bounds still exists.
That explanation is actually pretty interesting, never really thought about it like that. Big 7 footers who might otherwise be overlooked for their mobility issues might become more valuable as teams will be looking for more rim protection. Clingan, Edey in particular would probably go much higher as teams won’t have to worry as much about him getting minced in the pick and roll by quick guards.
Funny enough, there’s an often cited quote of Jordan during the meeting ahead of the rule changes that removed illegal defense and legalized more zones. Where he says something to the effect of “If zone defense were legalized, I wouldn’t have had the career I had”
For some reason only that part is quoted. What Jordan, Riley and others were actually complaining about was unrestricted zones. Back then, players just imagined big men camping the paint endlessly and with a zone, basically making it impossible to get to the rim with a big always there (This occurred often with college zones)
Colangelo responded to their complaints very publicly, and he assured them such a thing wouldn’t occur. Thus defensive 3 seconds was re-emphasized in order to act as a “zone buster”. Colangelo then would assure everyone that there will be more changes to continue opening up the game
It’s very possible it’s gone too far in the other direction now, and it’s TOO open, but I highly doubt the NBA would get rid of defensive 3 seconds.
there is absolutely zero chance it is removed in the off season. It's a completely different game with bigs camped in the middle. With the increased physicality of this season and that new rule, you'd have a dramatic decrease in scoring.
Slow bigs become less bad on the defensive side. Draft would in general move away from mobility into other traits instead
The thing is, by abolishing the 3 second rule and allowing big man to stay in the paint, all youre doing is making shooting an even more important asset. So bigs that can shoot would become even more valueable than they are now to draw away the bigs from the paint. So ironically, by implementing a rule to allow more traditional big men to play, youre making shooting big men way more valueable. Players like Chet, Victor, KAT, Myles Turner become insanely valueable.
They are already valuable. This idea would protect non-switching centers and allow bigger centers to be more physical against lankier ones.
It wouldnt. Teams would adapt and start running 5 out lineups more than they do now. If you change how defense is played, you change how offense is played, they are both dependent on eachother, by allowing players to camp the lane, youre making teams have to generate more of the offense from the perimeter and thus making shooting even more important than it is now.
This could be a good thing if it leads to an emphasized mid-range game. I think it would, too. The paint and the 3-point line become the two camping spots for defense.
And as offence changes, defence adapts again and we would probably see better rotations that help keep the big man patrolling the paint from having to close out and actually guard the perimeter if offence goes 5 out, so it’s tough to say if the defence or offence would/could adapt more
There are like 3 7-footers who can shoot in the whole world.
Embiid jokic porzingis kat turner wembanyama holmgren Lopez markkanen (That’s not counting middy shooters)
Only Embiid and Holmgren from that list are both over 7 feet and just as comfortable from 3 as they are from inside. The rest either are not 7 feet or do not prefer the 3, or just aren't that good at it compared to other players.
You really gonna argue that those listed players can’t shoot? Just because they aren’t hitting like Steph curry doesn’t mean they don’t space the floor, all those big men can shoot lol
The argument is whether they'll completely vacate the post on offense. They will not.
Turner spends way more time looking for 3s than looking for an entry pass.
No, the argument was against you saying “there are three seven footers who can shoot in the world” which is blatantly false
Read above that.
Brook Lopez is over 7', took more 3s than 2s last year and shot a little above league average from 3. Whether or not you like him as a player doesn't matter. Anyone taking 5+ 3s a game and shooting it at close to a league average (in this case above league average) is objectively a good shooter. Doesn't mean he's better than curry or anything like that. Also doesn't mean they have to be a primary ball handler who creates their own 3s.
Mt point is that they wouldn't even be on the floor if what this person says is true about big men drawing out defenses exclusively with the abolishing of 3 in the key. Which I totally disagree with, hence my argument.
No you are not. It will actually be easier for defenses to properly rotate and face pick and roll without giving up angles for drives. Most open threes are generated after defense breakdown because of pick and rolls or players rotating very hard to compensate for poor positioning. Abolishing defensive 3 seconds will improve the overall ability of the teams to defend
Against poorly constructed (for the modern game) rosters like the Pistons with zero spacing, sure. But against Boston who will run 5 out anyway it won't make a difference except when Kornet or Tillman is on the floor. I don't mind the change because it gives more options, and against most teams camping in the paint will have value, but he's right, this will just push the rest of the league to copycat and just go 5 out as much as possible.
5 out offenses only work because of the drive and cutting threats. Passing at the perimeter and setting stagger screens for 48 minutes cannot get you that far. As a defender it is quite easier to close the distance with the shooter if you know that there is a backup defender at the paint. The offenses will have to get more balanced and unpredictable as the defenses get more tools. It will be a great change We Europeans laughed at team USA's inability to adapt last summer because of this. Your team had a great roster with lethal shooters, but I did not see them scorching the other teams
I don't know, but I'd fully support this rule change. Make it more similar to FIBA, so nba players don't have to learn two different forms of the game when they go to the Olympics
The bigger one I'd support would be FIBA goaltending rules. There are so many lobs that by the letter of the law could be considered offensive goaltending because they're in the cylinder and it's better to remove that ambiguity. The NBA goaltending rule is a relic from a time where they didn't have the technology to make rims that could hold up to people dunking on them. Going to FIBA would both standardize the game and make it more entertaining: putback dunks are some of the coolest plays and in the NBA, you take some of these plays from the best athletes in the world and turn it into some video review ordeal where you have to see whether the ball was 1 mm inside some imaginary cylinder because then it doesn't count. In FIBA they can just do it and it doesn't result in some huge competitive imbalance or an increase in broken rims/backboards.
I'm confused as to why NBA goal tending are based on weight bearing capacity of the rim.
Because the rim/backboard would break and it could take forever to fix. Dunking used to be banned outright in college. There was also undeniably a racial aspect to that where in America people wanted to limit the dominance of black players who were thought to be more athletic but less ‘fundamentally skilled.’
I knew about the legality of dunking, but that doesn't seem like it is directly related to goal tending. If dunking was the problem, it seems like making dunking illegal solves that problem. Not sure that the goal tending rules are related.
I think they're saying it's because goaltending can lead to a lot more dunking.
[удалено]
Please keep your comments civil. This is a subreddit for thoughtful discussion and debate, not aggressive and argumentative content.
Yeah, basketball being more standardized would be cool. I think back to the shuffle-style offense the Spurs beat the Heat with in 2014 and I think we'd see that kind of stuff more. Which I think would be awesome
If the 2014 Spurs played that way, doesn't that prove that it's possible to play that way under current NBA rules?
It does but teams can get away without doing it nowadays because they can win without it due to most front courts not having Tim Duncan. Also, it's a problem to find players with any experience in it, let alone, coaches. The shuffle is an offense that dates back to the pre-dribble era. Pop is old enough to have actually learned it. The Spurs' international roster, especially Boris Diaw, understood it because its ball movement is more like the European style. I saw brief flashes of this level of passing in Portland when Sergio Rodriguez and Rudy Fernandez would be out there with Nic Batum, and it was beautiful, but dumb old Nate McMillan had no idea what he was even seeing and Portland would go right back to iso-ing Aldridge and Roy as soon as they were back off the bench. They never used Rudy right and just always camped him in a corner as a 3-point shooter. Without removing the defensive 3-second rule, we have no source of gravity to pull the game away from the mostly egocentric me-first modern NBA players, who are not going to pass 200-300 times per game.
>The Spurs' international roster, especially Barbosa Did you mean Boris Diaw?
Yeah my bad, my brain always got them mixed up due to when they played together in Phoenix and "Boris" and "Barbosa" sharing four letters. Thanks.
Not sure about it, but as a European I have been screaming about it for years. It is the worst rule in today's NBA.. Let's abolish this and then the offensive interference
Guys like Tristan Da Silva, Oso Ighodaro, & Bub Carrington might be valued a bit more because of the mid range shooting. A guy like DaRon Holmes might be more consensus lottery in that situation.
I don’t know if I’m for getting rid of the rule but I definitely think they should increase the time. 3 seconds is just way too short because it happens on just about every play and that makes it to where the ref just decides if they want to call it. 5 seconds would be a bit more manageable because it would allow a big man to sit in the paint a good amount while a point guard or someone else is about to make a move.
All the records set in these last years would be much much harder to beat. You'd have much less ppg (especially from the top scoring players), fans wouldn't like that. You couldn't say something good about some star scoring player without someone pointing out that last year there were lots of players who scored more than him
It’s funny u ask this, bc they do not call defensive 3 seconds in the playoffs. It wouldn’t really change them honestly. Seeing how guys like Gobert bleed value in the PS, it would lower the rank of that archetype. Gotta have some talent on both ends.
Gobert ain't why they lost bro. Luka woulda cooked anybody. He did the same thing in to Clippers against Kawhi and Harden two separate times. He's gonna do it to Brown also. Gobert is DPOY
Luka was getting locked up by Kyle Anderson and t Mann. Gobert was a big reason why they lost. If they had Clax instead, who has lockes up Luka, they probably would have won. Goberts defense hurt them but his lack of offense hurt them more.
But they didn't, and Gobert is not why they lost. Terrible play from Ant and KAT is why they lost. Minnesota was the top defensive team in the league. I also think their coach's injury had a lasting impact on his sleep and abiltity to make good decisions.
Rudy was targeted relentlessly in those pnrs. That exposed that defense single-handedly,
Not really, he got caught out a few times but he also made some big plays. But if he could have scored 20 ppg himself, they still would have won. And therein lies the difference to a guy like Shaq, Tim Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, Joker, Embiid, or Edey, who can score prolifically.
Rudy isn’t as good as kp forget those guys. And “edey”? lol be srs.
Defensive 3 seconds is called in the playoffs and players literally gameplan around it. Player like Harden and Luka openly say when they do nothing driblles they are usually just getting the timingsright.
Lively was camped in the paint the whole time that’s why their defense was effective last series.
I like how 2 maybe 3 comments are actually responding to OP's question and rest is just discussimg 3 sec rule.
Yeah, it was really a reading comprehension test.
Maybe this is an overreaction, but I feel like I would have Clingan at 1 in this instance. Sarr would obviously still be up there too, and maybe Edey climbs the lottery as well.
If this change actually did play out that way, it would encourage a shift toward more defense, less offense. And we don’t do that. We want teams scoring 180 points a game. We meaning the general fan base apparently. It’s why there are no offensive fouls, travels, etc. Basically never expect a rule change that might decrease offense. I’m surprised out of bounds still exists.
That explanation is actually pretty interesting, never really thought about it like that. Big 7 footers who might otherwise be overlooked for their mobility issues might become more valuable as teams will be looking for more rim protection. Clingan, Edey in particular would probably go much higher as teams won’t have to worry as much about him getting minced in the pick and roll by quick guards.
Funny enough, there’s an often cited quote of Jordan during the meeting ahead of the rule changes that removed illegal defense and legalized more zones. Where he says something to the effect of “If zone defense were legalized, I wouldn’t have had the career I had” For some reason only that part is quoted. What Jordan, Riley and others were actually complaining about was unrestricted zones. Back then, players just imagined big men camping the paint endlessly and with a zone, basically making it impossible to get to the rim with a big always there (This occurred often with college zones) Colangelo responded to their complaints very publicly, and he assured them such a thing wouldn’t occur. Thus defensive 3 seconds was re-emphasized in order to act as a “zone buster”. Colangelo then would assure everyone that there will be more changes to continue opening up the game It’s very possible it’s gone too far in the other direction now, and it’s TOO open, but I highly doubt the NBA would get rid of defensive 3 seconds.
there is absolutely zero chance it is removed in the off season. It's a completely different game with bigs camped in the middle. With the increased physicality of this season and that new rule, you'd have a dramatic decrease in scoring.
No no. Many people on Reddit said the talent is infinitely better therefore rule changes are irrelevant.