They are both attempts at a goal where the closer you get the better your chances at making it. The only difference is in FB a field goal is a secondary goal where as in basketball it is a primary goal.
So what does Jayden Jones do now?
- Thread starter aplus29
- Start date
In football, a field goal is KICKED by a guy who does nothing else all game. They stop the game and let him sub in and do his thing. There is nothing like that in basketball. It's a silly comparison.
Adding the 3 point shot was a HUGE improvement to basketball and totally fits with the shot clock. It's nothing like giving more points for longer field goals.
Have you ever watched basketball where neither team can shoot and both teams pack in their defense and there is no shot clock? It's brutal.
I think a closer corollary would be if you got 9 points for a TD pass that was in the air greater than 40 yards. It's a higher risk play, but it would change the game to focus more heavily on certain skillsets over others - resulting in a football game built around the long ball, with much higher scoring overall.
Personally have no idea how I'm going to get back and forth from Ugandlistan and Rhode Island to see a Peter Kiss at Bryant for the last 7 years of his eligibility.
I never get tired of the slo-mo highlights of Jones's time at RU. It's the only way that could ever work.
Last edited:
The modern game sucks because the only movement (ball and players) is around the perimeter. And when there is movement towards the basket, it's because a "superstar" is playing clear-out one on one while the remaining eight players are on the other side of the court watching. The game is boring. It's unappealing to watch judged against the 1970s through 1990s.
It’s also not “better” basketball, it’s just the easiest way for teams to implement modern analytical basketball.
The harder way is to build offensive systems like the 2013-2014 Spurs, Warriors, and Terry Stotts Blazers where you design systems that rely on timing and coordinated reads to maximize those analytics.
Some blame this on AAU - players who never learn movement can’t execute it well enough in the nba but can still shoot. I tend to blame coaching and talent identification. Not enough coaches are daring enough to implement their systems and front offices won’t take risks on Players over Athletes
Not sure that is true.
- 3 point % in the NBA last year was 34% producing 1.02 points per shot attempt.
- 2 point % in the NBA last year was 52% producing 1.04 points per shot attempt.
In fact the trend in final scores is much lower in the decades after the introduction of the 3 point line then before it. (I know there a lots of reasons for this)
I personally think the 3 point line adds to the quality and complexity of the modern game.
To bolster your point even further, 3-pointers do not generate foul shots and opposing players getting in foul trouble, while play in the paint does.
It's not really about 3p vs 2p, though, as all 2p attempts are not equal. It's about 3p vs "long 2p jumper". That is the element that is disappearing... there's virtually no benefit in looking for a 20 ft jumper. 2p% is so much higher because the vast majority of 2p shots are being taken much closer to the rim than that.
Few points of discussion.......
1. Is a 3 point miss more apt to get a OREB than a 2 point miss
2. Does trying to get a 2 point attempt result in turnover more frequently than 3 point attempt
3. Does late shot clock FG attempts (which are lower quality) happen more from 3 than 2
4. How often are their breakaway dunk attempts (steals and cherry picking)that are 100% and skew the 2 point FG %
The shot that is disappearing is the "2 pointer outside the paint" - mid-range jumpers are lower % than closer 2Ps, fewer points than 3s, and draw fewer fouls. That 15-21ft shot is of low value... either work to get one closer (higher %, more FTs) or farther (higher points per make, not much lower %).
Is there such a love for 18-footers?
Is there such a love for 18-footers?
Taking a step in from 3 doesn't change the percentage enough to make it worth it - this is a little old, but some fascinating stuff: "outside of 6 feet, there is no place on the court where shooters make more than 45 percent of their shots"
fivethirtyeight.com
How Mapping Shots In The NBA Changed It Forever
Kirk Goldsberry's new book examines the changing NBA landscape.
And do it less efficiently. The high number of 3 point shots in the NBA is the result of evolving offensive strategy. Smart coaches not only figured out that 3 points were worth more than 2, they also figured out that spacing made half court offenses more difficult to defend. If you watch NBA games from the '80s, the spacing is generally terrible. Teams that were effective in the half court usually had dominant low post players. Those players are gone, at least in the US. Losses to European teams in the Olympics and other international competitions in the '90s illustrated the importance of perimeter shooting. US teams were criticized for not having players who were good shooters. Now people are criticizing the fact that good shooters are taking statistically advantageous shots, and making them.
That's why I'm asking whether there is such a love of watching 18 to 20 foot shots instead of 22 foot shots. Is it more fun to watch someone splash a 16-footer or a 23-footer?
It was enjoyable when a center was deemed important in the offense. Not just put backs and dunks, but back to the basket, post move kind of stuff. It was also enjoyable, when on a fast break, people would actually take it to the rim, not kick it out for a 3.
Not saying I want it to go back to the 80's but a little variety wouldn't hurt. Why should one skill (taking really long shots) hold that much weight over a skilled post up move or a nice fade away mid-range shot. Watching today's game, no one even enters the mid-range area, just an empty area. Just boring watching the guys hang out at the 3pt line, watching a guy drive and kick back for 3's constantly.
Not saying I want it to go back to the 80's but a little variety wouldn't hurt. Why should one skill (taking really long shots) hold that much weight over a skilled post up move or a nice fade away mid-range shot. Watching today's game, no one even enters the mid-range area, just an empty area. Just boring watching the guys hang out at the 3pt line, watching a guy drive and kick back for 3's constantly.
Bigger question. I'm actually curious where Jayden lands. I feel terrible for him. Just bad advice from higher up. He is still a teenager and should be in college (even if not at Rutgersplaying basketball and getting an education.
god only knows where he is going to play now? It will be for very little money, no fans, no education and little growth
I wish him the best of luck and hoping for the best. Seemed like a great kid.
god only knows where he is going to play now? It will be for very little money, no fans, no education and little growth
I wish him the best of luck and hoping for the best. Seemed like a great kid.
Would Rutgers pay for his classes to get his degree? or would that have to count as a player scholarship and take a roster spot?
Jaden doesn't want to be in college and Rutgers has no interest in getting him a degree at this point. But technically that would count as a scholarship, yes.
Not true - you can sign with an NCAA approved agent and preserve your eligibility. Jones signed with an agent certified by the NCAA, so he didn't officially give up his eligibility until the NBA Draft withdrawal deadline.
Incorrect they have 10 days from the end of the nba combine to withdraw and enroll back in school.
