OT - It does sneak up on you

[Peter Pallotta]

Not only age, but the way a game-sport changes over time:

I read a stat today about pro basketball, the NBA: so far this season, the average number of 3-point shots attempted per game is about 80 (almost half of all field goal attempts). Twenty years ago, that number was 14. In the early 1990s, the average number of 3 point attempts per game was 5.

From 5 three pointers per game to almost 80: what once was *an* aspect/dimension of the game has now become, gradually but before our eyes, *the* dimension of the game, ie the dominant one. That probably explains why many of us now find the pro game much less interesting to watch than we once did -- it has almost literally become 'one dimensional'.

We have many critics around here -- and a few apologists too -- of pro golf and the modern game, and of the tours and governing bodies and associations that have shaped it. But, as with the NBA and the 3-point shot, I can't see how distance having become the *dominant* aspect of the game hasn't made the game less interesting to watch than it once was.

Gambling on golf, it seems to me, has arrived just in the nick of time.

PS: a list of just a few of the greats who played before the 3 point shot / before it became such a huge part of the game:
Kareem, Magic, Bird, Russell, Havlicek, Walton, Reed, Dr J, Robertson etc etc -- they sure played a great game!

[Tom Bacsanyi]

It makes me wonder if the data-driven culture around pretty much every sport has made each sport less interesting. For example, in MLB the fact that on-base percentage became such a huge thing led to a bunch of guys that either walked or hit home runs. But one can argue that the game is more interesting with guys swinging the bat, bunting, stealing, etc. It's directly led to less action. I know MLB has moved away from pure OBP but there's lots of similar stuff in every sport. The data told Bryson he should bulk up and try to hit it miles, even at the US Open, and guess what, the data was right.


College moved the 3 point line back and it did seem to lead to more mid-range attempts, Perhaps the new 3 point line in the NBA should be half-court? Steph Curry could still shoot 20% from back there probably.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - that's an excellent insight, ie that the data itself (and a data dominated culture) has led to these changes. The 'scientist' has fostered the kind of games-sports that only other scientists could love!

Data, and a dulling of our sense of 'drama' (it seems to me): the bunt, the steal, the long at bat, the single the other way, the last out home run...they all added to the subtle but sustained drama of the game; nowadays, like adrenaline junkies looking for an instant fix, the drama comes only in sudden jolts: the home run (after 7 bad swing-and-misses outs), yet another 3 pointer, the 365 yard drive.

[Tim Gavrich]

To bring this back to basketball, the data has shown teams that shooting long 2-pointers is a bad idea when you could instead get 50% more points from a few feet farther back. Unlike golf and, to an extent, baseball, basketball has seen no real change in its "equipment" over the years. The dimensions of the court are the same, and the three point line hasn't really changed since it was introduced in 1979. Teams are simply figuring out how to play most efficiently within the confines of the sport.


Golf, in contrast, has pushed the literal spatial confines of the sport to untenable levels.


Also, for the record, teams are putting up just under 35 3-pointers per game, up from 9 per game in the mid-90s. Still, 3-pointers are accounting for fewer than 40% of all shot attempts. (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html) Steph Curry's prowess from behind the 3-point is far more impressive than any 330-yard drive.

[David_Tepper]

Tennis has changed as much as any sport over the past 20-40 years. The rackets have changed, the balls have changed, the court surfaces have for the most part changed, the grips & strokes have changed and, of course,  the way the game is played has changed. The serve & volley game does not exist any more, even on the grass at Wimbledon.

The players have changed as well. In the 1970's Stan Smith, at 6'3" was one of the very tallest players in the game. Now many of the top men players are 6'5" or taller.  Stand Djokovic next to Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall and he towers over them.  I am currently watching 6'0" Muguruza play 5'11" Osaka. They both make 5'8" Martina Navratilova or 5'6" Chris Evert look small.
 

[Joe Zucker]

Are data and art inherently at odds with one another?  As someone who works in a data field, but also agrees that the modern forms of golf, basketball, and baseball are less interesting to watch, this is an interesting idea for me.  It certainly seems like data has made these games less great, but I'm not sure it 100% has to be this way.

[jeffwarne]

Basketball changed forever when players/coaches  realized you get 50% more points for a full uncontested wedge than a contested in in between partial wedge, and once the skill caught up with the strategy......a no brainer.
I find it incredibly boring, and the effect it's had on lower skill levels(High School) is equally unwatchable for different reasons.


We used to shoot from the outside to loosen up the defense,and/or to bring the defense out of their zone, and free up players to drive or pick and roll for layups.
If you came out shooting poorly or were a poor shooting team, teams would fall back into a zone, which made scoring in the paint all that much harder.But a well coached zone was a thing of beauty-a tribute to coaching and teamwork, rather than the individual(with exceptions)thing the game has become.
 Now you figure out a way to get a good look at a three, and only take layups for 2's.
A three is not 50% more difficult.
But at least it's a result of skill and strategic awareness, rather than expensive high tech equipment.


Maybe award 2 for a free throw, 4 for a field goal and 5 for something beyond the arc, but the scale is currently skewed in favor of 3's.


Now get off my lawn.

[David_Tepper]

The solution in basketball is to move the 3-point line back 3' to 5'. But that would take away the corner 3-point shot.

[JLahrman]

Another interesting idea is to let the each NBA team set its own three-point line (within a range of possibility) so that the Bulls might set theirs at 22', the Celtics set theirs at 24'6" etc. They can change the length of the shot between seasons but each team has to keep it at the distance it opts for the entire season.

And I'd say if you set it at a long enough distance, eliminate the corner 3, which is the most efficient shot in the professional game.

To repeat a statistic I used on another thread: In the 1984 NBA Finals, the only of the three 1980s Lakers-Celtics finals to go 7 games, the teams combined to take a TOTAL of 42 3-pointers in 7 games. Larry Bird took a total of 6 3-point shots in the series.

In the 2016 NBA Finals, the most recent finals series to go 7 games, the Cavaliers and Warriors combined to take...422(!) 3-pointers in 7 games. The Warriors took 43 in Game 5 - more in one game than the Lakers and Celtics combined to take in 7. Curry took 84 3-pointers himself, and Klay Thompson took 66 more.

Analytics has basically turned baseball into walks, strikeouts, and home runs. And it's turned basketball into free throws, layups, and 3-pointers. The 1980s versions of those games were much more fun to watch, but that fun stuff is all inefficient.

[Joe Zucker]

Here is a good article on the modern 3 and the fact that there is really no such thing as defense for the 3 point line.


https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting


What if you shrink the rim by a few inches?  Or expanded the court by 10 or 15 feet, extending the 3 point line and making more room inside the arc.  I see some similarities between 3 point shooting and long drives.  They are no longer differentiators for success, rather they are the price of admission to the best leagues.

[John Kavanaugh]

I choose not to watch.

[Peter Flory]

In my opinion, it's not purely analytics that has caused all of the 3-point shooting.  It is the loosening of the rules to favor offense over defense (the "Live under par" mindset by the NBA).  Just watch Harden for a game.  He's unguardable now, but only because every defender is either going to give him an open shot if they let him do his step back travel move, or they are going to foul him if they try to guard it and he rams forward into them and acts like he got assaulted.  The NBA loves the high scoring and are in no way trying to stop it.

And the foul on a 3-point shot is so damaging, that defenders can't mess with it.  The expected value of the shot goes from around 1.1 points to about 2.5 points AND you're one more foul closer to fouling out. 

It was only 17 years ago when the Pistons held the Nets to 56 points in a playoff game and routinely held opponents in the 60s.  There was a massive change in the way that games were called from that point forward as the NBA believed that fans did not find defense interesting.  Defenders can't handcheck, they can't fight through screens like they used to, and if they breath on a shooter, they are getting the whistle.

And with the tail wagging the dog, NBA teams have since prioritized getting players who can take advantage of these rules. So we're now seeing an era of players who are good shooters, but who would have been broken in half in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. 


If you just watch one possession from that era, it's like a different sport:
https://youtu.be/jYRBCl6x8cQ?t=167


This was against Michael Redd, who for a long while held the NBA record for most 3-point makes in a quarter

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much gents, good and interesting and informative posts.

Joe's question is an excellent one: is 'art' (and we all know it when we see it, be it Magic Johnson or Lee Trevino or Tony Gwynn) inherently at odds with 'data'?

I don't know. Sometimes it definitely seems so (though there are always outliers). What seems even clearer is that sports betting is a 'data driven' enterprise.

[Joe Bausch]

In case you forget that pro athletes are really good, in a practice session in Chicago about a month ago Steph Curry made 105 3-point shots IN A ROW!


What would the equivalent feat be in golf:  Tiger practice putting and making 105 8 footers in a row?


Or this mind-boggling stat:  Freddie Jacobson holds the PGA tour record for consecutive holes without a 3-putt:  542

[Ira Fishman]

Peter F makes a great point about the NBA making a series of conscious decisions to promote offense. But in golf, the Ruling Bodies only put on a couple of Professional Tournaments so in theory they should be less motivated by appealing to fans. So who is their audience? Casual golfers to make the game easier? Their own games—who wants to hit it shorter? The equipment manufacturers?


Ira

[Ronald Montesano]

You need to play and watch sports with the eyes of a child. If you allow yourself to persevere as the jaded, embittered, backward-staring, old bastard that you've become, sport will continue to embitter you. KP Lynch, a former denizen of the tree house, is affectionately known as The Scrambler. He never met a fairway that he liked. Dude is all over the golf course, long and strong, and breathes each breath with the simultaneous hope and confidence that the next shot will find the target. He plays the game with reckless abandon, despite being a number cruncher during his day-job hours. He gets it.

[Bernie Bell]

Hockey is becoming more interesting, I think.  And definitely NHL > NBA any day of the week.

[Steve Lang]

Thanks much gents, good and interesting and informative posts.

Joe's question is an excellent one: is 'art' (and we all know it when we see it, be it Magic Johnson or Lee Trevino or Tony Gwynn) inherently at odds with 'data'?

I don't know. Sometimes it definitely seems so (though there are always outliers). What seems even clearer is that sports betting is a 'data driven' enterprise.

Ahhh, hasn't there been golf betting for years, driven by stats and fuels by feel???  Nothing like a big GAMBOL!


 

[jeffwarne]

You need to play and watch sports with the eyes of a child. If you allow yourself to persevere as the jaded, embittered, backward-staring, old bastard that you've become, sport will continue to embitter you.


 KP Lynch, a former denizen of the tree house, is affectionately known as The Scrambler. He never met a fairway that he liked. Dude is all over the golf course, long and strong, and breathes each breath with the simultaneous hope and confidence that the next shot will find the target. He plays the game with reckless abandon, despite being a number cruncher during his day-job hours. He gets it.

Have no idea what the second part has to do with the topic, but I strongly disagree with the first part.
Sports fans don't NEED to do anything, with the unlimited amount of choices in content available in many, many formats.
I watched zero NFL games this year, and glanced at the display called the Super Bowl-frankly only out of respect for the legacy of Tom Brady.
I've watched ZERO NBA games.
No formal protest, just can't relate to their game and simply have interest in other things.
That time was spent devouring content elsewhere no doubt, and those advertisers benefited no doubt from my clicks, purchases etc.


All the leagues are a business and will put out whatever content is best for their fans and demographic.
If "the eyes' of a child earn them more $$, good on them, but I don't have to convert or revert.
The biggest question(for them) is who supports and engages with their content more-the guy who likes 30 threes a game or 7? 11-9 baseball games where otherwise catchable upswing pop flies are home runs or fierce strategic pitching duels with base stealing, signs, hit and run and old school strategy.
There is PLENTY of other of competing content for us curmudgeons to choose to watch or even participate in if even just virtually on Social media.
Big, Big world.

[Mike_Young]

I have a good friend who was/is a good NCAA BB coach and actually won the NCAA back in the 90's.  He still says if you rely on the three pointer he will beat you most of the time.  It's no different than a guy who relies 5 footers for par....   The thing not mentioned that I think has made a huge difference is the football receiver glove.  It allows a QB to give more lead and it allows what were once uncatchable passes to be completions thus upping the percentage of completions today vs the past...

[John Kavanaugh]

https://nypost.com/2021/02/14/johnny-manziel-on-fan-controlled-football-win-or-lose-we-booze/


As a lover of insects I was triggered by the name Zappers. Still good to see Johnny Football in action.

[Tom_Doak]

All the leagues are a business and will put out whatever content is best for their fans and demographic.
If "the eyes' of a child earn them more $$, good on them, but I don't have to convert or revert.
The biggest question(for them) is who supports and engages with their content more-the guy who likes 30 threes a game or 7? 11-9 baseball games where otherwise catchable upswing pop flies are home runs or fierce strategic pitching duels with base stealing, signs, hit and run and old school strategy.
There is PLENTY of other of competing content for us curmudgeons to choose to watch or even participate in if even just virtually on Social media.
Big, Big world.

The changes to the sport(s) are data-driven . . . but the reaction of the leagues [or governing bodies] is more calculated.


I think their perception is that the way we consume sports has fundamentally changed.  How many people sit through the whole game anymore, whether it's a 2-1 nail-biter or a 10-7 slugfest?


More importantly, which game produces more highlights for SportsCenter  social media?


The golf version of that is that bogeys and double bogeys rarely go viral [with the exception of Jean Van de Velde, but that was a triple on the 72nd hole of a major].  Birdies and eagles are all that I ever see on the highlight reels.

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks much gents, good and interesting and informative posts.

Joe's question is an excellent one: is 'art' (and we all know it when we see it, be it Magic Johnson or Lee Trevino or Tony Gwynn) inherently at odds with 'data'?

I don't know. Sometimes it definitely seems so (though there are always outliers). What seems even clearer is that sports betting is a 'data driven' enterprise.

There is a very good recent book on this topic:  Golf's Holy War, by Brett Cyrgalis.  The subtitle is, The Battle for the Soul of a Game in an Age of Science.  I was one of many people he interviewed, but golf course design is only a small part of the book.

[jeffwarne]

I have a good friend who was/is a good NCAA BB coach and actually won the NCAA back in the 90's.  He still says if you rely on the three pointer he will beat you most of the time.  It's no different than a guy who relies 5 footers for par....   The thing not mentioned that I think has made a huge difference is the football receiver glove.  It allows a QB to give more lead and it allows what were once uncatchable passes to be completions thus upping the percentage of completions today vs the past...

The three point analogy would make sense if the guy who made a five footer for par was only charged for 1/2 a stroke. A three assigns a different point value for the WAY you score, and a three has been proven at the higher levels to be no way 50% more difficult, and in many cases equally or less difficult.


The wide receiver gloves is balanced out by the fact that defenders are almost always hitting the receiver just before the ball gets there, and are stunned when what they are now coached to do, is called interference. Kind've like holding, you could call it on nearly every play.
Before gloves,we had pine tar or spray stickum, but our quarterbacks hated it so we rarely used it.
I remember balls sticking to pants leg where stickum had been liberally applied.

[Mike_Young]

I think their perception is that the way we consume sports has fundamentally changed.  How many people sit through the whole game anymore, whether it's a 2-1 nail-biter or a 10-7 slugfest?

More importantly, which game produces more highlights for SportsCenter  social media?

That's why the RedZone is so popular...   

As for Sports Center...  I have heard BB coaches say they use a different game plan when they know they are on big TV games because of players wanting to have a play that can Sports Center...games have been lost because of SportsCenter...I'm sure same goes for football...