based on our personnel will this help us or hinder us.

calgo430 said:

---

based on our personnel will this help us or hinder us.

---

If our defense doesn't improve we'd be better off with the 3-point line moved back to half court.

calgo430 said:

---

based on our personnel will this help us or hinder us.

---

It should help us, unless one of our new guys is a real ringer from 3.

It should help make the game more watchable.

75bear said:

---

It should help make the game more watchable.

---

Let's hope so. Right now the game is unwatchable and dare I say it, almost boring. Every team plays the same, with an emphasis on one on one play. Player A drives toward the basket. If he gets past the defense, or if he has only one defender, he shoots. If he is double or triple teamed, he kicks the ball out to player B, who shoots a three. If player A is a superstar, when he drives, even if he is double teamed, he shoots. If he is triple teamed, then he kicks the ball out to player B, who shoots a three. The other "play" is player A brings the ball up the floor by himself, reaches the three point line, pulls up and shoots a three. By himself. Did I miss anything?

Fortunately for the fan, the Warriors and some of the rest of the NBA have figured out a way to share the ball and move without it, to make it more interesting. The average college team does not have the talent to get the wide separation on the perimeter, that NBA teams get, and the college players seem to get all bunched up and the game and the scoring slows down, without any real plays beyond the two man variety.

I propose leaving the three point line alone where it is in the NBA, but erase it in college and high school to bring back team basketball, which is eminently watchable.

They should make it worth 2 1/2 points!

Big C said:

---

They should make it worth 2 1/2 points!

---

And the dunk worth 1 point.

Dunks could be worth from one to five (style points). There could be a new guest panel of judges every game!

How about a one point penalty for missed dunks?

Big C said:

---

Dunks could be worth from one to five (style points). There could be a new guest panel of judges every game!

---

Let's not make this too complicated. The objective of the game of basketball is to put the ball in the basket. This is not ice skating or gymnastics.

BeachedBear said:

---

How about a one point penalty for missed dunks?

---

A step in the right direction.

SFCityBear said:

---

75bear said:

---

It should help make the game more watchable.

---

Let's hope so. Right now the game is unwatchable and dare I say it, almost boring. Every team plays the same, with an emphasis on one on one play. Player A drives toward the basket. If he gets past the defense, or if he has only one defender, he shoots. If he is double or triple teamed, he kicks the ball out to player B, who shoots a three. If player A is a superstar, when he drives, even if he is double teamed, he shoots. If he is triple teamed, then he kicks the ball out to player B, who shoots a three. The other "play" is player A brings the ball up the floor by himself, reaches the three point line, pulls up and shoots a three. By himself. Did I miss anything?

---

The reason college basketball looks like this is that far too many college basketball coaches are control freaks.

Those coaches scream at their players on offense, the players "don't want to make the wrong mistake" (in the words of Yogi Berra), so they are tentative, and they hold the ball too much instead of passing and cutting to find an open shooter (like NBA teams do), and as a result, they bleed the shot clock until the last 5 seconds or so.

Moving the three point line back should help because it opens up a little space on the inside.

It would also help if college hoops adopted the NBA rule on zone defenses. Remember when the NBA barred zone defenses? They don't any more, but they have a rule now to keep teams from clogging the middle: The "defensive 3 second violation". A defensive player who is in the lane or key for more than 3 seconds while not guarding an offensive player is in violation. The penalty is one foul shot and the offense retains possession. The idea is to keep the defense from clogging the lane. The Raptors were called for this violation in game 3 of the Finals.

BearSD said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

75bear said:

---

It should help make the game more watchable.

---

Let's hope so. Right now the game is unwatchable and dare I say it, almost boring. Every team plays the same, with an emphasis on one on one play. Player A drives toward the basket. If he gets past the defense, or if he has only one defender, he shoots. If he is double or triple teamed, he kicks the ball out to player B, who shoots a three. If player A is a superstar, when he drives, even if he is double teamed, he shoots. If he is triple teamed, then he kicks the ball out to player B, who shoots a three. The other "play" is player A brings the ball up the floor by himself, reaches the three point line, pulls up and shoots a three. By himself. Did I miss anything?

---

The reason college basketball looks like this is that far too many college basketball coaches are control freaks.

Those coaches scream at their players on offense, the players "don't want to make the wrong mistake" (in the words of Yogi Berra), so they are tentative, and they hold the ball too much instead of passing and cutting to find an open shooter (like NBA teams do), and as a result, they bleed the shot clock until the last 5 seconds or so.

Moving the three point line back should help because it opens up a little space on the inside.

It would also help if college hoops adopted the NBA rule on zone defenses. Remember when the NBA barred zone defenses? They don't any more, but they have a rule now to keep teams from clogging the middle: The "defensive 3 second violation". A defensive player who is in the lane or key for more than 3 seconds while not guarding an offensive player is in violation. The penalty is one foul shot and the offense retains possession. The idea is to keep the defense from clogging the lane. The Raptors were called for this violation in game 3 of the Finals.

---

Well, it all sounds very logical, except that there are already too many rules which hamper the defenders, and give the offensive players a big advantage. The NCAA and NBA have given up enforcing some rules that hinder offensive players and already enacted rules that hinder defensive players, all in the interest of increasing scoring and offense for the fans. The offensive player is now allowed to walk with the ball, palm it, and charge. Defenders can no longer get in an offensive player's way near the basket without getting called for fouling the offensive player. The offensive player is allowed to dunk the ball, and he is awarded an extra point for making a shot from behind an artificial line, when it is arguably more difficult to make a layup in traffic. The offensive player is awarded an extra freethrow if he is fouled during the act of shooting a three. The palm makes it almost impossible for all but the best defenders to stop or even stay with a player who wants to evade a defender on the dribble. Allowing a player to travel with the ball, in all but the most obvious violations, is another advantage for the offensive player. The defensive player is no longer allowed to hand check an offensive player. The offensive player is allowed to use his off hand while dribbling to strike or push the defender to ward him off. And on and on.

With all our changes, the artificial shooting circle, the artificial charging circle, and all the rules against defenders and for offensive players, the people who make the rules have created a game of individuals, most of them playing one-on-one. That is what takes longer and clogs up the floor. We've gone from setting up a teammate, to sharing the ball between one-on-one players who will work to create their own shot, and that takes time and space. I don't want any more artificial rules that hinder defenders, and I'd like most of the current ones rescinded. I would not blame coaches for what basketball looks like today. They are only developing strategies to use in reaction to the rule changes to favor the offensive player that have been made by the powers that be who run the game of basketball.

SFCityBear said:

---

Well, it all sounds very logical, except that there are already too many rules which hamper the defenders, and give the offensive players a big advantage.

---

You must not be watching NBA games, with all of the uncalled fouls that hamper the offense, or college teams that play hack-hack-hack defense because they know the officials won't blow their whistles and stop play every five seconds just because a team is fouling constantly.

At any rate, I don't want basketball to revert to the days when NBA teams scored in the high 70s and college teams scored in the high 40s (or lower if Dean Smith was coaching), so we'll have to agree to disagree here.

BeachedBear said:

---

How about a one point penalty for missed dunks?

---

Just don't have the rule be retroactive to last year: Harris-Dyson could be the first player with a negative scoring average.

BearSD said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Well, it all sounds very logical, except that there are already too many rules which hamper the defenders, and give the offensive players a big advantage.

---

You must not be watching NBA games, with all of the uncalled fouls that hamper the offense, or college teams that play hack-hack-hack defense because they know the officials won't blow their whistles and stop play every five seconds just because a team is fouling constantly.

At any rate, I don't want basketball to revert to the days when NBA teams scored in the high 70s and college teams scored in the high 40s (or lower if Dean Smith was coaching), so we'll have to agree to disagree here.

---

You may disagree, which is fine. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is ugly in the eye of the beholder. I admit I don't watch many NBA games. I watch a quarter or a half sometimes, just to see what might have changed. I don't watch as many college games now, unless it is Cal, but the last two years, I rarely watched more than a half a game when I did watch one.

I may be wrong in my conclusions, but I have not exaggerated any of my facts, which you have done here to support your anecdotal view of what games look like. First off, the NBA was not founded until 1949, and in that first season, the league average of all teams was 80 points per game. There has never been a season in NBA history where teams averaged below 80 points. Obviously, there may have been a few teams each season and many games in those early seasons where some teams scored below 80 points, but you make it sound like that was the norm in the NBA, when the norm was 80 points.

Second, the NCAA kept statistics beginning in 1948, and college teams that year averaged 53.3 points per game. According to the University of Kentucky, which kept stats on their own games, Kentucky teams and their opponents did not average less than 50 points a game after 1950. There have been so many rule changes since then, especially the shot clock, that we could not go back there if we tried. Interesting that with all the changes favoring the offensive player that the NCAA average points per game keeps going down.

Third, Dean Smith did not begin coaching in college until 1961, almost 15 years after college teams stopped averaging in the 40s for points per game. He coached for 35 seasons. His North Carolina teams averaged over 80 points per game. He had one season where his team averaged 90 points, 23 seasons where his teams averaged 80 points or more, 10 seasons where his teams averaged in the 70s per game and one season where they averaged in the 60s. You exaggerate. Wildly.

As for your anecdotal description of games you watched, I don't know what games they were. Maybe when Shaq's opponents fouled him all the time, because he couldn't make a free throw. Lots of hacking. Looking at NBA stats, personal fouls were on a steady decrease from 1982 at about 26 per game to where they leveled off at about 20 per game over the last 10 years.

I'll stick by what I wrote.

SFCityBear said:

---

Interesting that with all the changes favoring the offensive player that the NCAA average points per game keeps going down.

---

Maybe that means that, in actual games, the net effect of changes doesn't favor the offense. What matters is the result, not what we think a particular rule change means in the abstract.

And again, one of the biggest reasons is probably the way officials call games. Which is largely the same difference of opinion we have here. When a player is bumped while taking a shot, you see good defense and I see a foul. The NBA is trying to change that; this season; they instructed their officials to call fouls more often on contact with shooters and ball handlers. College officials always see it more your way.

BearSD said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Interesting that with all the changes favoring the offensive player that the NCAA average points per game keeps going down.

---

Maybe that means that, in actual games, the net effect of changes doesn't favor the offense. What matters is the result, not what we think a particular rule change means in the abstract.

And again, one of the biggest reasons is probably the way officials call games. Which is largely the same difference of opinion we have here. When a player is bumped while taking a shot, you see good defense and I see a foul. The NBA is trying to change that; this season; they instructed their officials to call fouls more often on contact with shooters and ball handlers. College officials always see it more your way.

---

I don't think it means that. But I also think it is probably too simplistic to think that rule changes would be the only thing that affects scoring, as you suggest. It might be informative to look at the scoring trends over the years, so here are the latest trends I could find through 2015:

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/trends/DI_alltime_2015.pdf

We can see from this that overall scoring has declined from a high in 1971 and 1972 of 78 points per game to 68 points, which is a little lower than it was all the way back in 1953. Scoring has decreased greatly, in spite of the fact that FG shooting percentages have increased over the same period from 35% in 1953 to 45% in 2015. The increase is even higher for 2-pt FG attempts. Scoring has decreased for two reasons: teams are taking fewer shots, and they are shooting fewer free throws. In 1952, teams took 70 shots per game, compared to 54 shots today. In 1953, teams took 33 free throw attempts per game, and in 2015, it was all the way down to 20 attempts. One reason free throw attempts have dropped so much is that fewer personal fouls are being called, 23 per game in 1952, but down to 18 per game in 2015. I would be interested to hear what you think looking at the stats, what might be causing the drop in shots. I haven't seen possession numbers. I think motion offense, with its emphasis on one-on-one play, the response, which is help defense, have perhaps clogged up the game. The popularity and efficacy of the three has limited the options for shots, lessening mid range shooting, so perhaps all this leads to less shots. Visually, I get the impression that it takes longer to get a shot off. There are less opportunities to get out and run a break, and all teams seem to prefer dribbling the ball up the floor, rather than passing it up the floor, which is quicker. In the half court, with things clogged up, players dribble or pass a lot more, just to keep the ball moving, and look for openings. In the '50s, the best teams ran pattern plays which created openings, and there was little problem getting shots off faster than they do today. But they didn't shoot very well, or scores would have been a lot higher. The trends show that both steals and turnovers have been going down, that would mean fewer possessions on average, also leading to fewer shot attempts.

I didn't mean to imply I have "my way" to look at this, just to think that rules favor the offense. I think it is true now, but I prefer the players be left alone to play with as much freedom as possible. When they made rules in the NBA to allow the Bill Laimbeers of the world to wreak havoc and cause injury, and lower scores, I didn't like it. There are too many rules in a game which is simple in a playground, where players call fouls on themselves, but made complicated by the NCAA and NBA and all their rules.

SFCityBear said:

---

Scoring has decreased greatly, in spite of the fact that FG shooting percentages have increased over the same period from 35% in 1953 to 45% in 2015. The increase is even higher for 2-pt FG attempts. Scoring has decreased for two reasons: teams are taking fewer shots, and they are shooting fewer free throws. In 1952, teams took 70 shots per game, compared to 54 shots today. In 1953, teams took 33 free throw attempts per game, and in 2015, it was all the way down to 20 attempts. One reason free throw attempts have dropped so much is that fewer personal fouls are being called, 23 per game in 1952, but down to 18 per game in 2015.

---

Fewer free throws because the officials permit more contact without calling fouls. Also because teams (in both college and NBA) used to pound the ball into the post way too often, and post play results in more fouls.

Fewer shots in college hoops (but not in the NBA) for a similar reason, because passing into the post has been largely replaced by making several passes to look for an open man.

I saw a great shot chart (from NBA games) several years ago that illustrated why there's a trend toward more passing. It looked like a typical shot chart that shows frequency of shots from different points on the court, except that this chart also indicated whether or not the shot was contested.

No surprise that the shots that most often result in baskets are uncontested shots, but the key takeaway was that a shot being uncontested is so much of an advantage that it makes uncontested shots from the NBA 3 point line much better than contested shots from anywhere else outside the lane. Several NBA coaching staffs (and I assume college staffs as well) constantly preach that players should focus on getting the ball to a player who then either takes a good shot in the lane or takes an uncontested 3. Gregg Popovich, in a cranky mood, once grumbled about the current obsession with "3s and layups", but that's what it is, and his teams do it as much as other NBA teams.

That leads to extra passing to find an open teammate instead of settling for a contested shot, when possible. Which, in college hoops, leads to fewer possessions per game and fewer shots per game because college players on average are less skilled, less experienced, and not as quick to pass or cut as NBA players.

The 3 point change would have been a great thing for us in the Jerome Randal days.

This will hurt Austin. He will be so reluctant to shoot at the new distance that the defense will slack off even further and make his forays to the hoop even harder.

BearSD said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Scoring has decreased greatly, in spite of the fact that FG shooting percentages have increased over the same period from 35% in 1953 to 45% in 2015. The increase is even higher for 2-pt FG attempts. Scoring has decreased for two reasons: teams are taking fewer shots, and they are shooting fewer free throws. In 1952, teams took 70 shots per game, compared to 54 shots today. In 1953, teams took 33 free throw attempts per game, and in 2015, it was all the way down to 20 attempts. One reason free throw attempts have dropped so much is that fewer personal fouls are being called, 23 per game in 1952, but down to 18 per game in 2015.

---

Fewer free throws because the officials permit more contact without calling fouls. Also because teams (in both college and NBA) used to pound the ball into the post way too often, and post play results in more fouls.

Fewer shots in college hoops (but not in the NBA) for a similar reason, because passing into the post has been largely replaced by making several passes to look for an open man.

I saw a great shot chart (from NBA games) several years ago that illustrated why there's a trend toward more passing. It looked like a typical shot chart that shows frequency of shots from different points on the court, except that this chart also indicated whether or not the shot was contested.

No surprise that the shots that most often result in baskets are uncontested shots, but the key takeaway was that a shot being uncontested is so much of an advantage that it makes uncontested shots from the NBA 3 point line much better than contested shots from anywhere else outside the lane. Several NBA coaching staffs (and I assume college staffs as well) constantly preach that players should focus on getting the ball to a player who then either takes a good shot in the lane or takes an uncontested 3. Gregg Popovich, in a cranky mood, once grumbled about the current obsession with "3s and layups", but that's what it is, and his teams do it as much as other NBA teams.

That leads to extra passing to find an open teammate instead of settling for a contested shot, when possible. Which, in college hoops, leads to fewer possessions per game and fewer shots per game because college players on average are less skilled, less experienced, and not as quick to pass or cut as NBA players.

---

Well, we are watching different games and different leagues, and my sample size is probably smaller size than yours, so what I say may have little meaning for you. I don't watch the NBA much at all, but when I do, I watch Warrior games, such as in these playoffs. When the Warriors have a full complement of players available, and their offense is clicking, I see a lot of what you describe. The spacing is wide, and there is considerable passing, looking for the player who has the highest percentage shot, combined with some one on one play. When the Warriors have players injured, or are not playing good offense, the needle moves toward more one on one play, as players try to take it on themselves to score a lot to keep the W's in the game. Other teams who are not quite as talented as a team as the Warriors, Houston, for example, or any team with a superstar, will move more to an offense featuring one on one play, and add a little passing to keep the defenses honest.

The NCAA is not the NBA, and I'd be very reluctant to apply any NBA studies, trends, or statistics when thinking about how basketball is played in the NCAA. Most rule changes, or changes in enforcing existing rules begins in the NBA, and later the NCAA sometimes endorses some of these ideas. The NBA, as successful as it has become, still has the appearance of a P.T. Barnum show under the big tent in small ways. I was sitting in my favorite sushi bar watching the last Warrior game on TV, when I saw a Raptor take 4 steps without a dribble on a layup. I have old eyes and slow reflexes, so asked the guy next to me what he just saw, and he said he saw 4 steps and no call. They don't call, or are very slow to call traveling and charging, and almost never call palming. All these things are similar in the NCAA, but the NCAA refs are more likely to call the game according to the rules, in general.

I am much more concerned with the college game. The NBA historical trends are very different. The average field goal attempts per game in the NBA has been increasing for the last 20 years, while in the NCAA, the average number is going down steadily for 67 years. Overall scoring in the NBA has been increasing over the last 20 years from 92 points to 111 points. Meanwhile, college scoring in the NCAA Division 1 has been steadily decreasing over the same period from 75 points down to 67 points, and now is lower than it was in 1953. The NBA in 1953 was averaging 83 points per game, and has not dropped that low in any time since. Of course the NBA had a shot clock then, so scoring would be much higher than the NCAA in that year. (It should always be higher because the NBA game is 8 minutes longer).

My impression is that there may be more passing to find open shooters, resulting in fewer shots in a game than in the past, but that is true more for just a handful of NBA teams, led by the Warriors. In the NCAA, what I see is a clogged up halfcourt, and a lot of one on one play and much less passing than in the NBA. First, there are 350 college teams, and there are not enough good three point shooters around to staff 350 teams. and most teams have only one or two, I'd guess. There are only 30 NBA teams, and most teams have 3 or 4 good perimeter shooters in the starting lineup. The NBA teams averaged 25 assists this season (the W's averaged 30 assists), while NCAA Division one teams average about 12 assists per game, half the NBA average. You may see all this passing in the NBA but it seems to be resulting in more shot attempts than fewer. And for the NCAA, 12 assists is chopped liver, unless statisticians are less liberal in awarding assists in the NCAA. Teams are not passing more, they are passing less, and taking fewer shots. What I see is too much passing (or dribbling) around the perimeter for no result and then one guy with the ball rushing a shot to beat the clock. I may be wrong, but I think one-on-one play is on the increase in college, not decreasing. On the other side of the ball, defense is less about individual play than it is about helping out a fellow defender.

I just don't believe we can use NBA studies, trends, or stats to describe what is going on in NCAA games.

The NBA skill level is much higher. It's not just the Warriors and a few other teams. There is so much player skill on even bad NBA teams that don't make the playoffs. In that sense, you're right that NBA trends don't necessarily translate -- as I mentioned above, because of the huge disparity in skill level, when college teams implement a passing game or motion offense, the players without the ball cut more slowly and the players with the ball are more tentative and don't pass nearly as quickly as NBA players. (On the other hand, it's more difficult for college teams to get out of team offense and run as much "iso" as, say, James Harden does, because of the skill disparity and because the huge investment in NBA scouting means any team knows exactly which defenders are vulnerable to isolation plays.)

Also, in CBB, there are fewer players who are very good at shooting 3s, even with the difference in 3 point lines, and free throw shooting on average is much poorer in college hoops.

College teams are also allowed to clog the lane on defense. Zone defenses are also allowed in the NBA now, but with a twist -- a defender who is not closely guarding an offensive player cannot stay in the lane for more than 3 seconds (just as offensive players cannot stay in the lane for more than 3 seconds). The net effect is that it's not as difficult to drive for a layup in the NBA, and that's on top of the fact that the average NBA guard is far more skilled at ball handling than the average college guard, even the average guard on an NCAA tournament team.

Even with all of that... college teams are still using passing or motion offenses. They're just not nearly as good at it. And that's on top of college officials allowing much more physical defense (i.e., uncalled fouls) than NBA officials. If college officials had the same lower tolerance for fouls as NBA officials, college scoring would also be going up.

(Also, we should really be looking at college statistics for major-conference teams, which are probably far different than statistics for the 100 or so teams that shouldn't even be in Division I.)

SFCity

I have been enjoying your data. Always interesting to try to figure out the impact of rule changes.

A couple of thoughts:
One additional thought about the FT difference.One possible factor is the fact that in the 50's every foul meant a FT (and the 1-1 bonus after 7 in a half).

In answer to your question about assists, yes they are awarded differently in the NBA. If you are cutting to the basket, catch my pass, and take 2-3 dribbles while you drive, it's an assist.

ursa: where have you been???No doubt helping the New York Times draft articles of you-know-what. Just saw Stan Stewart and his taller son at the SF Hall of fame dinner. he told me that being inducted " was not his thing." I wish he had told me that before I spent 125.00 of my own money traveling to the SF library to research his exploits. Ungrateful bugger!!!

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity

I have been enjoying your data. Always interesting to try to figure out the impact of rule changes.

A couple of thoughts:
One additional thought about the FT difference.One possible factor is the fact that in the 50's every foul meant a FT (and the 1-1 bonus after 7 in a half).

In answer to your question about assists, yes they are awarded differently in the NBA. If you are cutting to the basket, catch my pass, and take 2-3 dribbles while you drive, it's an assist.

---

Ursa Major,

In Oscar Robertson's day, if the player catching your pass took even one step after he caught your pass, no assist would be awarded. And certainly you would not be awarded an assist for a pass to a perimeter shooter who made his shot. Times have changed, and the sad part for me is that the modern rule interpretations somewhat trivialize the old records.

helltopay1 said:

---

ursa: where have you been???No doubt helping the New York Times draft articles of you-know-what. Just saw Stan Stewart and his taller son at the SF Hall of fame dinner. he told me that being inducted " was not his thing." I wish he had told me that before I spent 125.00 of my own money traveling to the SF library to research his exploits. Ungrateful bugger!!!

---

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."