Knicks Morning News (2018.07.29)

So, if Kyrie has a great season in Boston, why would he leave? Why would the Celtics let him leave? And if he’s injured again, why sign him for the max? I don’t understand this whole conversation. It’s not going to happen, certainly not in a way that justifies a huge contract from the Knicks.

@3

I agree. I also think the court needs to be larger to open things up more by rewarding speed, athleticism, and effort. Maybe even raise the rim 6 inches to a foot.

It would be pretty funny to raise the rim. That would be a lot of adjustments for the players.

I think the best option is widening the court and extending the line all around (keeping the corner three).

I saw an item on Twitter the other day that said Burke recently played in pickup game with some very good street players and after the game the tone was more or less, “How is this guy in the NBA and some of us are not?”

I’m of the opinion that Kyrie is a top scorer, but I think Brad Stevens DOES use players in ways that maximizes their scoring efficiency. I don’t think it’s a mortal lock that he could sustain that TS% in NY. However, I think he’d be the perfect running mate for Frank. Frank could handle the tougher defensive assignment and the combination would also provide more than enough good play making. In fact, I’d be hard pressed to think of a better combination. It’s all on Kyrie’s knees and how he looks next year.

Would expanding the court mean reconfiguring or losing seats? If so I think that’s a non starter with the owners.

I’m arguing against moving the line back for the simple reason that the disparity between good and bad three shooting teams like us would increase this giving the advantage to the better teams even more !

The only logical solution is to limit the amount of threes attempted by each team. Something like 8 attempts per quarter otherwise they count as long twos would force teams to strategize on offense and defense, Like in football or baseball how you can concede a batter like a automatic walk. Or football where you punt on forth down and hope your defense get you better position.
For instance if I’m the coach I can force them to use up their threes and then beat them in the paint. It switches the momentum toward defense and strategy.

Moving the line back three feet doesn’t effect curry or Durant or harden but it sure would effect the Tim hardaway a of this world.
Game changer!

My idea is stupid , turns into a video game… I might still argue against missed attempts otherwise techs ensue. Idk

Why change anything, guys? The game is more popular than ever, good players play well and shitty players (like the 15 in Knicks uniform) play…well, shitty!

People love 3-pointers. And, no, they are not any easier than 5 years ago. Stop the madness.

That’s perfect, put a net over the court to limit the arc of shots! Solves all the problems.

Seriously, if you think that open 3’s are ruining the game (and I can’t imagine anyone is upset about contested 3’s) moving the line out farther will not fix the problem. It just creates more space that defenders have to cover which will lead to more open shots. The same is true even if you eliminate the corner three because you’ll open up a huge gulf of space between the 3 line and the basket where folks will be able to ‘stretch the floor’ by hanging out in the 10-12 ft range, and they’d be easier to hit with passes since the defenders would be more spread out.

If you think that 3’s are too easy then bring back handchecking or something similar. Or accept that the changes were made deliberately to increase the scores of games by making defense harder, and the NBA is more popular now that it’s ever been.

JK47 maybe you’re in the minority but you’re not alone 🙂

I’m sort in the middle I would say, I would probably not watch a lot of games from other teams if we went back to 90’s Knicks play styles, but I would love it in Knicks games. Guess the Ewing / Oakley squads really left a mark on me.

I think the NBA won’t ever mess with hand checking or allowing defenses to be more physical simply because of injuries. As players have become more athletic than ever and are pushing their bodies to the absolute limit we’ve seen so many injuries, and tougher defenses would only make it worse. Just think about the Zaza rule on reckless close outs, that sort of shit happened every quarter in the NBA not too long ago. Just look at the public outrage at Kawhi Leonard’s injury and imagine if those people were watching Danny Ainge and John Stockton clawing and throwing elbows at players on a daily basis.

@23

I’m in favor of stretching the court and making the corner threes the same range as the other positions simply because of this. It makes no sense to have shots from the same distance be worth different points, specially when the corner is such a valuable and exploitable position nowadays.

@8 — Someone posted a link either here or on P&T the other day of highlights of Trey Burke playing at Dyckman Park and, if those are the street ballers who think that they belong in the NBA, they are delusional. My impression watching the highlights was that it is amazing how noticeable the gap is between very very good athletes and pro level athletes. The street ballers were very very good, but Trey was playing a different game than they were. I think that most people have no appreciation for how big that gap is and, in most sports, it is hard to judge. However, when you watch sports in which you can objectively measure performance like track and field or swimming, you see how big the gap is. In track, even very good D1 runners get smoked when they run against truly elite runners. Those street ballers would look worse than Chris Smith if they played in an NBA game.

I am all for discussing ways to make the game more competitive. If casual fans weren’t so fucking obsessed with per-game and counting stats and the like, there could be some cool experiments like changing the length of the season, having midseason tournaments.

A big one would be making the game a race to a fixed point total, let’s say 100.

It would make most possessions more competitive and would eliminate end-of-game hacking and keepaway and two-for-ones (which are a small part of the game, but still produce some stupid chuck-heavy offense early in the clock). Teams would be less inclined to run out the clock with the B-squad. It would produce a wonderful game, competition-wise.

Raising the dunks because they’re boring? Are we watching the same sport? This is an exciting era for the freedom that guards have to penetrate and attack the rim. Do you really want to see Westbrook smoke his man off the dribble for a layup? That sounds like a you problem, IMO.

I would love to see a race to 100 type game. It would do a lot to make the end of games exciting but it would render all statistical comparisons moot. I’m okay with that but it would create a statistical dividing line like pre and post shot clock when looking at stats. Because of that, I think it’s a non-starter unfortunately.

As for the three-point line, I’d rather eliminate the corner three than widen the court. Defenses are already stretched thin and widening the court would benefit the corner three more than hurt it because of the amount of space defenses would have to cover. Eliminating the corner three would make defending the three-point line easier which would force more play inside which would be good for the game.

Where can I find a breakdown of 3pa and makes league wide? Curious what percentage of 3’s are corners.

The Mike Fratello Cavs killed any possibility of a race to 100 for the next 40 years.

I haven’t been really going out of my way to watch The Big Three league, if that’s actually what it’s even called, but I do find it pretty entertaining and they do the 25 point halftime 50 point final thing. I don’t think it would fly for the NBA, but for summer basketball while I don’t have the Knicks to watch I’m happy with it.

Ha, I was thinking of the Fratello Cavs when the glory days of the 90s were brought up. That’s what Knicks/Heat 90s ball (which I loved) looks like with no talent.

Love the race to 100 idea. Reminds me of straight pool, where every shot/possession matters.

I think the play to 100 idea is a non-starter and would totally screw up the flow of the game. In my pick-up league, we play game to 15, 2’s and 3’s. Some games take 5 minutes and some take 40 minutes. In a game to 100, the time frames would be even more extreme. Anyway, I don’t see any problem with the clock-based game.

Z-Man, your first suggestion makes defending 3’s harder, the second makes it easier. If the range gets extended folks will just practice it at longer range and get better at it. Extending the line and court would just exacerbate the current style.

Also, I think you could allow hand checking without allowing Zaza style play.

Regardless, I think the issue isn’t one of the rules being poor, it’s that kids don’t learn to defend against NBA style offenses early enough. Or frankly, don’t learn to defend well at all. I think we’ll see this paradigm shift over time as more effective counters are developed and players learn those counters at a younger age.

The goal should be to at least narrow the TS% gap between 2’s and 3’s. The way it is right now has made post play an afterthought.

Iserp, I agree that it’s a risk, but high-level chess is so positional and risk-averse that you can have a guy like Giri at world #5 without seemingly ever checkmating any of his peers. NBA offenses are putting up serious points these days.