Three Pointers Have Ruined Basketball
Three Pointers Have Ruined Basketball
Use code JXMY for $20 off your first SeatGeek order.
https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/JXMY
Follow me on Instagram: https: //www.instagram.com/jxmyhighroller
Be sure to subscribe and turn on notifications for the latest content from ya boy Jxmy! We doin this a couple times a week, every week!
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS
9:32 thank god – literally had zero idea which way this video was going – an art all in itself. What Morey forgets to add is his team was within 1% of the league average on long ball efficiency. Statistically this is on the money. 3 pointers are a self policing mechanism.
@HomerOJSimpson all that was said. I have nothing to gain from defending a man I don’t even know, but your comment is all covered in his explanation. EFG went up bc of the inputs into the calculation. Better said, FG % has increased over the years. He said that. It might make sense to study the actual makeup of effective field goal percent. In terms of the maths, one could argue it needs adjusting. FGA is always the denominator while manipulating number of 3 pointers made (x1.5): as you can imagine, it’s not linear. You’ll see exponential differences with small gains when you start adjusting numbers line this. Now add in pace of play. You know how many shot were attempted in 05 vs 22? About 96 vs 123. That’s a 28% increase.
Self policing- Agree. When teams were getting better with the 3, teams picked them up after half court. But then the league protected shooters and now need a landing spot.
@euthyphro dilemma That’s because I said what I said. Here’s the thing……neither of us will ever actually know. The closest thing in todays game is Ja and he still isn’t Mike. The biggest fact that I do actually know is that todays game is not as entertaining as in the past. If you think people standing around the 3pt line and an occasional layup is fun to watch then I don’t know what to say. Barely any fundamentals at all. Traveling like there’s no tomorrow on a regular. It’s just not fun to watch
@JxmyHighroller mid range shots are more effective
@JxmyHighroller Jxmy is a legend
I think what this shows is we’ve been through the “3 Point Era” and we’ll get a team soon that will bring something equivalent to Ajax’s total football. Achieving a perfect balance where the aim will be to increase point per shot as high as possible.
Grizzlies?
@Epsilon but they’re on about Dutch football (also Spanish – 2011 Barca)
No please german/belgium football is boring.
@just3nzo memphis is basketball ajax
@Jorgen Kremer either that or they don’t know football history 😂.
In a way some teams overvalue the 3 (ex: keep shooting 3’s even when they keep missing) but at the same time this is the evolution of the game. This is the same way the shot clock revolutionized the game. The same way the 3 point line did. The same way MJ revolutionized the game. The game is continuously evolving. Doesn’t mean the strategy is foolproof. No strategy is perfect. I’d hesitate to say it’s ruining basketball. Blame the coaches for that. Unless you’re a team like the Warriors – don’t rely on 3 point shooting.
@Bean KoBe thats because the celtics are a very good inside team as well though, if they could only shoot threes the warriors would of never let al horford even shoot. But because they know jaylen brown and tatum can drive they are forced to guard that
MJ retired because of the new defensive rules.
this a weird won especially after the gsw celtics game,gsw being the best 3 point shooting team in nba history, lost cuz al harford brought his team back in the 4 th with his three….that’s balance …celtics was literally losing all game then came back with a three… not saying jimmer wrong but bad timing …when the warriors were unbeatable mayb when this vid was needed
They’ll lose if they don’t. That’s the point of why 3s suck
Beautifully said 👏
As a rockets fan, showing every 3 point miss from 2018 cut me deep. Thanks for making me relive that.
@Sam their inside game was on point though? You forgot that part
Not a rockets fan but I wanted GSW to lose that series and I watched that game 7 in its entirety.
Definitely a traumatic experience smh
we mainly lost that bc of refs and injuries so that in mind cuts even deeper 😭
And they were in the game…. Weren’t blown out…. Yea the 3 is a huge advantage especially shot in volume with a balanced mid range game…….
Kobe predicted this before he passed. Mentioned that he’d noticed the game seemed to change in cycles. That the three pointer was becoming the core of championship basketball, and that it’s normalization would eventually result in a way to exploit 2pt opportunities further.
His insight into the game was always so interesting.
I just love how he shows the graphs and explains with it , just a beautiful way to educate. Thanks jxmy
@zaidenyt ratio
@Riley Haley I’m assuming a lot of people here spend time watching these videos. Some even go on to reply how impressed they are, while in this and some other instances, jxmy’s analysis simply doesn’t withstand a critical look. Why the ones highlighting this in the comments are those in this scenario who have “no life” must be your personal secret.
@Enkel Trik lol get a life bro
He’s not being sincere all the time though, you cannot just drop a graph like he does with the hypothetical 2.5 shot at 15.30. You’d have to apply this in order to get real life value as with the actual 2 and 3 pointer. If you want more consistently legit content, have a look at thinking basketball, the ringer (especially kyle mann), Clayton Crowley etc. Jxmy is still too tabloid at times.
@A Z lol he just need to put the ad in his video and he will earn money easily
Thanks for making a case on what I’ve been trying to point out to my fellow casuals.
Yes, players from all positions are shooting more 3s than before, but that’s only because they added it to their arsenal. Not as their main weapon, but as a reliable sidearm.
Not to mention that they’ve stopped the mentality of “jacking up 3s” for a quite a while now.
Cap
Nice video again ! Changing value of 3pts would definitely change too much the balance. But what about doing the opposite of 96 and push back just a little the 3pts line ? And then make the court larger to give more space since the players are more athletic and quick ? But to make it balance I would let more power to the defense, so it would be more difficult to pass the defense but when it’s done you can really create good stuff with the spacing.
15:38 I disagree. Because whenever the 2.5 would be a more risky with respect to the rewards, defensive players will spend less energy at defending the 3 point shot and making it a more easily taken shot. And over time, the 2 different shots will on average tend towards each other and find an equilibrium.
@Enkel Trik If people can’t figure out that the graph was made from historic data, regarding the current 3-PT line by looking at the graph that literally has past years on the x-axis, it’s not about being misleading, it’s about people being stupid. This channel does better analysis than 95% of sports “analytics” out there, so it doesn’t really count as a “cheap” shortcut in my book, obviously these shots would find some sort of equillibrium as defenses more often will not be defending the 2.5 point line, as well as they do the 3, but for historic context, it’s not really misleading
Besides, as most people who have played basketball at a semi-pro level knows, people who are really good at whatever, in this example shooting 3’s, will get their shots up and hit regularly, no matter what defense are on them in most cases. Everyone in the league knows Curry will hit 4-5 threes every single game on insane %’s, but no one is able to stop him, you just try to contain him as well as possible, but he still gets games like the first game of the finals, where he hits 6 in the first quarter.
Right. Short: it would take real world implementation to know the real graph, because as jxmy said seconds before that graph drop: “basketball isn’t math”. This is tabloid level and he knows it. Wilfully misleading. Unfortunately, instances like this are what holds jxmy back from being a legit analytic voice. His dramatic storytelling is nice, don’t think he needs these cheap shortcuts.
That would make the game so boring, paint is going to be so fking crowded.
You have a good point but why change a game already equilibrated? I think that those years for refinding the balance are just not worth it, both on an economic and entertainment point of view.
I like the video and how it explains your points, but there are a few miiscoonceptions – if the 3 pointer were to be nerfed and was made to be worth less points it would be initially imbalanced, but teams would make adjustments and in the mid-long run 2 pointers and 2.5 pointers will make the same points/shot, only this time the equilibrium would be different and 2 pointers guarded better. The system will balance itself out in any case, whatever the value or the distance of the three point shot, what will change is the style of play. People who prefer a more physical game should want a nerf on the 3 pointer that’s the point.
@Enkel Trik It may be “(unrealistic)” but it’s a prerequisite of the graph
@IToastPotatoes it’s not a misunderstanding as Daniel points out the graph intentionally does not account for the adjustment on play thus the preamble of “basketball isn’t math”. What you extrapolated was that jxmy was trying to make an entirely different point then he really was aiming for. If you understand the context then you will see that the point being made in that section is different than the point that you thought he was trying to make.
@Daniel ok jimy’s burner acc
@Enkel Trik The data is presented exactly as it’s meant to be. Way to show that you lack critical comprehension
@Daniel way to describe bad data presentation