What do you think?
Rate this book
Sprawlball: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA
From the leading expert in the exploding field of basketball analytics, a stunning infographic decoding of the modern NBA: who shoots where, and how.
The field of basketball analytics has leaped to overdrive thanks to Kirk Goldsberry, whose visual maps of players, teams, and positions have helped teams understand who really is the most valuable player at any position. SprawlBall combines stunning visuals, in-depth analysis, fun, behind-the-scenes stories and gee-whiz facts to chart a modern revolution. From the introduction of the 3-point line to today, the game has changed drastically . . .
Now, players like Steph Curry and Draymond Green are leading the charge. In chapters like “The Geography of the NBA,” “The Interior Minister (Lebron James),” “The Evolution of Steph Curry,” and “The Investor (James Harden),” Goldsberry explains why today’s on-court product—with its emphasis on shooting, passing, and spacing—has never been prettier or more democratic. And it’s never been more popular. For fans of Bill Simmons and FreeDarko,SprawlBall is a bold new vision of the game, presenting an innovative, cutting-edge look at the sport based on the latest research, as well as a visual and infographic feast for fans.
The field of basketball analytics has leaped to overdrive thanks to Kirk Goldsberry, whose visual maps of players, teams, and positions have helped teams understand who really is the most valuable player at any position. SprawlBall combines stunning visuals, in-depth analysis, fun, behind-the-scenes stories and gee-whiz facts to chart a modern revolution. From the introduction of the 3-point line to today, the game has changed drastically . . .
Now, players like Steph Curry and Draymond Green are leading the charge. In chapters like “The Geography of the NBA,” “The Interior Minister (Lebron James),” “The Evolution of Steph Curry,” and “The Investor (James Harden),” Goldsberry explains why today’s on-court product—with its emphasis on shooting, passing, and spacing—has never been prettier or more democratic. And it’s never been more popular. For fans of Bill Simmons and FreeDarko,SprawlBall is a bold new vision of the game, presenting an innovative, cutting-edge look at the sport based on the latest research, as well as a visual and infographic feast for fans.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 2019
225 people are currently reading
1544 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews
May 12, 2019
I am a longtime reader of Goldsberry from his Grantland days. Anything I find of his online is generally worth reading and I will be happy to continue to click on his name in the future. But I don't feel like Goldsberry put enough into this book; it was OK, but I felt somewhat disappointed.
The overriding problem with this book is that Goldsberry simply doesn't have enough material to fill an entire book, so he resorts to a number of ploys. First is the weird two-column format (so that there is more blank space on each page). Second are the loads of illustrations: not his charts, which are great, but cartoon pictures of various basketball players that I simply couldn't have cared less about. While I simply ignored the illustrations for the most part, I began to recognize that some near-full page illustrations show up in the book in more than one place. It was an insulting scheme to pad the page count. I felt like a sucker to have paid for the hardcover.
Another major problem with the book is the lack of editing for repetition. The book reads like several longform magazine articles strung together, with no attempt made to edit out points that are made in more than one chapter. Often Goldsberry makes a near-identical point in multiple chapters in a row, often referencing many of the exact same players (Reggie Miller, Steve Kerr, etc) in each instance. It really is not fair to the reader to have identical points made again and again in the same way. On top of this is a weird writing style that crops up from time to time - comparing basketball to buildings in Madrid that 98% of his readers would have no idea about (like me), referring to players as "NBA bros", etc. There were many poor writing decisions like this that made the whole thing feel clunky and undercooked.
If you like Goldsberry's charts, there is a fair amount of good stuff in here - maybe a touch less than I expected, but still a lot of material to savor. Most are in the format that he is known for, but there is a decent variety to review. And I appreciated that Goldsberry takes a stand against the sprawlball trend and makes a number of fun/interesting rule change proposals in the final chapter to try to rejuvenate basketball and make 2-pointers worth shooting again.
But I would have preferred if Goldsberry had developed another idea or two and created a proper book instead of getting together 100 decent pages and padding it out to 225.
The overriding problem with this book is that Goldsberry simply doesn't have enough material to fill an entire book, so he resorts to a number of ploys. First is the weird two-column format (so that there is more blank space on each page). Second are the loads of illustrations: not his charts, which are great, but cartoon pictures of various basketball players that I simply couldn't have cared less about. While I simply ignored the illustrations for the most part, I began to recognize that some near-full page illustrations show up in the book in more than one place. It was an insulting scheme to pad the page count. I felt like a sucker to have paid for the hardcover.
Another major problem with the book is the lack of editing for repetition. The book reads like several longform magazine articles strung together, with no attempt made to edit out points that are made in more than one chapter. Often Goldsberry makes a near-identical point in multiple chapters in a row, often referencing many of the exact same players (Reggie Miller, Steve Kerr, etc) in each instance. It really is not fair to the reader to have identical points made again and again in the same way. On top of this is a weird writing style that crops up from time to time - comparing basketball to buildings in Madrid that 98% of his readers would have no idea about (like me), referring to players as "NBA bros", etc. There were many poor writing decisions like this that made the whole thing feel clunky and undercooked.
If you like Goldsberry's charts, there is a fair amount of good stuff in here - maybe a touch less than I expected, but still a lot of material to savor. Most are in the format that he is known for, but there is a decent variety to review. And I appreciated that Goldsberry takes a stand against the sprawlball trend and makes a number of fun/interesting rule change proposals in the final chapter to try to rejuvenate basketball and make 2-pointers worth shooting again.
But I would have preferred if Goldsberry had developed another idea or two and created a proper book instead of getting together 100 decent pages and padding it out to 225.
May 6, 2019
In February of 2018, Reddit user u/BreezyBlue had just finished a 4-year prison sentence and incredulously asked,
According to the NBA's previous year's MVP award, the answer was a unanimous yes. To answer our time-traveler's follow-up questions of Why? and How? I would direct him Kirk Goldsberry's Sprawlball.
Kirk Goldsberry was mostly known to me as the guy who made awesome shot charts, but he also spent time as the VP of Analytics for the San Antonio Spurs. Sprawlball tells a familiar tale: the rules of a game are set, and "Jeopardy James" abuses the economics of the Daily Double and algorithmic traders gobble-up tiny arbitrage opportunities. The NBA has, likewise, been in the process of squeezing out every statistical advantage from the three-point line and rules protecting shooters. Goldsberry doesn't really need to spend much time making a case here, but rather spends time pulling back the curtains on what you already know to be true. As a huge NBA fan, this is one of the few NBA books that I really feel increased my knowledge, not just of league history but also basketball strategy.
Sprawlball is not a perfect book by any means. There is a lot of repetition of knowledge that could have been edited out. Some of the pivotal charts maddeningly span from dark purple (good) to white (average) to dark green (bad). And also, the chapter recounting the Warrior's 15-16 championship run was a bit meandering. But overall, holy crap I ate through this book and loved it. The next time one of your friends gets out of a long prison stay and is confused about the state of the NBA, boy do I have a book for them.
"Wow the Warriors are really good now. Is Stephen Curry really the best player in the NBA?"
According to the NBA's previous year's MVP award, the answer was a unanimous yes. To answer our time-traveler's follow-up questions of Why? and How? I would direct him Kirk Goldsberry's Sprawlball.
Kirk Goldsberry was mostly known to me as the guy who made awesome shot charts, but he also spent time as the VP of Analytics for the San Antonio Spurs. Sprawlball tells a familiar tale: the rules of a game are set, and "Jeopardy James" abuses the economics of the Daily Double and algorithmic traders gobble-up tiny arbitrage opportunities. The NBA has, likewise, been in the process of squeezing out every statistical advantage from the three-point line and rules protecting shooters. Goldsberry doesn't really need to spend much time making a case here, but rather spends time pulling back the curtains on what you already know to be true. As a huge NBA fan, this is one of the few NBA books that I really feel increased my knowledge, not just of league history but also basketball strategy.
Sprawlball is not a perfect book by any means. There is a lot of repetition of knowledge that could have been edited out. Some of the pivotal charts maddeningly span from dark purple (good) to white (average) to dark green (bad). And also, the chapter recounting the Warrior's 15-16 championship run was a bit meandering. But overall, holy crap I ate through this book and loved it. The next time one of your friends gets out of a long prison stay and is confused about the state of the NBA, boy do I have a book for them.
May 15, 2019
Great fun to read during the NBA playoffs. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it's definitely increased my enjoyment of watching games to think about KG's assertions.
To give an overly simplified summary, the book characterizes the ways data and analytics are changing NBA basketball, much as they changed MLB baseball a decade or so ago. In particular, the book focuses on analyzing the spatial distribution of shot efficiency. (This is certainly not news to NBA teams, but rather presenting the analysis to a broader lay audience.) Briefly speaking, the most efficient shots are dunks and layups, followed by 3-pointers. In general, two-point jumpshots are inefficient. An understanding of this spatial distribution, which the NBA started recording in the early 2000s, drives much of NBA strategy today. The Golden State Warriors were the first team to effectively exploit this analysis starting around 2015, when Steve Kerr became their head coach. GS plays a "small-ball" style of basketball, focusing on 3-point shooting and spreading the defense, while eschewing a traditional center (their "center" for many seasons was Draymond Green, who is "only" 6' 7"). Mike Dantoni's Houston Rockets, led by James Harden, are the team that has taken this philosophy the farthest, becoming a formidable if not dominant force in the Western Conference. (As I write this, the Rockets just lost their playoff series to the Warriors.)
KG's book strikes me as about equal parts insightful analysis and cranky get-off-my-lawnism. He is openly nostalgic for the NBA of the '90s, where big post-up centers and power forwards like Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Karl Malone were forces to be reckoned with, and guards like Michael Jordan shot more fadeaways. He frequently says (and the book is full of repetition) that watching catch-and-shoot 3's is boring and that basketball is becoming a monoculture. But I have to say that it's tough to agree with KG's skepticism while watching the 2019 playoffs, which have been filled with incredibly good and exciting basketball. Yes, teams shoot a lot of 3-pointers. But who have been some of the most impactful players? Off the top of my head, I'd include the Bucks's Giannis Antetokounmpo (6' 11", 242, probably this year's MVP); the Sixers' Joel Embiid (7' 0", 250); the Nuggets' Nikola Jokic (7' 0", 250). Doesn't exactly sound like the death of the big man to me. The thing about those three guys is that they bring a lot more than just size and post-up ability to the game. They all have great playmaking and passing ability (following in the footsteps of LeBron James), and yes, they can hit 3-pointers too. I would much rather watch any of those three guys than Shaq any day.
I also wish that KG had taken the analysis a step further to look at how a "sprawlball" offense impacts the aesthetics of possessions as a whole. Yes, it is fairly easy to say that "a catch-and-shoot three" isn't that exciting. But the possession as a whole becomes more exciting when the team is working together to get their shooters open looks--there is a much higher premium on inspired passing in a sprawlball offense; it doesn't take much teamwork to give the big man the rock and let him post up. Sure, a mediocre sprawlball offense will feature a bunch of guys just standing around the 3-point line waiting to get the ball, but at least in the 2019 playoffs, that hasn't been enough to win series. In addition, my casual empiricist observation is that a higher frequency of 3-point shooting leads to larger swings in leads over the course of the game (natural because a 3-point shot has a higher variance than a 2 in terms of points outcome), which can make the game more exciting. There are more misses, but I don't think the gap is big enough to be that noticeable (players make like 35% of 3's and 50% of 2's). Finally, rebounding becomes all the more important, and I think it has made the difference in several playoff games this year.
KG says that if you like basketball today, you should also be an advocate of reform, because the game has not finished changing. He sees the future as a whole league that looks like today's Houston Rockets, only more so. I'm skeptical that this is the case. To me, the Rockets are more of an object lesson in the limits of a "pure" sprawlball style. They have taken it farther than anyone in the league, but while it's made them a good team, it hasn't made them dominant, despite having the league MVP to boot.
All that said, I do think some of KG's suggestions for reforms make sense. He's gotten a lot of attention online for his suggestion that different teams should be allowed to draw 3-point lines in different places, much like MLB parks have different "home run lines." But I actually think some of the subtler proposals would be better ideas. One would simply be a change in officiating to allow hand-checking, which was banned in the early 2000s. KG traces the current dominance of small guards like Steph Curry to this officiating change. I think just reverting this might add more balance to the game without totally upending it. A similarly limited idea that I liked would be to create a "paint" zone in the corner-3 area, with a 3-second violation just like the lane. KG complains a lot about what he calls "rooks," i.e. players that are just automatically sent to loiter in those corners because they are the most efficient outside shots. Watching the playoffs, I agree that there is a lot of this going on, resulting in quite a bit of 3-on-3 play. The motivation for this "paint" would be the same as in the lane, that you shouldn't be able to just camp out in a place where points can be scored most easily. (As an aside, another benefit for me of reading this book was learning a little more about the ways NBA rules have been changed over the years in response to developments in the sport.)
Finally, I think KG's analysis has something to offer even in the context of my own non-sports profession, financial regulation. He opines that while teams have used analytics to build their own strategy, the league is just as well positioned to use analytics to alter the rules to keep the game fair, balanced, and entertaining. I think much the same can be said for financial regulation and probably other kinds as well. Bank stress testing, where I work, does a decent job of using data and analytics to set effective rules and improve them in an iterative way. KG's perspective shows the importance of retaining flexibility, awareness, and responsiveness in keeping rules up to date.
To give an overly simplified summary, the book characterizes the ways data and analytics are changing NBA basketball, much as they changed MLB baseball a decade or so ago. In particular, the book focuses on analyzing the spatial distribution of shot efficiency. (This is certainly not news to NBA teams, but rather presenting the analysis to a broader lay audience.) Briefly speaking, the most efficient shots are dunks and layups, followed by 3-pointers. In general, two-point jumpshots are inefficient. An understanding of this spatial distribution, which the NBA started recording in the early 2000s, drives much of NBA strategy today. The Golden State Warriors were the first team to effectively exploit this analysis starting around 2015, when Steve Kerr became their head coach. GS plays a "small-ball" style of basketball, focusing on 3-point shooting and spreading the defense, while eschewing a traditional center (their "center" for many seasons was Draymond Green, who is "only" 6' 7"). Mike Dantoni's Houston Rockets, led by James Harden, are the team that has taken this philosophy the farthest, becoming a formidable if not dominant force in the Western Conference. (As I write this, the Rockets just lost their playoff series to the Warriors.)
KG's book strikes me as about equal parts insightful analysis and cranky get-off-my-lawnism. He is openly nostalgic for the NBA of the '90s, where big post-up centers and power forwards like Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Karl Malone were forces to be reckoned with, and guards like Michael Jordan shot more fadeaways. He frequently says (and the book is full of repetition) that watching catch-and-shoot 3's is boring and that basketball is becoming a monoculture. But I have to say that it's tough to agree with KG's skepticism while watching the 2019 playoffs, which have been filled with incredibly good and exciting basketball. Yes, teams shoot a lot of 3-pointers. But who have been some of the most impactful players? Off the top of my head, I'd include the Bucks's Giannis Antetokounmpo (6' 11", 242, probably this year's MVP); the Sixers' Joel Embiid (7' 0", 250); the Nuggets' Nikola Jokic (7' 0", 250). Doesn't exactly sound like the death of the big man to me. The thing about those three guys is that they bring a lot more than just size and post-up ability to the game. They all have great playmaking and passing ability (following in the footsteps of LeBron James), and yes, they can hit 3-pointers too. I would much rather watch any of those three guys than Shaq any day.
I also wish that KG had taken the analysis a step further to look at how a "sprawlball" offense impacts the aesthetics of possessions as a whole. Yes, it is fairly easy to say that "a catch-and-shoot three" isn't that exciting. But the possession as a whole becomes more exciting when the team is working together to get their shooters open looks--there is a much higher premium on inspired passing in a sprawlball offense; it doesn't take much teamwork to give the big man the rock and let him post up. Sure, a mediocre sprawlball offense will feature a bunch of guys just standing around the 3-point line waiting to get the ball, but at least in the 2019 playoffs, that hasn't been enough to win series. In addition, my casual empiricist observation is that a higher frequency of 3-point shooting leads to larger swings in leads over the course of the game (natural because a 3-point shot has a higher variance than a 2 in terms of points outcome), which can make the game more exciting. There are more misses, but I don't think the gap is big enough to be that noticeable (players make like 35% of 3's and 50% of 2's). Finally, rebounding becomes all the more important, and I think it has made the difference in several playoff games this year.
KG says that if you like basketball today, you should also be an advocate of reform, because the game has not finished changing. He sees the future as a whole league that looks like today's Houston Rockets, only more so. I'm skeptical that this is the case. To me, the Rockets are more of an object lesson in the limits of a "pure" sprawlball style. They have taken it farther than anyone in the league, but while it's made them a good team, it hasn't made them dominant, despite having the league MVP to boot.
All that said, I do think some of KG's suggestions for reforms make sense. He's gotten a lot of attention online for his suggestion that different teams should be allowed to draw 3-point lines in different places, much like MLB parks have different "home run lines." But I actually think some of the subtler proposals would be better ideas. One would simply be a change in officiating to allow hand-checking, which was banned in the early 2000s. KG traces the current dominance of small guards like Steph Curry to this officiating change. I think just reverting this might add more balance to the game without totally upending it. A similarly limited idea that I liked would be to create a "paint" zone in the corner-3 area, with a 3-second violation just like the lane. KG complains a lot about what he calls "rooks," i.e. players that are just automatically sent to loiter in those corners because they are the most efficient outside shots. Watching the playoffs, I agree that there is a lot of this going on, resulting in quite a bit of 3-on-3 play. The motivation for this "paint" would be the same as in the lane, that you shouldn't be able to just camp out in a place where points can be scored most easily. (As an aside, another benefit for me of reading this book was learning a little more about the ways NBA rules have been changed over the years in response to developments in the sport.)
Finally, I think KG's analysis has something to offer even in the context of my own non-sports profession, financial regulation. He opines that while teams have used analytics to build their own strategy, the league is just as well positioned to use analytics to alter the rules to keep the game fair, balanced, and entertaining. I think much the same can be said for financial regulation and probably other kinds as well. Bank stress testing, where I work, does a decent job of using data and analytics to set effective rules and improve them in an iterative way. KG's perspective shows the importance of retaining flexibility, awareness, and responsiveness in keeping rules up to date.
March 28, 2024
I'm a fan of Kirk Goldsberry's articles - the one sampled from the last chapter of this book completely changed the way I view the NBA. I've always thought his graphics are a great blend of interesting analytics, clear messaging, and appealing aesthetics.
The thesis of the book is clear and easy to understand, but the book itself was largely a disappointment. It's extremely repetitive. It wanders away from its own thread for large stretches while leaving interesting questions unaddressed - how has analytics pushed the pace of play? Does sprawl ball work in the playoffs? Has the extra spacing introduced into the game had a positive effect on plays at the rim?
It's also awkwardly colloquial and strangely harsh to seemingly random people in a way that doesn't feel earned. And while he maintains that it's his opinion the aesthetic of the game has suffered, he's clearly pressuring you to agree. But why isn't that being quantified? He complains of offensive homogeneity - let's compare some shot profile charts of different teams in the good old days compared to now.
5 years is already too late to be reading a book that was on the cutting edge of a situation that has continued to change, I get that. But I think even in 2019 a lot more could have been done with this material.
The thesis of the book is clear and easy to understand, but the book itself was largely a disappointment. It's extremely repetitive. It wanders away from its own thread for large stretches while leaving interesting questions unaddressed - how has analytics pushed the pace of play? Does sprawl ball work in the playoffs? Has the extra spacing introduced into the game had a positive effect on plays at the rim?
It's also awkwardly colloquial and strangely harsh to seemingly random people in a way that doesn't feel earned. And while he maintains that it's his opinion the aesthetic of the game has suffered, he's clearly pressuring you to agree. But why isn't that being quantified? He complains of offensive homogeneity - let's compare some shot profile charts of different teams in the good old days compared to now.
5 years is already too late to be reading a book that was on the cutting edge of a situation that has continued to change, I get that. But I think even in 2019 a lot more could have been done with this material.
June 30, 2024
Loved Sprawlball! The art was fantastic, the stats were explained in a way that myself (someone who doesn't remember a thing from my stats course) can easily understand. Basketball history was presented interesting and in a thought-provoking way. I do think some terms could have been explained more and that the author was assuming the reader had a higher baseline knowledge that I do, so at points it made for a confusing read. Further, the author repeated many of the same ideas multiple times in almost the exact same phrasing. I think this helped with my retention a bit, but after a while it felt like I was being coddled. A summary section at the end of each chapter would have probably been a better idea if he wanted certain key concepts to stick and would have made certain sections feel less redundant. Overall, still a highly engaging book! Excited to read his other one!
February 12, 2021
It was a great chronicle of the meta history of basketball. However, I do not share his pessimism about the stylistic future of the game at all
June 8, 2020
It took me awhile to finish Sprawlball; the first 100 pages or so were interesting but didn’t quite capture me enough to keep me from moving on to other books. Once I picked it up again, the final 130 pages were far more engaging. It also helped that I’m desperate for anything basketball-related right now.
Most of the book is a data-driven look at the on-court evolution of a few of the league’s stars over the course of their careers. The *point* of the book, however, is to explore the strategies and aesthetics of the modern NBA. The chapter about LeBron, for example, features recaps and shot charts of many individual seasons in his career. Goldsberry uses the changes evident in LeBron’s game through the years to represent how the sport itself has changed too. It’s an excellent and effective framework from which to operate, as anyone would find it more enjoyable to read about gradual, large scale statistical trends if it’s woven into pages about LeBron's career arc.
There’s plenty of Goldsberry’s trademark shot charts alongside Aaron Dana’s truly impressive art, but the best work here is the author’s thesis, which builds in frequency and force as the book goes. Goldsberry makes the case that the widespread adoption of analytics in the last decade has rapidly morphed the NBA into a stylistically homogeneous product, with current trends showing no indication of a plateau anytime soon. Nearly everyone shoots threes, even the league’s largest, most dominant interior players, *and they should,* Goldsberry says. A three is a smarter decision than all except the closest and easiest twos. But with everyone shooting more threes every year, it is only going to become increasingly more difficult for any player, regardless of their size, speed, athleticism, intelligence, craftiness, fundamentals, or any other trait to ever get on the court unless they are also good at making shots 25 feet from the basket. The teams and players making decisions to play this way are correct to do so; it’s the rule changes (some of them decades-old) that are now flawed, he argues. It’s okay if one of the things that makes some players great is the ability to shoot, but it is a major problem if that skill is the only thing that matters for anyone. Through historical precedent and statistical reasoning, Goldsberry persuasively campaigns for the NBA to consider a couple of his absolutely fascinating suggested rule changes, rather than resting on their laurels until the game is wholly unrecognizable.
It is a razor-thin line between criticizing the way the game is played now and coming off as a foolish Barkley-esque crank; Goldsberry walks it ever so precisely by acknowledging the current unequivocal truth that teams should shoot tons of threes, while advocating that the league tipping the scales in favor of strategic diversity is a clear necessity to prevent the sport from being stripped of so much of what makes it fantastic.
Most of the book is a data-driven look at the on-court evolution of a few of the league’s stars over the course of their careers. The *point* of the book, however, is to explore the strategies and aesthetics of the modern NBA. The chapter about LeBron, for example, features recaps and shot charts of many individual seasons in his career. Goldsberry uses the changes evident in LeBron’s game through the years to represent how the sport itself has changed too. It’s an excellent and effective framework from which to operate, as anyone would find it more enjoyable to read about gradual, large scale statistical trends if it’s woven into pages about LeBron's career arc.
There’s plenty of Goldsberry’s trademark shot charts alongside Aaron Dana’s truly impressive art, but the best work here is the author’s thesis, which builds in frequency and force as the book goes. Goldsberry makes the case that the widespread adoption of analytics in the last decade has rapidly morphed the NBA into a stylistically homogeneous product, with current trends showing no indication of a plateau anytime soon. Nearly everyone shoots threes, even the league’s largest, most dominant interior players, *and they should,* Goldsberry says. A three is a smarter decision than all except the closest and easiest twos. But with everyone shooting more threes every year, it is only going to become increasingly more difficult for any player, regardless of their size, speed, athleticism, intelligence, craftiness, fundamentals, or any other trait to ever get on the court unless they are also good at making shots 25 feet from the basket. The teams and players making decisions to play this way are correct to do so; it’s the rule changes (some of them decades-old) that are now flawed, he argues. It’s okay if one of the things that makes some players great is the ability to shoot, but it is a major problem if that skill is the only thing that matters for anyone. Through historical precedent and statistical reasoning, Goldsberry persuasively campaigns for the NBA to consider a couple of his absolutely fascinating suggested rule changes, rather than resting on their laurels until the game is wholly unrecognizable.
It is a razor-thin line between criticizing the way the game is played now and coming off as a foolish Barkley-esque crank; Goldsberry walks it ever so precisely by acknowledging the current unequivocal truth that teams should shoot tons of threes, while advocating that the league tipping the scales in favor of strategic diversity is a clear necessity to prevent the sport from being stripped of so much of what makes it fantastic.
July 1, 2019
Five-stars for the first half, 2.5 to 3 stars for the second half, averaged and rounded up to 4 stars. And that's as much data as I can manage.
I picked up this book at my brother-in-law's house and started flipping through it. I was immediately taken by this image:
The caption at the bottom reads, "No wonder the midrange is dying. it's basic economics." Paired up with other infographics throughout, early on the book helped me see basketball - particularly the NBA - in a new light. This book helped me enjoy the game more than I have since when I played it myself back in the 9th grade.
I taught economics for the first time this year. As often as I could, I wanted to hammer in just what economics actually is: scarcity and choice. (I actually teach 3 definitions - basically, the making, selling, and buying of stuff; and the study of how we decide (choice) to make/do with our scarce resources...)
That infographic afforded me the opportunity to hammer that point home yet again with something many, many students love: basketball. (And I know the dangers of teachers - especially male teachers - using, and overusing sports analogies... I tend to avoid them.) But we could watch 30 seconds of Kareem's sky hook, 30 seconds of Kobe's midrange fade-away, and 30 seconds of a Curry 3-point clinic. And then we could talk about how the chart shows scarcity and choice, and the predictions the book would be making: the game is changing.
I mean, this is obvious, right? I haven't followed basketball for years, but I know that Steph Curry changed the game, and I know how. But maybe the game was on a trajectory to change whether he was the catalyst or not.
The book was great. It must have been a monumental task to track that many shots, let alone where they were shot from. To plot them out. To get some meaningful datamaps out of the whole ordeal. (It's not enough just to gather data of course: the challenge is finding ways to use it correctly, and creatively.)
The problem with the book was that it got repetitive after a while. The three point line changed the game. I got that after chapter one. Now I know how my students feel when I'm hammering home a point they already know.
It picked back up at the very end, though, where Goldsberry was giving suggestions for how to keep the game interesting. Custom-lines? Brilliant. I would totally watch the NBA again if each court got to determine their own lines. What if... WHAT IF each team got to make their custom court (key, three, half-court/no half court) but they had to keep it for 5 years? What if Adam Silver decided the lines each week? There's got to be a way to computerize them onto the court, right? Brilliant. Allow defensive goal-tending again? Love it. Spike that shit like a volleyball. Beautiful. #NotInMyHouse.
It was a good book that reminded me of a game I once loved, and brought me back on board. I watched more NBA this year than I have in the past 20, and it was mostly because of this book.
I'll add that you can also see the influence of Shea Serrano here, of whom I'm also a fan. Also because of my brother-in-law, who is up with all the current greats. So, if you see that guy, give him a thumbs up.
I picked up this book at my brother-in-law's house and started flipping through it. I was immediately taken by this image:
The caption at the bottom reads, "No wonder the midrange is dying. it's basic economics." Paired up with other infographics throughout, early on the book helped me see basketball - particularly the NBA - in a new light. This book helped me enjoy the game more than I have since when I played it myself back in the 9th grade.
I taught economics for the first time this year. As often as I could, I wanted to hammer in just what economics actually is: scarcity and choice. (I actually teach 3 definitions - basically, the making, selling, and buying of stuff; and the study of how we decide (choice) to make/do with our scarce resources...)
That infographic afforded me the opportunity to hammer that point home yet again with something many, many students love: basketball. (And I know the dangers of teachers - especially male teachers - using, and overusing sports analogies... I tend to avoid them.) But we could watch 30 seconds of Kareem's sky hook, 30 seconds of Kobe's midrange fade-away, and 30 seconds of a Curry 3-point clinic. And then we could talk about how the chart shows scarcity and choice, and the predictions the book would be making: the game is changing.
I mean, this is obvious, right? I haven't followed basketball for years, but I know that Steph Curry changed the game, and I know how. But maybe the game was on a trajectory to change whether he was the catalyst or not.
The book was great. It must have been a monumental task to track that many shots, let alone where they were shot from. To plot them out. To get some meaningful datamaps out of the whole ordeal. (It's not enough just to gather data of course: the challenge is finding ways to use it correctly, and creatively.)
The problem with the book was that it got repetitive after a while. The three point line changed the game. I got that after chapter one. Now I know how my students feel when I'm hammering home a point they already know.
It picked back up at the very end, though, where Goldsberry was giving suggestions for how to keep the game interesting. Custom-lines? Brilliant. I would totally watch the NBA again if each court got to determine their own lines. What if... WHAT IF each team got to make their custom court (key, three, half-court/no half court) but they had to keep it for 5 years? What if Adam Silver decided the lines each week? There's got to be a way to computerize them onto the court, right? Brilliant. Allow defensive goal-tending again? Love it. Spike that shit like a volleyball. Beautiful. #NotInMyHouse.
It was a good book that reminded me of a game I once loved, and brought me back on board. I watched more NBA this year than I have in the past 20, and it was mostly because of this book.
I'll add that you can also see the influence of Shea Serrano here, of whom I'm also a fan. Also because of my brother-in-law, who is up with all the current greats. So, if you see that guy, give him a thumbs up.
September 23, 2024
Lo disfruté mucho. Me motivó a leer después de un buen rato. Los gráficos están preciosos y el argumento me convenció: la línea de 3 se tiene que repensar si queremos que el juego sea tan diverso como nos gusta.
Lo malo es que es un poco largo y repetitivo. El tercer gráfico del mismo tipo aburre y me hubiera gustado que explotara más tipos de datos. Pero bueno, esto me recordó lo que me gusta y que por lo menos voy a tener que ser coach de una primaria.
Lo malo es que es un poco largo y repetitivo. El tercer gráfico del mismo tipo aburre y me hubiera gustado que explotara más tipos de datos. Pero bueno, esto me recordó lo que me gusta y que por lo menos voy a tener que ser coach de una primaria.
May 12, 2019
A super thoughtful gift from Dr. Matt Andrews. Every hoop nerd should read this book to understand the offensive revolution that hoop is going through. Tbh, social scientists and historians in general might get a lot out of this book in terms of understanding sudden trends, causation, and homogenization of cultures.
That might seem like a lot to put on a book about 3 pointers, but I think Goldsberry develops a lot of themes that go well beyond hoops. His base argument is that while the frequency of 3 point shots has increased at a steady if modest clip since the institution of the shot in 1979, the last 8 years or so have witnessed a sudden spike pioneered by teams like the Dubs and the Rockets. Goldsberry explains this shift in a few ways. Some of it is the long term trend away from the dominant big man; something like 25 of the first 30 or so MVPs were big men, but since the 80s they have steadily been on the decline. Rule changes like the widening of the paint and the allowance of more contact in the post than the 3 area have contributed to this shift. Some of it is more cultural: the steady quantification of more and more of our society, the money-ball style search for efficiency. Some of it is more eclectic and random: the rise of phenomenally talented players like Curry and Harden who developed unique and unprecedented skills to take full advantage of the game (Curry's developing of the 3 point shot off the shimmy-shake dribble and Harden's all-time-great step back). The NBA's decision to crack down on hand checking made driving easier, which makes the drive and kick 3 one of the core plays of the NBA today. And yes, this is sort of an annales-school explanation of 3-point shooting.
Goldsberry charts this story through the careers of Curry, Harden, and Kevin Love. He shows how Love has completely shifted to a bang-em-up post guy to a leaner catch and shoot guy. He has awesome charts that show the homogenization of shots and the greater efficiency (in points per shot) of shot very close to the hoop and very far away. He shows how Lebron has maintained a status as the best player in the league mainly by being ultra-efficient around the hoop (dunks and other vicious rim assaults) and by increasingly driving and kicking to spot up threes. He tracks the extinction of certain types of players like Al Jefferson and Roy Hibbert. The former is a tricky power forward type who takes a lot of mid-rangers and has a set of clever post moves. The latter was a dominant rim defender and classic big doofus who just muscled guys at the rim. Both of them, and dozens of people like them, are out of a job. Their offensive efficiency levels are low, and they can't guard quick 3 point shooting guards off the catch. Curry or Harden going against Hibbert at the top of the key will be a bucket 90% of the time. So increasingly NBA guys are getting smaller, quicker, and more homogeneous. Just look at the Rockets and Warriors and Celtics rosters. Who is the point guard? Who is the center? This book doesn't just point these things out, but explains who the 3 revolution has changed what NBA players look like and how they behave.
The last bit of the book features some really interesting ideas about how (or whether) to change the rules to move away from rising 3 point dominance. Some of them were silly: I hated the idea of letting gyms rate their own lines, which would make comparative stats all but meaningless. The real thing to do would be to allow more contact on the perimeter, cut down on Harden-esque nonsense foul drawing, and then narrow the lane to allow more post play. Goldsberry makes a great case that the NBA has always adjusted the rules to ensure better competitive balance and aesthetics for the game, and there's no reason no to do so now. Why might the 3 point revolution be bad for the game, you might ask. Goldsberry argues is that it destroys variety in the game. Everyone is increasingly doing the same thing; stick guys in the corner, run a pick and roll to get a favorable switch, then either attack the hoop, shoot a 3, or kick to the wing for a 3. I couldn't help but notice in recent Rockets-Warriors games that they were doing this over and over again. Part of what makes basketball the greatest game every (which it objectively is) is the "choose your weapon" element. Some teams ride dominant big men, others choose fleet-footed wings to outrun opponents, others are 3-heavy, and others go with slashers and mid range guys like Kobe and KD. The fun is in the variety, the match-up of different styles. Of course, what we are now seeing is that some of these styles aren't as efficient as taking 40-50% of your shots from 3, like the Rockets do. If the best teams are doing that kind of stuff, odds are other teams will try to copy them, homogenizing the league further.
Goldsberry's conclusion is, in the end, quite humanistic: it's the league's prerogative, and maybe even its responsibility, to counter the tyranny of math and incentivize a more diverse game. I, for one, love watching amazing 3 point shooters like Steph, but I hate watching guys with varied and interesting games homogenize to the trend and start jacking up threes, especially when they aren't very good at it. I want to see Stephs and Harden, but I also want to see slashing De'Aaron Foxes, bruisers like Embiid, mid-range assassins like Kawhi and KD, and smooth-footed fat bastards like Jokic. I'm with Goldsberry; let a thousand flowers bloom. Anything to not have to watch Brook Lopez clang another 3.
That might seem like a lot to put on a book about 3 pointers, but I think Goldsberry develops a lot of themes that go well beyond hoops. His base argument is that while the frequency of 3 point shots has increased at a steady if modest clip since the institution of the shot in 1979, the last 8 years or so have witnessed a sudden spike pioneered by teams like the Dubs and the Rockets. Goldsberry explains this shift in a few ways. Some of it is the long term trend away from the dominant big man; something like 25 of the first 30 or so MVPs were big men, but since the 80s they have steadily been on the decline. Rule changes like the widening of the paint and the allowance of more contact in the post than the 3 area have contributed to this shift. Some of it is more cultural: the steady quantification of more and more of our society, the money-ball style search for efficiency. Some of it is more eclectic and random: the rise of phenomenally talented players like Curry and Harden who developed unique and unprecedented skills to take full advantage of the game (Curry's developing of the 3 point shot off the shimmy-shake dribble and Harden's all-time-great step back). The NBA's decision to crack down on hand checking made driving easier, which makes the drive and kick 3 one of the core plays of the NBA today. And yes, this is sort of an annales-school explanation of 3-point shooting.
Goldsberry charts this story through the careers of Curry, Harden, and Kevin Love. He shows how Love has completely shifted to a bang-em-up post guy to a leaner catch and shoot guy. He has awesome charts that show the homogenization of shots and the greater efficiency (in points per shot) of shot very close to the hoop and very far away. He shows how Lebron has maintained a status as the best player in the league mainly by being ultra-efficient around the hoop (dunks and other vicious rim assaults) and by increasingly driving and kicking to spot up threes. He tracks the extinction of certain types of players like Al Jefferson and Roy Hibbert. The former is a tricky power forward type who takes a lot of mid-rangers and has a set of clever post moves. The latter was a dominant rim defender and classic big doofus who just muscled guys at the rim. Both of them, and dozens of people like them, are out of a job. Their offensive efficiency levels are low, and they can't guard quick 3 point shooting guards off the catch. Curry or Harden going against Hibbert at the top of the key will be a bucket 90% of the time. So increasingly NBA guys are getting smaller, quicker, and more homogeneous. Just look at the Rockets and Warriors and Celtics rosters. Who is the point guard? Who is the center? This book doesn't just point these things out, but explains who the 3 revolution has changed what NBA players look like and how they behave.
The last bit of the book features some really interesting ideas about how (or whether) to change the rules to move away from rising 3 point dominance. Some of them were silly: I hated the idea of letting gyms rate their own lines, which would make comparative stats all but meaningless. The real thing to do would be to allow more contact on the perimeter, cut down on Harden-esque nonsense foul drawing, and then narrow the lane to allow more post play. Goldsberry makes a great case that the NBA has always adjusted the rules to ensure better competitive balance and aesthetics for the game, and there's no reason no to do so now. Why might the 3 point revolution be bad for the game, you might ask. Goldsberry argues is that it destroys variety in the game. Everyone is increasingly doing the same thing; stick guys in the corner, run a pick and roll to get a favorable switch, then either attack the hoop, shoot a 3, or kick to the wing for a 3. I couldn't help but notice in recent Rockets-Warriors games that they were doing this over and over again. Part of what makes basketball the greatest game every (which it objectively is) is the "choose your weapon" element. Some teams ride dominant big men, others choose fleet-footed wings to outrun opponents, others are 3-heavy, and others go with slashers and mid range guys like Kobe and KD. The fun is in the variety, the match-up of different styles. Of course, what we are now seeing is that some of these styles aren't as efficient as taking 40-50% of your shots from 3, like the Rockets do. If the best teams are doing that kind of stuff, odds are other teams will try to copy them, homogenizing the league further.
Goldsberry's conclusion is, in the end, quite humanistic: it's the league's prerogative, and maybe even its responsibility, to counter the tyranny of math and incentivize a more diverse game. I, for one, love watching amazing 3 point shooters like Steph, but I hate watching guys with varied and interesting games homogenize to the trend and start jacking up threes, especially when they aren't very good at it. I want to see Stephs and Harden, but I also want to see slashing De'Aaron Foxes, bruisers like Embiid, mid-range assassins like Kawhi and KD, and smooth-footed fat bastards like Jokic. I'm with Goldsberry; let a thousand flowers bloom. Anything to not have to watch Brook Lopez clang another 3.
June 12, 2024
A somewhat dated book about how Steph Curry is looking good at shooting the three. In all seriousness it has good data and was probably influential when it came out, but now this information is pretty common knowledge for most basketball fans. So enjoyed it but not sure who the audience in this day and age is. Maybe young kids getting into.basketball. Still well done..
May 27, 2024
A bit repetitive but a very insightful book about the current state of the NBA. Particularly enjoyed the creative solutions offered for some of the problems with the game today.
October 9, 2023
Great book. The analytics are amazing and actually fun.
May 12, 2019
As a serious basketball fan, some of the stuff in this book was old news to me. For example, the idea that threes are more efficient shots than twos. But the book did give me a better understanding of a lot of these ideas. I didn't realize that shooting percentages don't really get that much different as you move farther out. I never thought too much about how efficient it is to draw fouls. Or how important it is to be able to have a quick release on your threes. Or how quickly the extinction of traditional big is going extinct. Eg. Kevin Love's post game basically disappearing and him shooting more threes than Reggie Miller used to. I also really liked how Goldsberry provided a lot of historical context, about rules have changed over the years.
The thing that I didn't like is that I found the book to be very repetitive. The same ideas were harped on and brought up over and over and over again.
Another thing I didn't like is that at times it felt like there was a lot of just recapping certain events. For example, there was a chapter on LeBron, and the chapter spent a long time just going over his career, sort of giving a lot of play-by-play recaps at times, as opposed to talking about some unique or insightful idea.
The thing that I didn't like is that I found the book to be very repetitive. The same ideas were harped on and brought up over and over and over again.
Another thing I didn't like is that at times it felt like there was a lot of just recapping certain events. For example, there was a chapter on LeBron, and the chapter spent a long time just going over his career, sort of giving a lot of play-by-play recaps at times, as opposed to talking about some unique or insightful idea.
August 4, 2020
Not sure anything in here would be groundbreaking for any longtime viewer, fan, or observer of professional basketball. The three-point shot--due in part to its irrationality (in no other sport can you score an additional point for roughly the same amount of effort in the normal course of a possession)--combined with a modern search for efficiency has altered the way basketball is played, how teams value and develop players, and how players overhaul their game over years to become more marketable and successful. Goldsberry puts all of that together in a well-presented, well-researched, at times repetitive, but very enjoyable package. Get rid of the corner three! LeBron James might be under-rated! I still can't watch James Harden!
June 8, 2019
This book is physically beautiful and contains some revolutionary ideas about NBA basketball, but it should have been half the length at most. Goldsberry repeats the same points over and over and over again, leaving me feeling frustrated instead of intrigued by his new ideas.
Some of Goldsberry's observations center around the decline of centers amidst the rising supremacy of the three-pointer. Using a slew of spectacular graphs and charts, Goldsberry shows with stunning clarity how the NBA game has moved out onto the perimeter.
Goldsberry has some fascinating ideas about how to counter this trend (move the three-point line two feet further out, make the lane half as wide to allow for more post play, call contact under the basket as fouls just like contact around the perimeter). He saves those ideas for the very end, so I was glad that I made it through his repetitive prose.
Some of Goldsberry's observations center around the decline of centers amidst the rising supremacy of the three-pointer. Using a slew of spectacular graphs and charts, Goldsberry shows with stunning clarity how the NBA game has moved out onto the perimeter.
Goldsberry has some fascinating ideas about how to counter this trend (move the three-point line two feet further out, make the lane half as wide to allow for more post play, call contact under the basket as fouls just like contact around the perimeter). He saves those ideas for the very end, so I was glad that I made it through his repetitive prose.
June 1, 2019
I have enjoyed much of Kirk Goldsberry's work online for a while now, so getting this book was a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it suffered from a number of maladies:
1. Not a ton of new content if you follow Goldsberry online, or if you are generally knowledgeable about basic basketball analytics.
2. It was extremely redundant, with a handful of themes hammered home over and over and over and over again. This book could have easily been a 5 part series on Grantland, for example.
3. I thought a lot of the analysis of various players was uneven and sometimes even hypocritical. He seems to take special aim at Steph Curry (no mention of his injury during 2016 Finals was surprising and certainly not consistent with the style of the rest of the book, where caveats often abound) and Draymond Green (basically saying he cheats on every play on defense, which is ridiculous to single him out for in today's NBA).
On the good sign, the graphics are nice, and I think this would be a GREAT book for someone who isn't a big-time basketball fan and would appreciate being spoonfed some modern analytics with particular respect to the three point line. Finally, some of the suggestions for fixing this "problem" with the modern NBA were fascinating.
Overall, I was disappointed. 4.5/10.
1. Not a ton of new content if you follow Goldsberry online, or if you are generally knowledgeable about basic basketball analytics.
2. It was extremely redundant, with a handful of themes hammered home over and over and over and over again. This book could have easily been a 5 part series on Grantland, for example.
3. I thought a lot of the analysis of various players was uneven and sometimes even hypocritical. He seems to take special aim at Steph Curry (no mention of his injury during 2016 Finals was surprising and certainly not consistent with the style of the rest of the book, where caveats often abound) and Draymond Green (basically saying he cheats on every play on defense, which is ridiculous to single him out for in today's NBA).
On the good sign, the graphics are nice, and I think this would be a GREAT book for someone who isn't a big-time basketball fan and would appreciate being spoonfed some modern analytics with particular respect to the three point line. Finally, some of the suggestions for fixing this "problem" with the modern NBA were fascinating.
Overall, I was disappointed. 4.5/10.
November 20, 2019
A really interesting and insightful look into how big men and interior scoring have been marginalized through a few key rule changes, resulting in the emphasis on 3pt shooting that we're witnessing in today's NBA
December 3, 2020
You could say this is the perfect NBA book, because you can skip right to the fourth quarter and still no all you need to know about the game the day after.
In all seriousness, there are some fine ideas here, but this should’ve been a 10-page article, not a book.
In all seriousness, there are some fine ideas here, but this should’ve been a 10-page article, not a book.
June 10, 2019
The stories, analytics, and visuals are awesome. The recommendations about the aesthetics of the game (ch 7) are somewhat silly. Overall, I highly recommend it to any NBA/stats nerd!
July 17, 2019
Fun read. Lots learnt.
May 24, 2019
Very provocative. Great graphics of course. Interesting ideas to fix the problems caused by the league becoming obsessed with threes. And absolutely wonderful (and funny) artwork.
April 16, 2020
I followed basketball through high school but mostly stopped watching games when I started college in 2014. This book opened my eyes to the severity of the stylistic changes in the league since then. With a thorough analysis of several case studies of players, Goldsberry shows that analytics-driven play in the quest for optimal offensive efficiency has drastically shifted the strategy and aesthetics of the game in recent years. Would highly recommend to anyone who’s been living under a rock for a while like I was (but maybe not super useful to anyone who’s closely followed the league between 2014-2019).
June 4, 2019
Beautiful book and really intersting. Needed a better editor - it’s super repetitive, could be half the size. Awesome graphics.
May 11, 2020
Goldsberry is one of the better NBA writers, but this book fell a bit flat. Repeated graphics, sentences which repeat throughout the book give the vibe that Goldsberry just wanted to pad the pages. It reads as a disjointed, extended basketball article.
Why three stars? The stories of players and the shot charts were done well. And the final chapter saves the book. The suggestions on how to move the 3-point line to balance the game was very interesting. In particular, reading about the abilities of analytics to be used not at a team level, but on a game design basis, was one of the better things I've read. I would love for these ideas to be explored by upper management as I do fear that the quest for hyper-efficiency will end up tarnishing the NBA viewing experience.
If you like Goldsberry's writings, you won't hate the book, but you will be left slightly wanting at the wasted potential behind Sprawlball.
Why three stars? The stories of players and the shot charts were done well. And the final chapter saves the book. The suggestions on how to move the 3-point line to balance the game was very interesting. In particular, reading about the abilities of analytics to be used not at a team level, but on a game design basis, was one of the better things I've read. I would love for these ideas to be explored by upper management as I do fear that the quest for hyper-efficiency will end up tarnishing the NBA viewing experience.
If you like Goldsberry's writings, you won't hate the book, but you will be left slightly wanting at the wasted potential behind Sprawlball.
November 17, 2021
It is repetitive indeed and that takes some of the joy out of it. Maybe for an edition/extension that will cover 2020s trends with rule changes, with serious editing of course, this book can be saved from its collections-of-essays-feel. However, for any basketball nerd that cannot get enough of this stuff, this is only a minor setback.
October 24, 2022
Sprawlball: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA by Kirk Goldsberry, I give this book 4 Stars out of ten. I gave the book 4/5 stars because of the way it showed players in their prime and how the NBA recently started evolving. The one thing that I don’t like that docked off a star is that the book is a little bit outdated not showing the new era of deep shooters and point forwards. The book also isn’t showing the new stars or the new upcoming stars, those are the reasons I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 stars.
Sprawl ball possessed good basketball knowledge and statistics of how the game has recently been played. The book showcased how Stephen Curry has changed the game and the evolution of Lebron James. The game used to be played by staying in the paint ( close to the basket) and just putting it up from there but the game has evolved to playing along the perimeter and occasionally driving in. The book also does a great job of showing how consistent some of the shots are, showing the percentage of going in from a certain spot. The book also showcases the old eras of basketball and old superstars that used to be really good showing how they played and how good of a career they have had.
Sprawl ball also shows most the teams that have previously won championships such as the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Golden state warriors. The Cleveland Cavaliers have faced each other in the NBA finals in the years 2015, 2016 2017 and 2018 both the best teams in the league at the time. The golden state warriors won all but one of the matchups which was when the Cleveland Cavaliers won in the year 2016 coming back from being down 3-1. The Cavaliers had two very good players who were Lebron James who now plays for the Los Angeles Lakers and Kyrie Irving who now plays for the Brooklyn Nets. Kyrie and Lebron carried the Cavaliers to win the championship that year but the warriors won 3 of the 4 times they faced up because they had Steph Curry, Draymond Green and Klay thompsons, Klay thompson being one of the best shooters ever and Steph curry being the best shooter ever Draymond green wasn’t a good shooter but he hustled, had good defense and passing completing the team good.
The book also goes into depth on the leagues past stars from like 30-40 years ago such as Larry Bird and Bill Russel. Bill russel used to dominate the NBA back in the 1950s and 1960s going down as one of the best to ever do it but that title goes to Micheal Jordan. Larry bird played back in the 1980s and went down as another great in the game, he scored 40 points only using his off hand. Showing that the book had a good mixture of how the game used to be played years and years ago and how the game is being played today.
So overall the book Sprawl ball was given ⅘ stars just for being a little outdated but the book showed the different eras of the game really good. It showed the recents events of the Cavaliers and Warriors showcasing the new stars and it also showed the old eras pretty well. I like how the book showed the different styles the game underwent during different years along with the percentage of shots going in had from different areas on the court. Those are my thoughts on the book Sprawl ball: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA and why I gave it a 4 star rating
Sprawl ball possessed good basketball knowledge and statistics of how the game has recently been played. The book showcased how Stephen Curry has changed the game and the evolution of Lebron James. The game used to be played by staying in the paint ( close to the basket) and just putting it up from there but the game has evolved to playing along the perimeter and occasionally driving in. The book also does a great job of showing how consistent some of the shots are, showing the percentage of going in from a certain spot. The book also showcases the old eras of basketball and old superstars that used to be really good showing how they played and how good of a career they have had.
Sprawl ball also shows most the teams that have previously won championships such as the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Golden state warriors. The Cleveland Cavaliers have faced each other in the NBA finals in the years 2015, 2016 2017 and 2018 both the best teams in the league at the time. The golden state warriors won all but one of the matchups which was when the Cleveland Cavaliers won in the year 2016 coming back from being down 3-1. The Cavaliers had two very good players who were Lebron James who now plays for the Los Angeles Lakers and Kyrie Irving who now plays for the Brooklyn Nets. Kyrie and Lebron carried the Cavaliers to win the championship that year but the warriors won 3 of the 4 times they faced up because they had Steph Curry, Draymond Green and Klay thompsons, Klay thompson being one of the best shooters ever and Steph curry being the best shooter ever Draymond green wasn’t a good shooter but he hustled, had good defense and passing completing the team good.
The book also goes into depth on the leagues past stars from like 30-40 years ago such as Larry Bird and Bill Russel. Bill russel used to dominate the NBA back in the 1950s and 1960s going down as one of the best to ever do it but that title goes to Micheal Jordan. Larry bird played back in the 1980s and went down as another great in the game, he scored 40 points only using his off hand. Showing that the book had a good mixture of how the game used to be played years and years ago and how the game is being played today.
So overall the book Sprawl ball was given ⅘ stars just for being a little outdated but the book showed the different eras of the game really good. It showed the recents events of the Cavaliers and Warriors showcasing the new stars and it also showed the old eras pretty well. I like how the book showed the different styles the game underwent during different years along with the percentage of shots going in had from different areas on the court. Those are my thoughts on the book Sprawl ball: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA and why I gave it a 4 star rating
November 23, 2019
The NBA has changed much over the years. In the past, the point guard would bring the basketball down the court and pass the ball to the center or the power forward, who was often positioned close to the basket. Many coaches and players considered that to be a high percentage shot.
If the center or power forward was covered well, then the point guard would look to pass to someone else. Or if the center or power forward received the pass close to the basket and was double teamed, he would pass the basketball out back to the guards.
Teams would routinely look to draft or sign big men. They would consistently look to acquire a dominant center or power forward. This appeared to be the way to win games and have successful seasons. George Mikan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Wes Unseld, Bob Lanier, Kareem Abdul Jabaar and others were considered to be impact players. Later on, Hakeem Alajuwon, Shaquielle Oneal, Tim Duncan would lead teams to championships.
However, the game is different now. It is common now for teams to focus on the perimeter game. Often, all five players will station themselves in back of the three point line. All five players on the court are often capable of making three point shots. Players are spaced out in back of the three point line. The three point shot has often become the first option in today's NBA.
Kirk Goldsberry, in his book "Sprawlball: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA" discusses this change and other changes in the NBA. Goldsberry does a good job of chronicling some of the changes that the league has experienced. He does a good job of contrasting the modern day NBA with the NBA of the past.
The change from emphasizing interior offense to perimeter offense is discussed by Goldsberry. He points out that the change has been gradual from year to year. The changes slowly began in 1979 when the three point shot was introduced. Goldsberry also points out that the focus on the three point shot influences how teams build rosters. The league simply values the perimeter game more than the interior game.
Goldsberry refers to Steph Curry as a good example of how the NBA has changed. Curry, Goldberry points out, became the NBA's all time best three point shooter by creating his own shot. Before Curry and other modern players, three point shooters often made shots after they caught passes in back of the three point line. This is known as "catch and shoot." However, Curry is able to create his own shot in isolation. Goldsberry points out that Curry would not have become the best three point shooter in league history without being able to dribble well and work in isolation. Additionally, Goldsberry points out that during the 2015 playoffs, Curry was also able to score closer to the basket along the the interior. This made Curry a more effective three point shooter as well because teams had to guard against Curry scoring from the interior and the perimeter.
In fact, many NBA players today can score from the interior and the perimeter. Point guards and shooting guards will dribble in back of the three point line and score from beyond the arc or dribble into the lane and try and score. The player may score, get fouled or miss the shot. However, many times a skilled offensive player will score. The rules favor the offense. Since defensive players are no longer allowed to hand check the offensive player, the ball handler can go to the basket unimpeded. This is true for Curry, but is also true for players like James Harden, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant, Bradley Beal and many other strong offensive players.
Goldsberry points out that Curry had made 402 three point shots between 2014-2016. Those two seasons established Curry as the game's best offensive player. It also helped further solidify the NBA has a three point shooting league. The league had been slowly moving in that direction since 1979, the year the three point shot became part of the NBA. However, by the end of 2016, the transition was complete.
The shooting guards in the NBA take many shots from the three point line. Goldsberry points out that "By 2018, NBA shooting guards were taking over 40 percent of their shots from three-point range." The guards concentrate on making three point shots. The three point shot had become the "bread and butter" shot for point guards and shooting guards. Goldsberry emphasizes that as the number of three point shots have increased, the offensive attempts in the interior have decreased.
Accuracy in three point shooting is obviously very important. However, quickness is also imperative. Goldsberry says "When we talk about shooting effectiveness, we're quick to talk about accuracy, but we also need to consider speed. As threes become more and more important in our sport, the ability of guys to catch and shoot quickly will become increasingly prominent in our conversations about shooting ability." Players will need to continue to shoot quickly so that their shots are not contested or blocked. Accuracy and quickness are hallmarks of good perimeter shooters.
When discussing the changes in the game, Goldsberry makes some interesting points: He says the league has had the three point shot more years than it did not have the three point shot. Goldsberry points out that the league, since it's founding in 1947, has been willing to change it's rulebook to keep the league exciting and unique. Goldsberry also discusses the way that the 24 second shot clock altered the NBA game. Goldsberry points out the extent to which George Mikan's dominance influenced certain rule changes in the NBA. Ironically, Mikan was the ABA commissioner when the league adopted the three point shot. Of course, the ABA's influence was instrumental in the NBA's decision to implement the three point shot.
Goldsberry makes a good point in the final chapter of the book: He says "In the 2018 NBA playoffs were any indication, the current aesthetic is dominated by three interrelated trends: positional versatility, perimeter shooting, and isolation plays." This is a good point. The current NBA is all about versatile, multi- talented players who can shoot from the outside and create their own shot. This is not only the trend of the current NBA, it is the reality of the modern day NBA. It is where the league is at. It is the present day approach of most teams.
Proponents of the modern day approach say that the game is more fluid and exciting. Critics of the modern day game say that the NBA lacks balance. Both the proponents and the critics like and support the NBA. Proponents and critics simply have different view points.
The offensive game of the NBA is at an all time high. Teams score a lot of points and have excellent shooting range with the basketball. However, the emphasis on offense has taken away from the defense. Defense appears to be played with less pride and urgency. Shots are contested, but most defensive attempts to contest shots are ineffective and too slow. Additionally, players who are in back of the perimeter can always dribble by the defender if they decide not to shoot a three point shot.
The emphasis on the perimeter game also takes away from offensive rebounding because all five players are often in back of the three point line so they are out of position for an offensive rebound.
Nevertheless, this is where the NBA is today. Fans and observers can still enjoy the game. The games are played by good athletes with distinctive skill sets. The NBA has been through many changes since 1947. The game is still worth watching and supporting.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the history of the NBA. The book does a good job of showing how the league has changed through the years.
If the center or power forward was covered well, then the point guard would look to pass to someone else. Or if the center or power forward received the pass close to the basket and was double teamed, he would pass the basketball out back to the guards.
Teams would routinely look to draft or sign big men. They would consistently look to acquire a dominant center or power forward. This appeared to be the way to win games and have successful seasons. George Mikan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Wes Unseld, Bob Lanier, Kareem Abdul Jabaar and others were considered to be impact players. Later on, Hakeem Alajuwon, Shaquielle Oneal, Tim Duncan would lead teams to championships.
However, the game is different now. It is common now for teams to focus on the perimeter game. Often, all five players will station themselves in back of the three point line. All five players on the court are often capable of making three point shots. Players are spaced out in back of the three point line. The three point shot has often become the first option in today's NBA.
Kirk Goldsberry, in his book "Sprawlball: A Visual Tour of the New Era of the NBA" discusses this change and other changes in the NBA. Goldsberry does a good job of chronicling some of the changes that the league has experienced. He does a good job of contrasting the modern day NBA with the NBA of the past.
The change from emphasizing interior offense to perimeter offense is discussed by Goldsberry. He points out that the change has been gradual from year to year. The changes slowly began in 1979 when the three point shot was introduced. Goldsberry also points out that the focus on the three point shot influences how teams build rosters. The league simply values the perimeter game more than the interior game.
Goldsberry refers to Steph Curry as a good example of how the NBA has changed. Curry, Goldberry points out, became the NBA's all time best three point shooter by creating his own shot. Before Curry and other modern players, three point shooters often made shots after they caught passes in back of the three point line. This is known as "catch and shoot." However, Curry is able to create his own shot in isolation. Goldsberry points out that Curry would not have become the best three point shooter in league history without being able to dribble well and work in isolation. Additionally, Goldsberry points out that during the 2015 playoffs, Curry was also able to score closer to the basket along the the interior. This made Curry a more effective three point shooter as well because teams had to guard against Curry scoring from the interior and the perimeter.
In fact, many NBA players today can score from the interior and the perimeter. Point guards and shooting guards will dribble in back of the three point line and score from beyond the arc or dribble into the lane and try and score. The player may score, get fouled or miss the shot. However, many times a skilled offensive player will score. The rules favor the offense. Since defensive players are no longer allowed to hand check the offensive player, the ball handler can go to the basket unimpeded. This is true for Curry, but is also true for players like James Harden, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant, Bradley Beal and many other strong offensive players.
Goldsberry points out that Curry had made 402 three point shots between 2014-2016. Those two seasons established Curry as the game's best offensive player. It also helped further solidify the NBA has a three point shooting league. The league had been slowly moving in that direction since 1979, the year the three point shot became part of the NBA. However, by the end of 2016, the transition was complete.
The shooting guards in the NBA take many shots from the three point line. Goldsberry points out that "By 2018, NBA shooting guards were taking over 40 percent of their shots from three-point range." The guards concentrate on making three point shots. The three point shot had become the "bread and butter" shot for point guards and shooting guards. Goldsberry emphasizes that as the number of three point shots have increased, the offensive attempts in the interior have decreased.
Accuracy in three point shooting is obviously very important. However, quickness is also imperative. Goldsberry says "When we talk about shooting effectiveness, we're quick to talk about accuracy, but we also need to consider speed. As threes become more and more important in our sport, the ability of guys to catch and shoot quickly will become increasingly prominent in our conversations about shooting ability." Players will need to continue to shoot quickly so that their shots are not contested or blocked. Accuracy and quickness are hallmarks of good perimeter shooters.
When discussing the changes in the game, Goldsberry makes some interesting points: He says the league has had the three point shot more years than it did not have the three point shot. Goldsberry points out that the league, since it's founding in 1947, has been willing to change it's rulebook to keep the league exciting and unique. Goldsberry also discusses the way that the 24 second shot clock altered the NBA game. Goldsberry points out the extent to which George Mikan's dominance influenced certain rule changes in the NBA. Ironically, Mikan was the ABA commissioner when the league adopted the three point shot. Of course, the ABA's influence was instrumental in the NBA's decision to implement the three point shot.
Goldsberry makes a good point in the final chapter of the book: He says "In the 2018 NBA playoffs were any indication, the current aesthetic is dominated by three interrelated trends: positional versatility, perimeter shooting, and isolation plays." This is a good point. The current NBA is all about versatile, multi- talented players who can shoot from the outside and create their own shot. This is not only the trend of the current NBA, it is the reality of the modern day NBA. It is where the league is at. It is the present day approach of most teams.
Proponents of the modern day approach say that the game is more fluid and exciting. Critics of the modern day game say that the NBA lacks balance. Both the proponents and the critics like and support the NBA. Proponents and critics simply have different view points.
The offensive game of the NBA is at an all time high. Teams score a lot of points and have excellent shooting range with the basketball. However, the emphasis on offense has taken away from the defense. Defense appears to be played with less pride and urgency. Shots are contested, but most defensive attempts to contest shots are ineffective and too slow. Additionally, players who are in back of the perimeter can always dribble by the defender if they decide not to shoot a three point shot.
The emphasis on the perimeter game also takes away from offensive rebounding because all five players are often in back of the three point line so they are out of position for an offensive rebound.
Nevertheless, this is where the NBA is today. Fans and observers can still enjoy the game. The games are played by good athletes with distinctive skill sets. The NBA has been through many changes since 1947. The game is still worth watching and supporting.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the history of the NBA. The book does a good job of showing how the league has changed through the years.
July 19, 2024
2.25/5.00
This book, plainly speaking, is best described as coffee table book. The content is extremely repetitive, filled in with not just large shot charts covering most of a page that relate to the content, but also pictures that, while relevant to the content, do not contribute to any better understanding of the text.
The pages, in the copy I have, are square and quite thick, but because of the way they are presented, light reflects directly off the pages back into your eyes, which makes it difficult to read.
However, this is not necessarily the fault of Goldsberry. What is the fault of Goldsberry, however, is that the book is directed at casual fans, and oversimplifies basic concepts and repeats them incessantly. Further, I doubt whether Goldsberry fully understands the concept of pace and space basketball. He flirted with an understanding that teams shoot more 3s to open space around the rim, but, in the final chapter, moved back to an idea that was expressed throughout, that teams are shooting more 3s because they want to make basketball dull and do no matter what. He expresses in this chapter that what makes basketball exciting are athletic plays around the rim, and yet, ignores the fact that in 5-out basketball, if one man beats his player, and there’s no help defense, then he can elevate at the rim for an athletic finish.
Therefore, 3s are a means to an end, where the end is that more efficient shots are obtained around the rim, whereas Goldsberry seems to believe that 3s are a means and an end.
Additionally, Goldsberry spends a chapter on shooting speed release, insisting that teams will track this and only pay for players who can shoot 0.05 of a second faster than others. While it’s 5 years since the book was published, I feel that even back in 2019, this idea would still seem ludicrous.
Further, in this 5 years, unlike as Goldsberry predicted, the big man is more prominent that ever, with Jokic, Embiid and Giannis. However, what Goldsberry fails to grasp is that teams are more oriented towards skill, rather than bumbly bigs whose skills are limited to rebounding.
Overall, if you are looking for a decoration for your coffee table that might look pretty, then get this book. Otherwise, I would suggest it isn’t necessarily worth the time to read, unless you are completely clueless about basketball.
This book, plainly speaking, is best described as coffee table book. The content is extremely repetitive, filled in with not just large shot charts covering most of a page that relate to the content, but also pictures that, while relevant to the content, do not contribute to any better understanding of the text.
The pages, in the copy I have, are square and quite thick, but because of the way they are presented, light reflects directly off the pages back into your eyes, which makes it difficult to read.
However, this is not necessarily the fault of Goldsberry. What is the fault of Goldsberry, however, is that the book is directed at casual fans, and oversimplifies basic concepts and repeats them incessantly. Further, I doubt whether Goldsberry fully understands the concept of pace and space basketball. He flirted with an understanding that teams shoot more 3s to open space around the rim, but, in the final chapter, moved back to an idea that was expressed throughout, that teams are shooting more 3s because they want to make basketball dull and do no matter what. He expresses in this chapter that what makes basketball exciting are athletic plays around the rim, and yet, ignores the fact that in 5-out basketball, if one man beats his player, and there’s no help defense, then he can elevate at the rim for an athletic finish.
Therefore, 3s are a means to an end, where the end is that more efficient shots are obtained around the rim, whereas Goldsberry seems to believe that 3s are a means and an end.
Additionally, Goldsberry spends a chapter on shooting speed release, insisting that teams will track this and only pay for players who can shoot 0.05 of a second faster than others. While it’s 5 years since the book was published, I feel that even back in 2019, this idea would still seem ludicrous.
Further, in this 5 years, unlike as Goldsberry predicted, the big man is more prominent that ever, with Jokic, Embiid and Giannis. However, what Goldsberry fails to grasp is that teams are more oriented towards skill, rather than bumbly bigs whose skills are limited to rebounding.
Overall, if you are looking for a decoration for your coffee table that might look pretty, then get this book. Otherwise, I would suggest it isn’t necessarily worth the time to read, unless you are completely clueless about basketball.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 19, 2020
Let's talk about the best sport in the world--BASKETBALL! Well, if you don't agree, you have to admit that it is the fastest growing sport in the world. : )
SPRAWLBALL is a book unlike any other I've read. It took me longer than I thought to read, but, then again, some MAJOR life events occurred, which hindered me quite a bit.
This book is written by Kirk Goldsberry, whose goal was to track every shot in the NBA in order to track how/where the game is going. He is the pioneer of the NBA's analytics eras. So many current and former players have pushed back against these stats, saying people aren't robots and they can't be fully predicted. People can make these claims ALL they want, but there's NO denying that the NBA has changed. From pretty much the beginning, the NBA has been trying to limit, and at this point, turn big men into endangered species [UNLESS you can shoot the 3 ball!]. Here are some facts that make you go Hmmm like C & C Music Factory [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ay...
• In 1951, the so-called Mikan Rule drastically changed the appearance of NBA courts by doubling the width of the lane [it used to be called the “key” because it was shaped, well, like a key] from six feet to 12 feet, primarily to reduce the unprecedented post-up dominance of George Mikan. (190)
• Thirteen years later, in 1964, the league widened the lane again, to sixteen feet, this time to reduce the post-up dominance of Wilt Chamberlain. (190)
• After the league introduced the Most Valuable Player Award in 1955, centers began to win the award almost every season. Of the first 24 NBA MVP Awards, forwards won only two or three (depending on how you classify Bob McAdoo), and guards won two. Centers won 19 or 20. You get the idea. It was a big man’s league. (194)
• In 1967, Mikan [became commissioner of the ABA, which challenged and eventually merged with the NBA in 1976] introduced the “three point line,” which affected almost every possession, even ones that featured no three-point attempts. Players spread out more, and ABA games were more fluid, more amusing, and more laid-back. (195-197)
• During a single season, 2017-2018, NBA shooters made 25,807 three-point shots. That’s more than they made during the entire 1980s. Between 1979 and the conclusion of the 1989-90 season, NBA shooters converted 23,871 three-pointers. (190)
• The 1979-1980 Houston Rockets took 4.6 threes and 86.8 twos per game. The 2017-2018 Houston Rockets took 42.3 threes and 41.9 twos per game. (199)
The Current Aesthetic:
Now, I don’t think the author is a complete HATER—he just CLEARLY LOVES THE GAME! Now, he’s trying to bring to the basketball lovers of this world that the game we love is going to be like these three interrelated trends:
1. Positional versatility
2. Perimeter shooting
3. Isolation plays (199)
Now, when the NBA carries on like this, defensive players switch everything until the offense essentially gets the match-up it likes (i.e. James Harden getting Stephen Curry to guard him) and games become glorified one-on-one contests, while the other eight players watch from the best seats in the house. If the defense helps and the dribbler doesn’t get a three or lay-up, they pass to the offensive player spotted up behind the three point line. Now, again, people can call Goldsberry a HATER, but he is just discussing current trends and the future of the game.
The Rockets aren’t ruining basketball; they’re just the most intelligent and visible example of a team aligning its strategies with the incentives and subsidies concocted by the NBA rule-makers. (225)
I like the analogy he gave using chess. If things continue at this rate, the creativity of the game will be severely limited and I’m not sure we all want that [There will mainly be pawns that are one-dimensional like a lot of three-point shooters, with a few other types. But Goldsberry argues that “basketball is at its best when different kinds of players—different sizes of players with different specialties—get together and make us swoon. But the sprawlball era portends a looming monoculture. The best league in the world is increasingly trending toward one form of play and one kind of scoring. Make no mistake, threes can be exciting as h*%$. But how much is too much? (225)
Here are some rule changes he suggests [feel free to discuss any in the comments to this post]:
• Move the 3-point line back to 25 feet [the corner threes make people just stand in the corner waiting for the ball, which is boring]. OR make it 27 feet, which would obviously make it more difficult to make and maybe people won’t take as many—except the TRUE experts (i.e. Curry, Lillard, etc.).
• Get rid of the corner 3. This COULD be an opportunity for basketball arenas to be like baseball, in which the homerun fence comes in different shapes and sizes. Put another way, some teams could have corner threes, others don’t, others have a longer three-point line, etc.
• Allow Goaltending on 3s. This might encourage more dominant big men to re-enter the league instead of getting pushed out (i.e. Roy Hibbert, Andre Drummond, etc.). This would allow for more athleticism to emerge because as a shot goes up, the big men can fly over and discern if they can block the shot. Also, three-point shooters have to take into account whether shooting a shot would be worth it if certain big men are near the basket.
• Make the 16-foot lane into a 6-foot “key” again, which would promote more posting up by big men, or allowing creative players to shoot fade-aways like Jordan or Olajuwon.
• Contact rules could allow more physicality, which would encourage another wrinkle in the types of play we, as fans, watch.
LOTS of things to discuss. Let me know what you think!!!
SPRAWLBALL is a book unlike any other I've read. It took me longer than I thought to read, but, then again, some MAJOR life events occurred, which hindered me quite a bit.
This book is written by Kirk Goldsberry, whose goal was to track every shot in the NBA in order to track how/where the game is going. He is the pioneer of the NBA's analytics eras. So many current and former players have pushed back against these stats, saying people aren't robots and they can't be fully predicted. People can make these claims ALL they want, but there's NO denying that the NBA has changed. From pretty much the beginning, the NBA has been trying to limit, and at this point, turn big men into endangered species [UNLESS you can shoot the 3 ball!]. Here are some facts that make you go Hmmm like C & C Music Factory [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF2ay...
• In 1951, the so-called Mikan Rule drastically changed the appearance of NBA courts by doubling the width of the lane [it used to be called the “key” because it was shaped, well, like a key] from six feet to 12 feet, primarily to reduce the unprecedented post-up dominance of George Mikan. (190)
• Thirteen years later, in 1964, the league widened the lane again, to sixteen feet, this time to reduce the post-up dominance of Wilt Chamberlain. (190)
• After the league introduced the Most Valuable Player Award in 1955, centers began to win the award almost every season. Of the first 24 NBA MVP Awards, forwards won only two or three (depending on how you classify Bob McAdoo), and guards won two. Centers won 19 or 20. You get the idea. It was a big man’s league. (194)
• In 1967, Mikan [became commissioner of the ABA, which challenged and eventually merged with the NBA in 1976] introduced the “three point line,” which affected almost every possession, even ones that featured no three-point attempts. Players spread out more, and ABA games were more fluid, more amusing, and more laid-back. (195-197)
• During a single season, 2017-2018, NBA shooters made 25,807 three-point shots. That’s more than they made during the entire 1980s. Between 1979 and the conclusion of the 1989-90 season, NBA shooters converted 23,871 three-pointers. (190)
• The 1979-1980 Houston Rockets took 4.6 threes and 86.8 twos per game. The 2017-2018 Houston Rockets took 42.3 threes and 41.9 twos per game. (199)
The Current Aesthetic:
Now, I don’t think the author is a complete HATER—he just CLEARLY LOVES THE GAME! Now, he’s trying to bring to the basketball lovers of this world that the game we love is going to be like these three interrelated trends:
1. Positional versatility
2. Perimeter shooting
3. Isolation plays (199)
Now, when the NBA carries on like this, defensive players switch everything until the offense essentially gets the match-up it likes (i.e. James Harden getting Stephen Curry to guard him) and games become glorified one-on-one contests, while the other eight players watch from the best seats in the house. If the defense helps and the dribbler doesn’t get a three or lay-up, they pass to the offensive player spotted up behind the three point line. Now, again, people can call Goldsberry a HATER, but he is just discussing current trends and the future of the game.
The Rockets aren’t ruining basketball; they’re just the most intelligent and visible example of a team aligning its strategies with the incentives and subsidies concocted by the NBA rule-makers. (225)
I like the analogy he gave using chess. If things continue at this rate, the creativity of the game will be severely limited and I’m not sure we all want that [There will mainly be pawns that are one-dimensional like a lot of three-point shooters, with a few other types. But Goldsberry argues that “basketball is at its best when different kinds of players—different sizes of players with different specialties—get together and make us swoon. But the sprawlball era portends a looming monoculture. The best league in the world is increasingly trending toward one form of play and one kind of scoring. Make no mistake, threes can be exciting as h*%$. But how much is too much? (225)
Here are some rule changes he suggests [feel free to discuss any in the comments to this post]:
• Move the 3-point line back to 25 feet [the corner threes make people just stand in the corner waiting for the ball, which is boring]. OR make it 27 feet, which would obviously make it more difficult to make and maybe people won’t take as many—except the TRUE experts (i.e. Curry, Lillard, etc.).
• Get rid of the corner 3. This COULD be an opportunity for basketball arenas to be like baseball, in which the homerun fence comes in different shapes and sizes. Put another way, some teams could have corner threes, others don’t, others have a longer three-point line, etc.
• Allow Goaltending on 3s. This might encourage more dominant big men to re-enter the league instead of getting pushed out (i.e. Roy Hibbert, Andre Drummond, etc.). This would allow for more athleticism to emerge because as a shot goes up, the big men can fly over and discern if they can block the shot. Also, three-point shooters have to take into account whether shooting a shot would be worth it if certain big men are near the basket.
• Make the 16-foot lane into a 6-foot “key” again, which would promote more posting up by big men, or allowing creative players to shoot fade-aways like Jordan or Olajuwon.
• Contact rules could allow more physicality, which would encourage another wrinkle in the types of play we, as fans, watch.
LOTS of things to discuss. Let me know what you think!!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews