Here's a 3-Point Shot Change Proposal

[Mott the Hoople]

This proposal is sure to get slammed. Maybe I had too many beers. But here goes. -

The Miracle of Richfield Anniversary game is this Friday, and it got me thinking. The game has changed drastically since then. Mostly because of the 3-point shot.
Big men aren't as important. IMO playmaking is not as effective if the end result is to kick it out for a long 3.

Mark Cuban said to move the 3 point line back. Here's my idea: move it in - way in.

Make anything outside the key worth 3 points. Dunks, slams, lay ups, tip ins, all worth 2. Free throws still worth 1. Shots from outside the key - 3 points.

If somebody wants to shoot from 20-30 feet away - God bless em'. More power to em'. But most D-Leagers can make a 10 footer for 3 too.

Total scoring would certainly go up. But it would reduce the impact of long range shooting.

Originally the 3-point shot was attractive because it was a big gamble. An extra point rewarded for a very low percentage shot. As the years go by, that's not a low percentage shot for the players that take them.
Do you still want to gamble? Pull up for a 10 footer instead of a layup.
If you're a strong rebounding and running team - 2 slams are worth more than a 25 footer.

 

[Jstock12]

It's an interesting and a creative suggestion. But I think it's a bit over the top. And to be perfectly honest, I think there's no way Silver would even consider it, because it would mean that any shoouting foul outside the key is also 3 free-throws. That would slow down the game ridiculously, even more so than Hack-a-Shaq.

 

[shoes22]

I was ready to come in here and slam your proposal, but I actually think it’s an interesting idea. I don’t think the NBA would ever seriously consider this though.

 

[Snarly]

I personally think we should have the collage three system. I get why it is the way it is and moving it back only makes the great shooters better. Heck do that and Curry will thrive. Lillard is another one who can drain a shot from a mile out. Kyrie and Swish kind of. I like your idea though it kind of makes sense but no way would it ever happen. I almost wish there was not three point line like I am sure there never was in the very early days.

 

[ACisKING]

The thing that I don't like about the three point line is that it's ruined the diversity in styles that we used to see. The mathematical advantages of just launching a ton of threes make it so that every team that cares about winning will launch a barrage of threes. Sure some teams will do it out of a complex system (SA, ATL, GSW) and others will do it out of more pick and rolls (CLE, OKC, LAC). But the end result is the only way to win is to launch a ton of three pointers. This is a huge departure from just a few years ago when you had all sorts of teams that could win in a variety of ways.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

The thing that I don't like about the three point line is that it's ruined the diversity in styles that we used to see. The mathematical advantages of just launching a ton of threes make it so that every team that cares about winning will launch a barrage of threes. Sure some teams will do it out of a complex system (SA, ATL, GSW) and others will do it out of more pick and rolls (CLE, OKC, LAC). But the end result is the only way to win is to launch a ton of three pointers. This is a huge departure from just a few years ago when you had all sorts of teams that could win in a variety of ways.

Thank you! Most people say shit like "you want to go back to caveman basketball!"

No, I preferred when the game is mixed up, I like seeing post play, I like seeing guys take educated mid-range shots, I enjoyed that type of ball. There's great beauty in the pivot.

It's completely homogenized the game, all teams are looking the same.

 

[David.]

I think there's too much complaining.

It's only roughly 1/5 shots considering fga not accounted for due to fouls.

Literally the best shooter ever only shoots a three 1/5 of his team's possessions.

 

[macbdog]

Not sure why anyone thinks the NBA needs to change anything. I find it to be a good thing that shooting is improving and 3s are up- they should be, it's an exciting play. I don't see midrange jumpers as the kind if thing that the league needs to make rule changes to promote.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

A couple of notes on this:
The 3-point shot was invented in the old ABA, and migrated to the NBA after the merger. But even back in the day, it wasn't seen as a smart play. It was a way to gamble to try to get back in the game if you were down by a lot. In the 1976 ABA All-Star game, the ultimate in showtime basketball, both teams combined to shoot 3 for 10 on 3 balls. That's both teams combined. Now you get 10 shots a quarter.

Over time, players adjust, but now the 3 shot dominates the game. I don't think that's what was intended. Youngsters should go watch an old game with good teams from before the 3-point shot. The idea was to get close to the basket to increase your percentage, not further away. Good passing was to find an open man, or a mismatch.

You could drive the lane, but good luck with that. Because there was a talented big guy waiting for you.

 

[David.]

You guys know gs scores just a frequently on cuts and in the paint right?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You guys know gs scores just a frequently on cuts and in the paint right?

This has nothing to do with GS. In 1987, there were 6.5 3FGA per game. Now there is over 19.9. It has damaged the game.

Last night Houston went 3 for 34 in 3's. That's not good for the game. That's not exciting. That's stupid basketball.

 

[David.]

This has nothing to do with GS. In 1987, there were 6.5 3FGA per game. Now there is over 19.9. It has damaged the game.

First of all, of course it does.

Second of all, stating there are more amount of x shots than previously taken is not a good argument for ruining the game.

Most ppl think it's more exciting. Ratings are way up. Watching deficits erode and leads explode quickly is entertaining.

Watching a guy hit a shot with prestimce accuracy after lots of ball movement is more entertaining than a dude backing down a guy in the paint.

 

[Walter White]

Steph would average 80 points a game if they moved the three point line in. Plus that really shrinks the floor and compacts the paint to where the real value is big men that can score. I think the way it is right now is a perfect balance.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I think there's value in just extending it. What that aims to do is discourage the borderline shooters from taking a 3. Ultimately that is the problem. That guys who shouldn't be shooting 3's are doing so at incredibly high rates.

Someone like Curry, it seriously doesn't matter. He's going to shoot a crazy percentage no matter where the line is but shifting the league average downward slightly would push people off the line who shouldn't be there, which is ultimately what I think the league needs.

The 3 pointer has to be there purely for spacing purposes, unless the NBA is going to adopt more defensive rules that restrict help side defenders. I really think that is a better option to be honest. Creating a defensive arc that forces help defenders further away from the paint, opening up space in the mid range and making it more enticing to attack the basket.

I think extending the paint a foot or so on each side would be just as effective as moving the line back. You could also consider extending the 3 second rule for offensive players, to 4 seconds, to give guys more time to jockey for position in the post. It just seems like there's smaller changes than getting extreme with the 3 point line that will produce a similar result.

 

[shoes22]

The thing that I don't like about the three point line is that it's ruined the diversity in styles that we used to see. The mathematical advantages of just launching a ton of threes make it so that every team that cares about winning will launch a barrage of threes. Sure some teams will do it out of a complex system (SA, ATL, GSW) and others will do it out of more pick and rolls (CLE, OKC, LAC). But the end result is the only way to win is to launch a ton of three pointers. This is a huge departure from just a few years ago when you had all sorts of teams that could win in a variety of ways.

The interesting thing to me isn't that the league has evolved into what it has now, it's that it took nearly 40 years to get to this. Five years for the league to adapt to the 3pt rule I understand. Maybe even ten. But 40 years seems like an unusually long time to me for teams to start focusing their offensive strategy on a shot that gets you an extra point compared to a normal one.