Is the 3-point line ruining basketball?

[Nick Kaufman]

Sorry, I haven't followed this subforum in a while, so maybe this has been covered, but I came across this video.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p3NIR8LYoo


I think the strongest argument against the 3-pointer is that it becomes the dominant strategy; ideally you want a game, where's there's no gto-optimal strategy either because it's unknown or because the game allows multiple exploitative ones.

I ve seen multiple ideas floating around, most of them revolving around moving the line, but the simplest one for me is changing the value of the 3 pointer. Having the 3 pointer give 2.5 points instead requires players to shoot at least 40% outside the arc in order to make it equivalent to the 50% 2 pointer.

Or you can keep the 3 point line and say that the mid-range jumper from within the line but outside the box counts for 2.5 points. That actually might be the best solution, because none of the other proposed solutions will do anything to bring back the mid rang jumper, as teams have learnt to focus on points inside the paint and outside the line.

What do you guys think?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

We talked about it some in this thread: https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/what-nba-rules-would-you-change.34952/page-2#post-4706589

I agree with you that the 3P is overvalued and that it makes the game more boring. But I don't see the NBA going to fractional points or widening the courts. Someone in the other thread IiRC (I think Reggie Cleveland) brought up an interesting point about the impact of removing the corner 3P.

Maybe the third 3P should only be worth 2 points but I could see a late game situation where someone screws up how many 3Ps have been made.

Maybe leave the corner 3P and move the rest of the arc back? That's just a temporary situation because players are going to adapt to the longer line.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

What about softball rules: only a certain amount of made 3s per quarter or game?

 

[BaseballJones]

The three point line is ruining pick-up basketball (which tons of people play but nobody cares about "ruining"), because pick up games are scored by 1s and 2s, not 2s and 3s, and so a three pointer is actually worth double (instead of 1.5x a two pointer). That's a huge difference. It means if you're a 49% shooter inside the arc, you only have to shoot 25% beyond the arc to make it a smart play. But that means tons of people are chucking up horrible, horrific shots, and still helping the team when only one in four goes in. It's UGLY and anyone who's played pick-up basketball has experienced this.

But I think it's also having a negative effect on youth basketball. Kids who are just learning proper shooting mechanics aren't strong enough to shoot properly from beyond the free throw line, but they see that three point line and that's the magic spot and so they chuck from there, but in order to get it there, they have to heave it, which undermines all the form shooting we try to teach them. So I think there should be NO three point line until high school.

But the question in this thread isn't about pick-up or youth basketball. It's about the NBA. I don't know if it's "ruining" the NBA. It's a less appealing brand of basketball to ME, but I'm old school and can admit that. I do think there's something beautiful about great shooters raining threes down. It forces the defense to defend the perimeter, which theoretically opens everything else up - midrange, driving, and post play. But since everyone wants to shoot threes now, and three point shooting is the most valued skill in the game, people no longer take midrange shots (some, but barely), and nobody posts up anymore, so all we end up with is threes and driving. It makes me crazy from an aesthetic standpoint when a guy has a wide open look from 17, but dribbles out just to take a three. Maybe guys in the NBA can do it effectively, but guys at lower levels do the same thing, just with far worse results, and it's just painful to watch.

I think the best solution is to move the line back. Yes that eliminates the corner three because you can't push the line back further up top and leave the corner three as is. It's already the most valuable, and most sought-after shot in the game, and it would be even more so in this scenario. So just eliminate it. Frankly, I'd prefer they widen the court so you could still have a corner three, but it would have to be widened a TON to make that happen. Not sure that will ever take place.

The idea is to have the three point line be right at that proper distance where it's an even calculus. Where shooting a reasonable percentage from beyond the arc is equivalent to a reasonable percentage from inside it. To me the percentages are 33.3% and 50.0%. The line should be the distance where on the whole the league shoots 33.3% from there. The last time the NBA as a whole shot 33.3% or worse from three was 1993-94. This year it's down (34.4%), but for the last 10 years it's basically been at 35.0% or better. That way the line is about the "right" distance - you make 33% of your threes and it's equivalent to making 50% of your twos. That way it's not so obviously better to shoot a ton of threes. It allows teams to win different ways.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

What are the theoretical negatives to making the court wider? The ice size in Olympic hockey is 15 ft. wider and for the most part, it seems like the same game to me. Less physical than the NHL, I suppose, but that could have more contributing factors than just the ice size and there's no analog to checking or board play in basketball. At the end of the day, these guys are so damn good that I think they'd just adapt to deeper threes and we'd be looking at the same issue in 4-5 years.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

What are the theoretical negatives to making the court wider? The ice size in Olympic hockey is 15 ft. wider and for the most part, it seems like the same game to me. Less physical than the NHL, I suppose, but that could have more contributing factors than just the ice size and there's no analog to checking or board play in basketball. At the end of the day, these guys are so damn good that I think they'd just adapt to deeper threes and we'd be looking at the same issue in 4-5 years.

$$$

In old arenas, you'd be taking away premium seats. I guess the NbA could plan ahead and tell owners to construct arenas that accommodated wider courts but that would be years in the making.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

But the question in this thread isn't about pick-up or youth basketball.

Sorry for digression but totally agree with you on youth basketball as my son has a completely FUBARd shot due to him trying to hit 3Ps (and I bought him a smaller ball to hopefully have that not happen) so he's on to VB.

However for pick-up, I will disagree with you. First you should play 2s and 3s. Second, you should also try playing without the 3P shot sometime. While maybe there are more fast breaks to the basket, on an average play, you'll have all five defenders in the paint because it's not worth it to go try to guard most guys out on the perimeter. It also means that big guys are fed the ball down low and then they try to muscle their way to the hoop which to me makes for a lot more injuries (particularly to me)

Maybe it's just the guys I play with.

Sorry for digression.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

$$$

In old arenas, you'd be taking away premium seats. I guess the NbA could plan ahead and tell owners to construct arenas that accommodated wider courts but that would be years in the making.

Ah yes, "The All 'Ighty 'Ollar" as Homer Simpson would say. Shoulda known.

 

[pokey_reese]

Personally, I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but I think from a general sports fan perspective that any fractional points are a non-starter. If we want to reduce the number of threes taken, I would support the idea of just changing the arc so that it is a little further from the basket, and eliminating the corner three by just having the arc start part way up the sideline and curving across the court. You can still count it as 3 points, you are just increasing the difficulty level a little, and perhaps most importantly (for good or ill), removing a go-to end of the game/inbounds play from the playbook in the corner.

 

[BaseballJones]

Sorry for digression but totally agree with you on youth basketball as my son has a completely FUBARd shot due to him trying to hit 3Ps (and I bought him a smaller ball to hopefully have that not happen) so he's on to VB.

However for pick-up, I will disagree with you. First you should play 2s and 3s. Second, you should also try playing without the 3P shot sometime. While maybe there are more fast breaks to the basket, on an average play, you'll have all five defenders in the paint because it's not worth it to go try to guard most guys out on the perimeter. It also means that big guys are fed the ball down low and then they try to muscle their way to the hoop which to me makes for a lot more injuries (particularly to me)

Maybe it's just the guys I play with.

Sorry for digression.

It would be fine if we played pick-up scoring 2s and 3s instead of 1s and 2s. I've never ever ever ever played where we score it 2s and 3s. So you end up with terrible shooters chucking up bricks all game long, but because they're worth double, the math still makes sense. But it's still ugly basketball.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

One way of reducing the probability of making the corner 3P is to move the line out so there is less room between the OOB line and the 3P line (it would likely result in even more players stepping on the line as well as awkward shots where their feet are completely set). I would be interesting to push the line out another foot so they only had 2 feet of room in the corners, not 3 feet.

Also, while poking around, a few years ago, the former Nylon Calculus site had an article that suggested that the reason players make corner 3s more often than other 3P shots is because they are more open not because it is shorter. I don't know if this ever was the case - or if it is still the case given that some teams have defenses keyed into taking away the corner 3P - but if the article is correct, moving the 3P line out a foot or two won't really make a difference.

 

[coremiller]

Three-pointers may have killed the midrange, but they didn't kill the post-up. Getting rid of the illegal defense rules killed the post-up, because defenses could now overload the strong side and double-team before the catch. If anything, three-point shooting has preserved what post-up play there is because it creates spacing for low-post players to operate.

Given that, making 3s harder is not going to revive post-up play. It will just lead to more clogged lanes as defenders ignore poor three-point shooters.

 

[Zososoxfan]

Personally, I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but I think from a general sports fan perspective that any fractional points are a non-starter. If we want to reduce the number of threes taken, I would support the idea of just changing the arc so that it is a little further from the basket, and eliminating the corner three by just having the arc start part way up the sideline and curving across the court. You can still count it as 3 points, you are just increasing the difficulty level a little, and perhaps most importantly (for good or ill), removing a go-to end of the game/inbounds play from the playbook in the corner.

I agree fractional points are a no-go, but why not just reassign point values? Make 2PT --> 3PT and 3PT --> 4PT. FTs are still worth 1 each, but if you hit both you get a third, perhaps? Likely need to consider fouls/FTs to properly disincentivize fouling. With those values, the relative efficiency of the 4PT goes down compared to the 3PT.

N.B. BBall will never actually do this, because it would change stats, records, etc. too much, but that to me is the logical step here without changing more. I'm also totally against limiting the amount of any type of shot.

 

[CreightonGubanich]

I'm in the minority, I don't think it's ruining basketball. Yes, everyone wants to create open three point shots, that's the highest value proposition on offense. But the ways in which those shots are being created varies from team to team and makes for interesting basketball. Players still post up - the difference is that they don't do it to slowly back down a smaller man until they get a close range shot. They do it to draw a double team, find an open man, and put the defense into rotation. Quick decisions, passing and ball movement are rewarded. Some teams run a lot of pick and roll to get the ball into the paint, forcing the defense to collapse, leaving shooters open on the perimeter. Some teams prioritize the fast break, hoping to create open 3's against a defense that hasn't had time to get set.

The end result is a lot of three point attempts. But I grew up with basketball in the 1990's, where everyone wanted a two guard who could score in isolation like Jordan. The complaint then was that the game completely eschewed the fundamentals of basketball in favor of pure athletic ability. Now, the game rewards passing, shooting, and ballhandling from every position on the floor more than any other point in the league's history. I'm fine with that. Spacing shooters around the floor also opens up space in the lane for players to work and get to the rim, which I think is a positive.

 

[Mooch]

But I think it's also having a negative effect on youth basketball. Kids who are just learning proper shooting mechanics aren't strong enough to shoot properly from beyond the free throw line, but they see that three point line and that's the magic spot and so they chuck from there, but in order to get it there, they have to heave it, which undermines all the form shooting we try to teach them. So I think there should be NO three point line until high school.

As someone who grew up in the 80s with a slight build and a decent outside shot, I'm going to vehemently disagree with this idea. Back when I was in grade/middle school, basketball was dominated by the biggest and strongest players but I was able to carve out a small niche as a shooter off the bench. Today? I probably would have started. If you eliminated the 3 entirely, I would have simply stopped playing the game because I would have zero value.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I agree fractional points are a no-go, but why not just reassign point values? Make 2PT --> 3PT and 3PT --> 4PT. FTs are still worth 1 each, but if you hit both you get a third, perhaps? Likely need to consider fouls/FTs to properly disincentivize fouling. With those values, the relative efficiency of the 4PT goes down compared to the 3PT.

N.B. BBall will never actually do this, because it would change stats, records, etc. too much, but that to me is the logical step here without changing more. I'm also totally against limiting the amount of any type of shot.

I would agree that fractions seem weird, but the bottom line is that since the payoffs for various shots were never really thought through when they were introduced and since teams have become very efficient at arbitraging their inefficiency, the most simple and elegant solution is to change the payoffs in such as way that makes shots from each spot in the court have the same value.

If you want to avoid the fraction problem, you can do as you say; make 2 pointers 3 pointers or even 4 pointers and so on. I would even think about adding a 6 pointer or something for shots behind the halfway line.

 

[Kliq]

My issues with the three pointer come more from the day-to-day viewing of the league and the stylistic similarity of all teams working to maximize their three point shooting. It can become tedious and boring, and a lot of game just come down to which team is hotter from three.

That being said, it's not ruining basketball. If anything it has opened up the game. People lament the loss of the great Center (an overrated talking point when you consider how many of the league's best players are big men) but ignore that basketball has made wings/guards way more valuable, and opened the door for a player like Curry to be the best player in basketball.

The loss of the mid-range game is kind of like...who cares? I get that people grew up with it and wish it returns, but why bend the rules of basketball to help popularize a shot from the past that teams have realized isn't that efficient? I also think the mid-range still matters a lot, particularly in the playoffs. Durant is probably the best player in the league and also one of it's best mid-range shooters. I think one of the reasons James Harden has struggled in the playoffs is because he refuses to utilize the mid range, which makes him more predictable to guard in a playoff series.

Every solution to "fix" three point shooting I have heard sounds incredibly stupid, with the exception of moving back the line.

 

[BaseballJones]

As someone who grew up in the 80s with a slight build and a decent outside shot, I'm going to vehemently disagree with this idea. Back when I was in grade/middle school, basketball was dominated by the biggest and strongest players but I was able to carve out a small niche as a shooter off the bench. Today? I probably would have started. If you eliminated the 3 entirely, I would have simply stopped playing the game because I would have zero value.

I was a small kid too so I can appreciate your sentiment there. There needs to be a way to allow smaller, skilled players a space to play. But man, there's no question that the three pointer for young kids is a detriment to their shooting mechanics. You see kids not able to hit threes with good form just leaning into shots, chucking from the hip because that's the only way they can reach the basket. And because threes are the name of the game, coaches approve of and encourage this.

 

[BaseballJones]

My issues with the three pointer come more from the day-to-day viewing of the league and the stylistic similarity of all teams working to maximize their three point shooting. It can become tedious and boring, and a lot of game just come down to which team is hotter from three.

That being said, it's not ruining basketball. If anything it has opened up the game. People lament the loss of the great Center (an overrated talking point when you consider how many of the league's best players are big men) but ignore that basketball has made wings/guards way more valuable, and opened the door for a player like Curry to be the best player in basketball.

The loss of the mid-range game is kind of like...who cares? I get that people grew up with it and wish it returns, but why bend the rules of basketball to help popularize a shot from the past that teams have realized isn't that efficient? I also think the mid-range still matters a lot, particularly in the playoffs. Durant is probably the best player in the league and also one of it's best mid-range shooters. I think one of the reasons James Harden has struggled in the playoffs is because he refuses to utilize the mid range, which makes him more predictable to guard in a playoff series.

Every solution to "fix" three point shooting I have heard sounds incredibly stupid, with the exception of moving back the line.

I just would like the game to be structured such that a whole variety of shots, from all over the floor, are valuable, so it allows the most diverse kind of players all space to play. I want the game such that a team that is big and can bang has just as much of a chance as a team littered with small sharpshooters and as a team of no post guys or shooters but who can run and slash to the rim. I want there to be room for players of all types and skill sets. The way the game is trending, it's all about long range shooting. Shooting is great but I long for the creativity that guys like George Gervin and Julius Erving brought - not just dunks but the creative floaters and finger rolls and slithery shots around the basket and bank shots from the wing. That's not just nostalgia - that's wanting the widest variety of skill sets and player types to be able to play.

 

[kfoss99]

This was something I was thinking about while watching the past Celtics game, with the Dirk shadow on the court.

What about two 3-point lines that can be adjusted each season?

If a band of mid-range shots is the lowest percentage, make that band a 3-point shot. Then, move the existing 3-point shot back another 3 or 4 feet. If the 3-point shot should reward a difficult shot and that's not the case now, use statistics to find where the difficult shots are an reward those.

 

[Tony C]

I'm in the minority, I don't think it's ruining basketball. Yes, everyone wants to create open three point shots, that's the highest value proposition on offense. But the ways in which those shots are being created varies from team to team and makes for interesting basketball. Players still post up - the difference is that they don't do it to slowly back down a smaller man until they get a close range shot. They do it to draw a double team, find an open man, and put the defense into rotation. Quick decisions, passing and ball movement are rewarded. Some teams run a lot of pick and roll to get the ball into the paint, forcing the defense to collapse, leaving shooters open on the perimeter. Some teams prioritize the fast break, hoping to create open 3's against a defense that hasn't had time to get set.

The end result is a lot of three point attempts. But I grew up with basketball in the 1990's, where everyone wanted a two guard who could score in isolation like Jordan. The complaint then was that the game completely eschewed the fundamentals of basketball in favor of pure athletic ability. Now, the game rewards passing, shooting, and ballhandling from every position on the floor more than any other point in the league's history. I'm fine with that. Spacing shooters around the floor also opens up space in the lane for players to work and get to the rim, which I think is a positive.

This is pretty much where I'm at, only stated way better than I would. I'd be fine with moving the line back a touch particularly in the corners and, as part of that, perhaps widening the court a touch in the corners (I don't buy the argument that the economics of a few courtside seats are a variable -- you can charge just as much for seats just as close to the line). But, basically, the game is as free flowing and fun as it's ever been. Definitely a case of "if it's not broken..."

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

This was something I was thinking about while watching the past Celtics game, with the Dirk shadow on the court.

What about two 3-point lines that can be adjusted each season?

If a band of mid-range shots is the lowest percentage, make that band a 3-point shot. Then, move the existing 3-point shot back another 3 or 4 feet. If the 3-point shot should reward a difficult shot and that's not the case now, use statistics to find where the difficult shots are an reward those.

It's been suggested by others but it would be interesting to allow teams to draw different 3P lines within a reasonable band - e.g., anywhere from 22 feet to 25'. Some teams might have it 22 feet the entire way across; others might eliminate the corner 3P. Might create more different styles of play and also would really reward teams that were able to win home court advantage.

 

[benhogan]

I'm in the minority, I don't think it's ruining basketball. Yes, everyone wants to create open three point shots, that's the highest value proposition on offense. But the ways in which those shots are being created varies from team to team and makes for interesting basketball. Players still post up - the difference is that they don't do it to slowly back down a smaller man until they get a close range shot. They do it to draw a double team, find an open man, and put the defense into rotation. Quick decisions, passing and ball movement are rewarded. Some teams run a lot of pick and roll to get the ball into the paint, forcing the defense to collapse, leaving shooters open on the perimeter. Some teams prioritize the fast break, hoping to create open 3's against a defense that hasn't had time to get set.

The end result is a lot of three point attempts. But I grew up with basketball in the 1990's, where everyone wanted a two guard who could score in isolation like Jordan. The complaint then was that the game completely eschewed the fundamentals of basketball in favor of pure athletic ability. Now, the game rewards passing, shooting, and ballhandling from every position on the floor more than any other point in the league's history. I'm fine with that. Spacing shooters around the floor also opens up space in the lane for players to work and get to the rim, which I think is a positive.

+1 agree here.

Think the game has more athletic and skilled players. Fewer lumbering goofballs parking themselves under the rim

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Not at all. Ruining the game compared to what era?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

This thread gave me flashbacks to my first year in high school on the freshman team. We take the bus to an away game (no recollection where) and something was going on in their gym so we played in what may have been the cafeteria with the portable hoops. The real problem was that as a 3-point shooter (without the 3-point line back then) with a high arc…….the ceiling was too low so after my first shot literally hit the light, coach called me aside and asked if I could lower my arc (LOL true story). So I guess maybe if we lower the arena ceilings that would fix the problem.

 

[Kliq]

I just would like the game to be structured such that a whole variety of shots, from all over the floor, are valuable, so it allows the most diverse kind of players all space to play. I want the game such that a team that is big and can bang has just as much of a chance as a team littered with small sharpshooters and as a team of no post guys or shooters but who can run and slash to the rim. I want there to be room for players of all types and skill sets. The way the game is trending, it's all about long range shooting. Shooting is great but I long for the creativity that guys like George Gervin and Julius Erving brought - not just dunks but the creative floaters and finger rolls and slithery shots around the basket and bank shots from the wing. That's not just nostalgia - that's wanting the widest variety of skill sets and player types to be able to play.

I think nostalgia is clouding your opinion here. The three point shot and the additional spacing on the floor does open up the widest variety of successful players/styles to achieve success. Before the three point shot, literally every NBA Champion was led by a dominant post player, with a few exceptions (West was better on the 71-72 Lakers than Wilt was, but they still had Wilt) and that didn't really change until the Bad Boys (who still won using post play even if their best offensive players were guards) and the Jordan Bulls. As smaller players (and by nature, better ball handlers) have gained more control over the offense there has been a lot more creativity in the game, as well as shooters spreading the floor and creating more space for those players to operate.

People make it seem like like you simply can't win anymore in the NBA with a big man, but that simply isn't true. The Bucks just won the title thanks to a 6'11 guy who scores almost all of his points in the restricted area; the Lakers won the title the previous year thanks to a mutant lineup with LeBron at SF, Davis at PF, and a traditional C in Howard/McGee. The difference now is that a team like the Warriors can win being led by three point shooting and journeyman bigs, as opposed to in the past when you HAD to have a Hall of Fame big guy to win.

 

[Marbleheader]

Growing up in the Bird Era, the thing I enjoyed most was the phenomenal passing. I think ball movement is a bigger issue than the 3 in terms of my enjoyment. Too many possessions that result in an ISO where the player just dribbles the ball in place for 15 seconds. 3s are fine as long as Marcus Smart isn't shooting them.

 

[ggreene]

I don't mind the 3 pointer but it seems to have become way more prevalent than I would like. A lot of time the offense just passes it around the perimeter looking for a three and makes no attempt to do anything else. Tough to watch. I'm old enough to remember the 80's Celtics and miss the creative passing. Not just of Bird but the whole team philosophy. Fast breaks were meant to get layups not become another avenue to pass out for another 3 attempt. Oh well, that era is gone and isn't coming back.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

It's been suggested by others but it would be interesting to allow teams to draw different 3P lines within a reasonable band - e.g., anywhere from 22 feet to 25'. Some teams might have it 22 feet the entire way across; others might eliminate the corner 3P. Might create more different styles of play and also would really reward teams that were able to win home court advantage.

I actually like this idea a lot. It'll never happen, but it'd give each team's court a real sense of personality, just like MLB ballparks with their idiosyncratic outfield dimensions and wall heights.

 

[BaseballJones]

I think nostalgia is clouding your opinion here. The three point shot and the additional spacing on the floor does open up the widest variety of successful players/styles to achieve success. Before the three point shot, literally every NBA Champion was led by a dominant post player, with a few exceptions (West was better on the 71-72 Lakers than Wilt was, but they still had Wilt) and that didn't really change until the Bad Boys (who still won using post play even if their best offensive players were guards) and the Jordan Bulls. As smaller players (and by nature, better ball handlers) have gained more control over the offense there has been a lot more creativity in the game, as well as shooters spreading the floor and creating more space for those players to operate.

People make it seem like like you simply can't win anymore in the NBA with a big man, but that simply isn't true. The Bucks just won the title thanks to a 6'11 guy who scores almost all of his points in the restricted area; the Lakers won the title the previous year thanks to a mutant lineup with LeBron at SF, Davis at PF, and a traditional C in Howard/McGee. The difference now is that a team like the Warriors can win being led by three point shooting and journeyman bigs, as opposed to in the past when you HAD to have a Hall of Fame big guy to win.

Good post. Keep in mind that Giannis scores a ton in the paint but not by posting up. It's by driving straight at or through defenders, or taking three steps around them. He's phenomenal, but his game isn't in any way old school.

You might be right that nostalgia is clouding my thoughts here. I definitely think that I prefer the game the way it was, but I recognize that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I do like seeing great shooters rain threes. But when you look at shot charts, you see the near absence of midrange shooting, and I do think there's fewer types of players out there than I want to see. We don't see many midrange shooters anymore. We don't see post up guys with rare exceptions like Jokic. I don't want it to be just like it was back in the 80s - I think more, better outside shooting is good for the game. But I think the pendulum has swung too far and I'd just like to see it come back a little.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

How about narrowing the lane a bit to make it easier for post players?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Good post. Keep in mind that Giannis scores a ton in the paint but not by posting up. It's by driving straight at or through defenders, or taking three steps around them. He's phenomenal, but his game isn't in any way old school.

You might be right that nostalgia is clouding my thoughts here. I definitely think that I prefer the game the way it was, but I recognize that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I do like seeing great shooters rain threes. But when you look at shot charts, you see the near absence of midrange shooting, and I do think there's fewer types of players out there than I want to see. We don't see many midrange shooters anymore. We don't see post up guys with rare exceptions like Jokic. I don't want it to be just like it was back in the 80s - I think more, better outside shooting is good for the game. But I think the pendulum has swung too far and I'd just like to see it come back a little.

Even if they changed the rules to encourage it, post-up play isn't coming back for years. No one's doing it; I doubt many coaches are teaching the footwork and counter-moves necessary for effective post-play.

 

[BaseballJones]

Even if they changed the rules to encourage it, post-up play isn't coming back for years. No one's doing it; I doubt many coaches are teaching the footwork and counter-moves necessary for effective post-play.

For sure it's not coming back, especially as three point shooting has filtered down to college and high school and middle school. Nobody wants to do it. Nobody coaches it. (not literally NOBODY, but you get the point) So nobody has the skills anymore. Which is a shame, because quality post play is really effective and is beautiful to watch.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

These pieces/videos/threads are all interesting but they essentially boil down to personal preferences. The three point line ruins basketball...for "me".

More to the point, is there any serious talk of the league doing anything with the three point line? Is it truly a threat to the sport?

 

[dhellers]

How about penalizing missed 3s by creating a 3 point shot counter.

The counter starts at zero at the beginning of each quarter (separate counter for each team).
It increments when a 3 point-range shot is MISSED.
It resets to 0 when a 3-point range shot is MADE.

When the counter hits 3, the next MADE 3 point-range shot only scores two points, and resets the counter.

In summary: if a team has missed 3 (or more) 3-point range shots in a row, the next made 3 point-range shot is worth 2 points.

Note that missing more than three in a row does no additional harm (so the counter only need to go from 0 to 3, with 3 meaning "next 3 point-range shot scores 2").

The goal is to penalize shots from low probablity shooters. Their misses will hurt the average value of subsequent 3 point attempts. So the amazing Curry's are still valuable, but the marginal (~33%) shooters better think carefully about chucking up a bomb.

I would turn the counter off the last 3 minutes of a game -- since desperation 3s to erase a deficit are kind of fun to watch.

Of course one could tweak this a zillion ways -- the fundamental notion is to impose a cost on 3 point-range misses; in a fashion that brings the 3 point-range shot's average value closer to all other shot types.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

These pieces/videos/threads are all interesting but they essentially boil down to personal preferences. The three point line ruins basketball...for "me".

More to the point, is there any serious talk of the league doing anything with the three point line? Is it truly a threat to the sport?

Isn’t the sports popularity skyrocketing and at an all-time high? I don’t see how something that is so popular and embraced can be a threat. Maybe to the older generations but that isn’t who the NBA is marketing to…..it is being marketed overseas, in Asia, and to the younger generation here.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

These pieces/videos/threads are all interesting but they essentially boil down to personal preferences. The three point line ruins basketball...for "me".

More to the point, is there any serious talk of the league doing anything with the three point line? Is it truly a threat to the sport?

Well, the media chatter about the 3P line making the game less interesting is growing but that's about all.

I believe Mark Cuban and some others have mentioned moving the 3P line back but I don't know of anything serious. I suspect that if it does become an issue for the NBA, we'll see some potential solutions trialed in the G-League.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

What is the difference from someone shooting a 16 ft jumper or a 3? I guess I don't see why people miss the mid range jump shot. It's the same thing as a 3 pointer.

Missing Patrick Ewing and David Robinson, I can understand. I just don't see the difference from a stylistic point of view over a mid range shot and a 3 point shot. Other than spacing, anyway.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Did anyone enjoy watching Kobe Bryant play? Whenever Tatum shoots a midrange jumpshot, the board acts as if a baby kitten died.

 

[BaseballJones]

What is the difference from someone shooting a 16 ft jumper or a 3? I guess I don't see why people miss the mid range jump shot. It's the same thing as a 3 pointer.

Missing Patrick Ewing and David Robinson, I can understand. I just don't see the difference from a stylistic point of view over a mid range shot and a 3 point shot. Other than spacing, anyway.

I don't like the fact that there are enormous sections of the offensive end of the floor that are blank and basically off-limits. I'd like players with that skill set to be able to play a game where their skill set is valued. Again, personal preference, I guess.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I don't like the fact that there are enormous sections of the offensive end of the floor that are blank and basically off-limits. I'd like players with that skill set to be able to play a game where their skill set is valued. Again, personal preference, I guess.

They are valued, because they extended their range from 16 to 23. They are still in the game, they just evolved. Do you miss bunts in baseball?

 

[BaseballJones]

They are valued, because they extended their range from 16 to 23. They are still in the game, they just evolved. Do you miss bunts in baseball?

Bunts are a bad comparison. Though I do miss some bunts for base hits, and given the shifts, it's amazing to me that players haven't worked on bunting more, because it could be a really effective way to get on base. And as Billy Beane pointed out, the goal is to get on base. Doesn't matter how.

And no, midrange shots aren't valued. That's why teams very rarely take them, and tend to discourage their players from taking them. They wouldn't do that if they were valued.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Bunts are a bad comparison. Though I do miss some bunts for base hits, and given the shifts, it's amazing to me that players haven't worked on bunting more, because it could be a really effective way to get on base. And as Billy Beane pointed out, the goal is to get on base. Doesn't matter how.

And no, midrange shots aren't valued. That's why teams very rarely take them, and tend to discourage their players from taking them. They wouldn't do that if they were valued.

because the chance of hitting a midrange shot isn't much greater than hitting a 3. No one values it because it's the bunt.

Plus I'd argue anyone who can hit the midrange shot at a good clip nowadays will extend his range to the 3 point line his first few years in the NBA.

I guess my point is I'm not sure the midrange shot is all that different skill than the 3 point shot. If you can do one, you can probably do the other. At least if you start at a young enough age, and nowadays players will. If LMA were coming into the league today, he'd have a 3 point shot in his 2nd or 3rd year.

Are there any players with great mid range games that aren't in the NBA or are sitting on a bench? Plus people are overstating it, as more than 40% of Jaylen's shots are from 3ft-3pt. More than 47% of Tatum's are.

Not everyone is the James Harden Rockets.

Although, to be fair, those shots are coming in the same locations.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=2021-22+boston+celtics+shot+chart

 

[teddykgb]

I’m with you BJ. The NBA product has gotten very “same-y” and most nights the winner is determined by 3 point shots. I personally don’t watch neutral NBA games often because it has simply ceased to be interesting. Very few teams have a unique style and aside from a unique player like Jokic or maybe Sabonis I know what every game will look like. Sometimes it is fun to watch a hot shooter go to work but I think it would improve the game immensely to move the 3 point line deeper or move to 3s and 4s. Change the value equation of each shot and more possibilities open up for team building and strategy.

I can recognize that this is me saying that it’s ruining basketball for me. Maybe there aren’t enough people like me to matter. That’s fine. I would caution thathe if the NBA wants to go global it’s competition is the various soccer leagues. This is a sport that is defined by contrasting play styles and tactics and it makes it far far more interesting to watch when teams approach matches in different ways

 

[Jimbodandy]

I was a small kid too so I can appreciate your sentiment there. There needs to be a way to allow smaller, skilled players a space to play. But man, there's no question that the three pointer for young kids is a detriment to their shooting mechanics. You see kids not able to hit threes with good form just leaning into shots, chucking from the hip because that's the only way they can reach the basket. And because threes are the name of the game, coaches approve of and encourage this.

I'm a few years removed from coaching 7th and 8th graders, but the 3pt line fucked with their mechanics in all sorts of ways. Most of our kids couldn't shoot outside of 15' without it becoming a heave. The league didn't count 3s, so as to discourage the shot. This worked great until the state tournament, when 3s were now in play. As soon as one team fell behind by 8-10 points, the players took that as carte blanche to start heaving. There were maybe a handful of kids in our league out of 200 for whom it was a break even shot. I'm glad that we didn't count them. Made my life easier.

In the NBA, I'm in the camp that would like to move the line back and widen the court a few feet. Frankly, the wider court is needed anyway. I love defense more than the next guy, but long, athletic teams can ruin offensive flow. Court is too small. Transition is too easy to cover (nevermind those bullshit fouls to stop breaks), and most good transition comes from throwing over the defense. Court is long enough, just not wide enough. And move the line back. Stiffs can shoot over 33%.

 

[BaseballJones]

@Cesar Crespo - You don't have to convince me of why the math tells us to shoot threes.

Current NBA season shooting percentages:

< 5 feet: 61.7%
5-9 feet: 38.3%
10-14 feet: 43.3%
15-19 feet: 41.5%
20-24 feet: 36.9%
25-29 feet: 33.5%

Now take those percentages and turn them into points given 80 shot attempts:

< 5 feet: 61.7% = 98.7 points
5-9 feet: 38.3% = 61.3 points
10-14 feet: 43.3% = 69.3 points
15-19 feet: 41.5% = 66.4 points
20-24 feet: 36.9% = 59.0 points
25-29 feet: 33.5% = 80.4 points

Given the math, it's silly for any shot other than a layup/dunk or three pointer to be shot. So while the math works statistically, and is the justification for the current model of how to play, don't you think the game of basketball loses *something* when huge swaths of the offensive end of the court are devalued like this? I do.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I’m with you BJ. The NBA product has gotten very “same-y” and most nights the winner is determined by 3 point shots. I personally don’t watch neutral NBA games often because it has simply ceased to be interesting. Very few teams have a unique style and aside from a unique player like Jokic or maybe Sabonis I know what every game will look like. Sometimes it is fun to watch a hot shooter go to work but I think it would improve the game immensely to move the 3 point line deeper or move to 3s and 4s. Change the value equation of each shot and more possibilities open up for team building and strategy.

I can recognize that this is me saying that it’s ruining basketball for me. Maybe there aren’t enough people like me to matter. That’s fine. I would caution thathe if the NBA wants to go global it’s competition is the various soccer leagues. This is a sport that is defined by contrasting play styles and tactics and it makes it far far more interesting to watch when teams approach matches in different ways

I am going to disagree with it all being about 3-point shots. With the length, athleticism and close-out ability that NBA defenders have it is SO much more than simply shooting a 3-pointer. Offensive execution and shot creation is more valuable than ever in today’s NBA and that is what creates a 3-point shot with rare exception.

We all saw the clip posted the other day of Tatum’s skip pass to Grant and the quick swing to Schroder who if you look quickly was wide open. In reality, his shot was contested despite nobody being within 10 feet of him on Tatum’s swing pass. The ability to get your shot off gains more and more value each year as this skill becomes more difficult with defensive prep and the athletes improving.

This is why Pritchard struggles in producing because he has a slow trigger and a low release point which makes it difficult to get shots off against a focused defense. Someone like him can fool people later in the year or in meaningless games when the defenses are softer.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

@Cesar Crespo - You don't have to convince me of why the math tells us to shoot threes.

Current NBA season shooting percentages:

< 5 feet: 61.7%
5-9 feet: 38.3%
10-14 feet: 43.3%
15-19 feet: 41.5%
20-24 feet: 36.9%
25-29 feet: 33.5%

Now take those percentages and turn them into points given 80 shot attempts:

< 5 feet: 61.7% = 98.7 points
5-9 feet: 38.3% = 61.3 points
10-14 feet: 43.3% = 69.3 points
15-19 feet: 41.5% = 66.4 points
20-24 feet: 36.9% = 59.0 points
25-29 feet: 33.5% = 80.4 points

Given the math, it's silly for any shot other than a layup/dunk or three pointer to be shot. So while the math works statistically, and is the justification for the current model of how to play, don't you think the game of basketball loses *something* when huge swaths of the offensive end of the court are devalued like this? I do.

Not really. I just don't see that much of a difference between Tatum shooting a 16 footer or a 3 pointer from a stylistic point of view.

I don't think there is a fix anyway, unless you like big men dominating the game and with defenses nowadays, I'd hate to see what the game would look like without a 3 pointer.

There's always going to be an optimal way to win and that will never include mid range shots. The game was also a terrible product when they moved the 3 point line in. I don't know where that fits into this conversation though. Everyone mentioned moving it out, 3/4 points. I guess moving the 3 point line in to like 12 feet would do the trick. You wouldn't see any short jump shots though. Spacing probably becomes problematic too. I don't think the game is enjoyable when everyone is bunched up.

 

[BaseballJones]

Ok then we just see this differently. Which is fine.

 

[Humphrey]

I would agree that fractions seem weird, but the bottom line is that since the payoffs for various shots were never really thought through when they were introduced and since teams have become very efficient at arbitraging their inefficiency, the most simple and elegant solution is to change the payoffs in such as way that makes shots from each spot in the court have the same value.

If you want to avoid the fraction problem, you can do as you say; make 2 pointers 3 pointers or even 4 pointers and so on. I would even think about adding a 6 pointer or something for shots behind the halfway line.

5 points for a three, 4 four a two, 2 for a foul shot. Voila, no fractions. Just have to have the scoreboards capable of going past 199.