Yeah kind of was wondering about that, seems like maybe they should just implement one or the other and then see how the game changes. If they had more room in arenas I'd suggest widening the court so the 3pt line is the same distance around the entire floor. That is probably the least likely of any changes as they'd have to eliminate those expensive courtside seats. I don't think they can just push all the seats back either because they sometimes have a special entrance or other perks.
The Warriors are a part of it but their far from the only team, the Rockets for many years had far more, the Celtics now are averaging 51 threes and 40 twos per game. So thats more threes than all of layups, dunks, floaters, free throw distance jumpers, post moves, hook shots, fast breaks, putbacks, etc combined. If people like the Steph/Dame long threes... why not have the 3pt line be longer back?
Hand checking. Taking that away was when the NBA game started going down hill in my opinion. It basically emphasized that they don’t want defense. Moving the line out a foot or so would be good too.
Maybe prohibit a 3 pt attempt on a second chance opportunity. So if you’re going to take it, it better be the look you want because an offensive rebound would negate a second 3 pt opportunity. I think it would in turn lower the amount of 3’s that are jacked up.
Never heard of that but its actually a really good idea. Really curious how the math would work if a missed 3 was -1 point. Making 50% of twos is an expected value of 1 point Currently making 33% of threes is an expected value of 1 point (Technically the three is superior here but will ignore that dynamic for now) Obviously it would need to be much more than making .333 of them if a miss was -1 If you made 50% that would 1.5 points But then the missed 50% would cost 0.5 points So you'd again be at the expected value of 1 point as 50% on twos So I'd tend to think this would harm the three too much as now they don't really have an advantage over a 2point shot.
I was going to post the same about 10 minutes ago, then decided it probably wouldn't be impactful enough. But I'd be intrigued by the idea.
Agreed--that's precisely why I said I hated the idea. It's one thing for the 3 to be too valuable; it's probably just as bad if not worse to make a 3 too risky. And also, are there any other sports where someone can lose points?
I think the math of this actually makes a lot of sense. People are so used to tons of threes being jacked up many would probably hardly notice if all baskets were 3 points. Then have 4 pointers. No I don't think they need 5 pointers though. I think they were going to have just one free throw at all times for however many points. They might have done that in the Gleague or even have it going still. I like that idea as free throws are so boring. They need to speed up the flow of the game and reduce all the stoppages, reviews,etc. For fouls then they could just have one shot, its either worth 1 point (tech, or on made shot), 3 points (old two pointers now worth 3) 4 points (old three pointer now worth 4) This might be one of the changes that based on math makes the most sense of anything. But I think its also just for sure never going to happen as its too radical of a change as well as screw up all the historical stats.
So whats the math of the scoring changed from 2/3 points to 3/4 points? Previously in post #27 I listed the 50%/33% equivalency rough approximation we have today. 50% on a "new" 3 pointer would be worth 1.5 points So then 1.5 points/"new 4" basket = 37.50% make rate neededThats seems like a much better structure. It would effectively be making all three point shooters 4.2% worse. So I decided to see what would happen if instead we changed this from 2/3 points to 4/5 points? 50 % on a "new" 4 pointer would be worth 2 points So then 2 points/"new 5" basket = 40% make rate neededSo now you'd be effective reducing three point shooting 6.7%. that sounds perfect! But you could actually cut those points in half to not interfere with historical stats. So 2 pointers stay the same, current 3's become worth 2.5 points. Then create a REAL THREE POINT line that is in the Dame range way far back.
Instead of a half point which I'd imagine is just confusing to everyone and scoreboards and score on TV/etc they could just say there is a 1 point bonus for every two "old three" pointers made. It's effectively the same over many makes but makes the scoring simpler. You could have a 3pt arrow light up when you make one and the team gets that extra point for the next "3pt" made. Would also make the end game way more interesting as if you were at an even # of threes made a three doesn't benefit you so you need to go for a "real man Dame 3 pointer" that is way farther back for the extra point. Then other games you'd have the 3pt arrow so you would be able to do the traditional 3. Or just make it so the losing team under 1 minute has all 3 pointers count the full 3's or such, makes comebacks easier which everyone likes.
If you permit hand-checking outside the arc we're just going to see an epidemic of sweep-through moves and 3 foul shots. Nobody wants that.
