I've never understood the line of thinking that we should change the rules because people are becoming better at something. That's like saying, we don't want to see you improve your skill set. Defenses are there to make things more challenging, not artificial rules obstacles.
Not disagreeing, just writing out a thought.
Rules should provide a framework where there is balance... that means there can be more than one strategy that can be successful. For example, if the three point shot was worth four points instead, nobody would ever, EVER shoot a two, because to shoot 35% on 4-pointers would be like shooting 70% on 2-pointers.
Right now, 2P% is at 48.1%; if things were in balance (i.e., 3 points is worth exactly 1.5x more than 2 points in the rules), you'd see 3P% at around 32.1%... But right now, the league average is 34.5%, meaning a three point shot is worth 1.72x a two point shot, instead of 1.5x. Perimeter defenses make the two point shot easier to pull off, so there are more of them, but even if the league average were 33%, you should see as many 3-point shots taken as 2-point shots, which isn't the case, even in Golden State.
BUT, this is a long evolution away from the old guard and their traditions rooted in the pre-three-point era, and the modern group that relies on math to come up with better scoring strategies.
When we have a predominance of coaches from THIS era, we'll see a very very different game.
