Which 3-point line change would you prefer?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

How would you "fix" the NBA's 3-point problem?

  • Eliminate the 3-point line altogether

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • Move the 3-point line back and eliminate the corner 3

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • Permit hand-checking outside the arc

    Votes: 21 48.8%

  • Limit teams to a maximum number (20, 25?) of 3-point attempts per game

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • Limit 3-point shots to a specific time frame (final 2 minutes of a quarter, or 4th quarter only)

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • I wouldn't change anything

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • 3pt alley-oop

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • Change the scoring system (-1 for missed 3, 3's & 4's, 2-3-4 system, etc)

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Total voters
    43
inconceivable said:
The ultimate solution is to assign 3 points for a standard basket and 4 beyond the arc. This way, the premium is only 33% instead of 50%. Furthermore, add a 5 pointer beyond the 4 point arc

Foul on 3 point shot missed
Attempt #1 = 1 pt
Attempt #2 = 2 pts

Foul on 4 point shot missed
Attempt #1 = 2 pts
Attempt #2 = 2 pts

Foul on 3 point shot made
Attempt #1 = 1 pt

Foul on 4 point shot made
Attempt #1 = 2 pt

Technical foul
Attempt #1 = 1 pt
Click to expand...

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.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
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?
Click to expand...

Fantasy football you can lose points.

Sometimes I feel like the scorekeeper can’t keep up as is.
 
inconceivable said:
The ultimate solution is to assign 3 points for a standard basket and 4 beyond the arc. This way, the premium is only 33% instead of 50%. Furthermore, add a 5 pointer beyond the 4 point arc

Foul on 3 point shot missed
Attempt #1 = 1 pt
Attempt #2 = 2 pts

Foul on 4 point shot missed
Attempt #1 = 2 pts
Attempt #2 = 2 pts

Foul on 3 point shot made
Attempt #1 = 1 pt

Foul on 4 point shot made
Attempt #1 = 2 pt

Technical foul
Attempt #1 = 1 pt
Click to expand...
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 needed​
Thats 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 needed​
So 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.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I think it could work. Disincentivize the 3 to where it's no more valuable of a shot on average than a 2, and you immediately fix the problem of teams jacking up as many 3s as possible. A great shooter still has reason to look for the 3, because he's probably better out there than he would be inside the arc.
 
handiman said:
That's exactly why I think it could work. Disincentivize the 3 to where it's no more valuable of a shot on average than a 2, and you immediately fix the problem of teams jacking up as many 3s as possible. A great shooter still has reason to look for the 3, because he's probably better out there than he would be inside the arc.
Click to expand...
If its the same value as a 2 - whats the point of having a 3?

It would be simpler to just eliminate all 3's - as the expected value shooting 50% on this +3-1 is the same as shooting 50% on 2's. No need for this complicated subtract 1 add 3 math - just have all 2s in that case.

I'm not for that idea - as I think there needs to be a middle ground where the floor is spaced but its less than the current excessive 3pt volume.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Apparently Haberstroh is in favor of the 2-3-4 system...

Click to expand...

Some interesting stats from that article;

"1996-97, the first season of shot-location data, the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls paced the league with 41.5 mid-range shots per game"
"This season, the leading purveyors of the mid-range, the Sacramento Kings, take just 14.1 shots from the same area that Jordan enjoyed, with the majority of the NBA taking single-digit attempts per game."​

So basically Michael Jordan on one of the greatest basketball teams of all time if playing now would have been way less effective as today's Sacramento Kings. Thats not a knock on Jordan - thats a major knock on today's NBA.
 
After hearing some of the player comments and especially Adam Silver comments I'm actually beginning to think they really will do some rule changes eventually to address this.
 
Who cares the NBA sucks and will never be good again.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
If its the same value as a 2 - whats the point of having a 3?

It would be simpler to just eliminate all 3's - as the expected value shooting 50% on this +3-1 is the same as shooting 50% on 2's. No need for this complicated subtract 1 add 3 math - just have all 2s in that case.

I'm not for that idea - as I think there needs to be a middle ground where the floor is spaced but its less than the current excessive 3pt volume.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. The added floor spacing of 3's makes them valuable when shot selectively at the same average worth as 2's.

Strenuus said:
Who cares the Strenuus sucks and will never be good again.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
I'm opposed to any significant change. Just allow a bit more hand checking.

*Edit*Maybe have refs not call insignificant hand checking at crucial moments. But I think if you allow a challenge in those significant moments that might solve that problem. And obviously you're not allowed to be under somebody who's landing on a three-point shot. And three-point shooters shouldn't be allowed to hunt for the foul on the land by kicking their feet out or whatever.

That should all be very clear on a review.
 
handiman said:
You answered your own question. The added floor spacing of 3's makes them valuable when shot selectively at the same average worth as 2's.
Click to expand...
I still don't understand why we'd have a +3-1 that is effectively the same as a two. Why not only have +2?

That was the rule until 1979. How is a +3-1 any better?
 
SharpesTriumph said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought about historical stats also.

But I am sure a statistician can create a formula so we can easily compare pre and post 4 point era.

Just because Dylan Harper ended his career with 50k pts does not mean he is better scorer than LeBron.

It would be complicated for players whose career was when the change happen
 
SharpesTriumph said:
I still don't understand why we'd have a +3-1 that is effectively the same as a two. Why not only have +2?

That was the rule until 1979. How is a +3-1 any better?
Click to expand...

Because it's 3 if you make it...

Let's be honest, no one complains about the volume of 3-point shooting when a team is hot. It's the more typical games where a team misses 30-40 of them that are tough to watch. So, reward the hot shooting games and give them good reason to stop launching bad shots when it's an icy shooting night.
 
I say we remove the line but add three little circles just outside where it used to be (at the top and then about halfway round each side) and if you have a foot inside those circles it counts as three. Easier to defend, so requires more strategy.
 
I’ve long thought it would be interesting if there were a 4 point area on the court (LED) which would occasionally be lit, an equal amount of times for both teams. Miss from it and it turns off.

however in this consideration I think it wild make the game too … wacky?
 
PDXFonz said:
I’ve long thought it would be interesting if there were a 4 point area on the court (LED) which would occasionally be lit, an equal amount of times for both teams. Miss from it and it turns off.

however in this consideration I think it wild make the game too … wacky?
Click to expand...

half-court shot worth 4
wedgies worth 1
drop-kicks worth 7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top