Which 3-point line change would you prefer?

[PDXFonz]

half-court shot worth 4
wedgies worth 1
drop-kicks worth 7

Nut kicks -10

Warriors never would have won a title

 

[42N8Bounce]

The current 3-point line is 23' 9". I'd be in favor of moving it to 25' 0" (and remove the corner 3).

I'd also like to see a 4-point line at around 36' 0" (halfway between 25' and half court), then make the half court line (47' 0") a 5-point shot.

That would add quite a bit more excitement and strategy ending games.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Nut kicks -10

Warriors never would have won a title

What if you manage to get both in one swift kick? That should be worth something, no?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

NO! DO NOT MOVE THE 3pt LINE! WE NEED MORE OF THIS!

 

[blazerfan11]

Without getting into half-points, you could probably accomplish the same thing by making a missed 3 be -1 points, perhaps excluding buzzer beaters (end of quarters only, not end of shot clock). That way, the mid-range 2-pointers are still encouraged, and there's no longer a bonus for sheer volume of 3-point shots. Don't take the 3 unless it's a good look for a good shooter...

That would pretty much end 3-point shooting.

Shooting 40% on 3-pointers would get you the same number of points as shooting 30% on 2-pointers.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

40% make on 3s 3x.4 = 1.2
(Less 60% -1x.6 = -0.6)
Net is yes 0.6

30% 2s 2x.3= 0.6

Wow good call out.

Yeah the math showed it was the same at 50%.

 

[HailBlazers]

That would add quite a bit more excitement and strategy ending games.

View attachment 69088

Adding an extra ball certainly would!

 

[beast blazer]

The key was once much narrower, the shape of a "key", but the NBA expanded it because Wilt was too dominant.

So why not roll back that change? It would balance the game out a bit, promote post play and big men.

I get why people don't want to see teams take 40 3s per game. But the 3 does bring spacing to the game. People opine for the old days...but go back and actually watch some of those games, it was a slower more plodding game.

I think the ratings dip is really because there are so many more entertainment options these days.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[kjironman1]

Honestly I could see them moving the line back a bit but there is no way they reintroduce the hand check. Right now their golden boy is Wemby. That kid would be reduced to a second string backup center if players are allowed to hand check him. Then you have Flagg coming up. Same thing there. It goes for a few other players as well.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Honestly I could see them moving the line back a bit but there is no way they reintroduce the hand check. Right now their golden boy is Wemby. That kid would be reduced to a second string backup center if players are allowed to hand check him. Then you have Flagg coming up. Same thing there. It goes for a few other players as well.

You don't have to "reintroduce it" the way it was called before.

Just interpret it less strictly. Like in Europe. Wemby is going to do fine in Europe for a long time.

 

[kjironman1]

You don't have to "reintroduce it" the way it was called before.

Just interpret it less strictly. Like in Europe. Wemby is going to do fine in Europe for a long time.

I don’t think he would do well in the 80s so no I don’t think he’s built for the NBA with its size and athleticism with free and open hand checking.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don’t think he would do well in the 80s so no I don’t think he’s built for the NBA with its size and athleticism with free and open hand checking.

Right, that's why I'm not suggesting free and open hand checking.

I wouldn't want to get scoring down that much. Just enough to even the game out more. Like in Europe.

I'd prefer rules changes that encourage play more like the 2014 Spurs. Though, that team would probably do just fine with current rules. Or any rules in any era. Passing, cutting, ball movement, player movement. Just beautiful basketball.

I think it's less about changing rules and more about the interpretation.

 

[blazerfan11]

If you make 40% 3-point shooting equal to 50% 2-point shooting that would solve problem.

Currently, 40% 3-point shooting equals 60% 2-point shooting. 40% x 1.5 = 60% 4 x 3 = 6 x 2.

So we should make four 3-pointers = 10 points (50% shooting on 2-pointers).

3 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 10 points.

Make every other 3-point shot equal 2 points. Problem solved. No need to change other rules.

This will make shooters taking the 3-point shot worth only 2 points think twice. There could be whole new interesting strategies around who takes 3-pointers and when.
If the current/next made 3-pointer is worth 2 points, Victor Wembanyama might as well drive the lane instead of take a 3-pointer.

You could tweak the rule to make all 3-point attempts in the last 2 minutes of a game/quarter/half worth three points. I don't care either way about that.

Just make the 3-point shot less valuable over the course of a game would be the goal.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

If you make 40% 3-point shooting equal to 50% 2-point shooting that would solve problem.

Currently, 40% 3-point shooting equals 60% 2-point shooting. 40% x 1.5 = 60% 4 x 3 = 6 x 2.

So we should make four 3-pointers = 10 points (50% shooting on 2-pointers).

3 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 10 points.

Make every other 3-point shot equal 2 points. Problem solved. No need to change other rules.

This will make shooters taking the 3-point shot worth only 2 points think twice. There could be whole new interesting strategies around who takes 3-pointers and when.
If the current/next made 3-pointer is worth 2 points, Victor Wembanyama might as well drive the lane instead of take a 3-pointer.

You could tweak the rule to make all 3-point attempts in the last 2 minutes of a game/quarter/half worth three points. I don't care either way about that.

Just make the 3-point shot less valuable over the course of a game would be the goal.

Yeah that's basically the same effective thing I posted the other week, it's makes threes worth 2.5 points each. My idea was have a 1pt bonus for every other "3", track it on the scoreboard with an extra arrow kind of like a possession arrow. So first three is worth 2 points, next 3, then 2, then 3 etc etc. could have all threes in the last minute worth 3. Probably lot of ways they could implement something along these lines that reduce threes value.

Maybe the way to try something like this out is first do it in the Gleague, then the next year just do it during the 2nd quarter. Eventually have it for the whole game.

 

[handiman]

Changing the value of baskets will never fly, IMO, be it 2's and 3's and 4's, 2.5's, or alternating 2's and 3's. It would be too arbitrary to make sense to most viewers, and the name of the shots is generally the point value and embedded in pop culture. It's not like football where it's a touchdown/field goal/safety, and the point values could be tweaked without changing the names.

 

[inconceivable]

Scoring change is the solution: 3 is the new 2 and 4 is the new 3.

This lowers the long shot premium.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I've now updated the poll choices to include a generic "change the scoring system" option. Feel free to update your selections if you would be on board with one of the multiple possibilities discussed (or even one that hasn't been)

 

[Predator]

Elimínate the 3

allow hand checking

I would cum

 

[kjironman1]

I also posted this on the Around the NBA thread.
Not sure the problem with the game is the 3 point shot. Yes they could extend it and make a couple changes.
Overall I think the problem with the game is the obvious tanking by multiple teams. The lack of consistent referee's that seem to always reviewing a play. Last but not least by a long shot is the 6 or 7 different ways you have to go to find a game you want to watch.

 

[Boomchakalaka2]

I never really liked watching Dame pulling up from the logo. Felt this had nothing to do with scoring 3 points and more to do with showing off. Truly a poor basketball play. So for me, moving back the line will only encourage this ball-chucking ugly basketball! Too late to remove the 3-point shot entirely however. So having it available during the last 5 minutes of each quarter and not available in overtime period OR, have the 3-point shot available during the first 5 minutes of each quarter including the first 5-minute overtime period and not available during extended overtime periods. I would like to watch several games with each of the above options and determine what dynamics are resulting before selecting which way to go. My early opinion is that if the “last five minutes” of each quarter was chosen, there would be more “comeback” opportunities for teams that fall way behind. Nevertheless I would like to see several games using the “first five minutes of each quarter” option.

 

[BigGameDamian]

The current 3-point line is 23' 9". I'd be in favor of moving it to 25' 0" (and remove the corner 3).

I'd also like to see a 4-point line at around 36' 0" (halfway between 25' and half court), then make the half court line (47' 0") a 5-point shot.

That would add quite a bit more excitement and strategy ending games.

View attachment 69088

If you’re going to have a 5 point shot I’d make it where the new 4 point shot is for the opposing team and make the 4 point shot the half court line. I would think you’d really want that 5 point shot to be something rare and special. If you make it the half court line players will just be chucking it up.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I also posted this on the Around the NBA thread.
Not sure the problem with the game is the 3 point shot. Yes they could extend it and make a couple changes.
Overall I think the problem with the game is the obvious tanking by multiple teams. The lack of consistent referee's that seem to always reviewing a play. Last but not least by a long shot is the 6 or 7 different ways you have to go to find a game you want to watch.

Those are two completely separate and unrelated issues

 

[wizenheimer]

I also posted this on the Around the NBA thread.
Not sure the problem with the game is the 3 point shot. Yes they could extend it and make a couple changes.
Overall I think the problem with the game is the obvious tanking by multiple teams. The lack of consistent referee's that seem to always reviewing a play. Last but not least by a long shot is the 6 or 7 different ways you have to go to find a game you want to watch.

you don't like tanking so maybe you're seeing it as a bogey-man in a lot of corners

the reality is there has always been tanking and there have always been bad teams...every year

last season, 7 teams won 30 or fewer games; in the 2019-20 season; 10 teams won 30 or fewer. In 2012-13, 8 teams won less than 30 games. In 2007-08, it was 7 teams again; in 2001-02 it was 7 teams. In 1995-96, it was 8 teams winning 30 or fewer. In 1988-89, again, 7 teams won 30 or fewer games but there were only 25 teams in the league!

so no, I don't believe tanking/bad-teams have anything to do with depressed attendance and viewership numbers. This season, 42% of all shots taken are three's; yeah, that's right, 42%. Ten years ago it was 27%. Fifteen years ago it was 21%. Twenty years ago it was 19%

the NBA used to be a home for dominant, physical, big men playing dominant, physical basketball; Wilt/Russell/Thurmond....Jabbar/Walton/Moses/Gilmore/Parish....Hakeem/Robinson/Shaq/Ewing. The NBA used to be a home for both big men and elite perimeter players like Jordan/Bird/Magic. Fans liked to see that variety in the games. But physical, dominant big men have been turned into anachronisms by the rule changes and the 3 point line. It's turned into cookie-cutter offenses where passing around the edges & chucking up three's has more value than passing inside & dominating the paint. It's fucking boring

 

[kjironman1]

Those are two completely separate and unrelated issues

I get that but honestly it isn't. Why did you start a "Which 3 point line change" thread in the first place?
You started it because a prominent NBA player commented about the game losing it's robust following. He happened to mention the 3 point part of the game.

Whether you want to admit it or not the reasons for the decline of the game, as it has been mentioned many times here on your thread include the 3 point shot. I personally feel those issues are very relevant.
I could have very well continued with the "Large Market" issues as those teams never seem to have to tank nearly as long and usually no more than 2 years where the Blazers most likely will have to go no less than 5 and probably 10. Please don't bring up San Antonio. Everyone here knows that is not a small market team that in any way compares to Portland.

the reality is there has always been tanking and there have always been bad teams...every year

Yeah? Tell me exactly how long the Lakers, Celtics, New York, Chicago will be tanking or have tanked? Now compare that to the Blazers and Kings, Hornets (How come they are bad again?) Jazz.
There are more teams to bring into this conversation but currently they actually have decent teams. Now the question is how long will they be able to keep them? Will Stephen A get his rally cry to get Alexander out of OKC when he again doesn't win a ring? Or is it going to be Mitchell out of Cleveland?

You thinking "Tanking" is the same for every team in the league and has been that way forever is rich.

 

[wizenheimer]

Yeah? Tell me exactly how long the Lakers, Celtics, New York, Chicago will be tanking or have tanked? Now compare that to the Blazers and Kings, Hornets (How come they are bad again?) Jazz.
There are more teams to bring into this conversation but currently they actually have decent teams. Now the question is how long will they be able to keep them? Will Stephen A get his rally cry to get Alexander out of OKC when he again doesn't win a ring? Or is it going to be Mitchell out of Cleveland?

You thinking "Tanking" is the same for every team in the league and has been that way forever is rich.

WUT?...that makes no sense

the conversation, at least my part of it, was about declining interest for the NBA in general, mainly gauged by TV ratings. Blaming tanking as a primary reason is a red herring because tanking has always been a factor, and there have always been really bad teams. Sure, the attendance and viewership for a specific team, like the Blazers, will lag when that team sucks. But other improving & better teams make up for it.

I'm watching a lot less Blazer basketball this season, and I know I'm not alone, and it's not because of tanking, it's because of tanking while featuring the 3 veterans that most people don't want to watch anymore and believe should have been traded before the season started. The roster doesn't make sense and a decade of fence-straddling torpedoes fan enthusiasm

as for the NBA in general, it's not just the heavy reliance on 3 point FG's, but it's certainly a focus of a lot of people including lots of people connected to the NBA. It's the subject of this thread too. But sure, there are other factors. Way too many stars are taking way too many games off; 'rest games' is a new normal. There has also been an expansion in the media options for other sports like the NFL and college football to compete for viewership Now, it's probably a case where just about anything you point to can have some 'correlation-without-causation' issues. But the bad-team/tanking-team ratios have remained pretty constant over the last 20-30 years so trying to draw a correlation isn't credible

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I get that but honestly it isn't. Why did you start a "Which 3 point line change" thread in the first place?
You started it because a prominent NBA player commented about the game losing it's robust following. He happened to mention the 3 point part of the game.

not really. I started it because many people for several years have been talking about teams' overreliance on the 3-point shot as detrimental. Also applicable to the playoffs. Has nothing to do with tanking. I'm sorry that you're having difficulty compartmentalizing.

 

[kjironman1]

not really. I started it because many people for several years have been talking about teams' overreliance on the 3-point shot as detrimental. Also applicable to the playoffs. Has nothing to do with tanking. I'm sorry that you're having difficulty compartmentalizing.

Sure.