Which 3-point line change would you prefer?

[PtldPlatypus]

Everyone's talking about how teams' over-reliance on the 3 is ruining basketball, and there are several suggestions that seem to be gaining a lot of traction/public support. So which is your favorite?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

3pt alley-oop. If the shot is thrown behind the 3pt line it counts as 3pts. It would open the court more, lead to more dunks, and feature more exciting and dynamic plays.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

3pt alley-oop. If the shot is thrown behind the 3pt line it counts as 3pts. It would open the court more, lead to more dunks, and feature more exciting and dynamic plays.

Would love it, though I doubt it would reduce 3-point shots. Still, you've got the power--add it to the poll.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I like the 2nd and 3rd options, allow hand checking, move line back, eliminate corner

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Not having the 3s for certain quarters is interesting as you'd need totally different lineups and kind of have a rush to maximize your shots there if you had a big team or such. Just seems to wild to actually be considered.

Allowing some hand checking is just how the game used to be played so it's a traditional thing. That's totally feasible.

Moving the line back just adjusts to current skills of players. When the 3pt line was introduced nobody was skilled at shooting that far out so it was a difficult shot. Now it's a shot half the roster can hit 40-50% of the time since players have become so skilled at it. Moving the line back just adjusts to the way the 3pt line was originally intended.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I enjoyed watching some of those great defensive teams. The 2004 Pistons were a ton of fun to watch and could shut teams down. They had 5 straight games in March holding opponents under 70 points. The last 30 games of the season none of their opponents scored 100. They went on to win the finals.

Now there were other teams like Mavs that year that averaged 105 points and had a super exciting offense. So not every game was low scoring like the Pistons. There were tons of different way to construct a winning team and many different strategies teams could play with.

That actually made the 3s way more exciting because they meant something and to have those shooters it meant you were giving up defense or rebounding or some other compromise. It was a chess game where teams could have different pieces that all had advantages and disadvantages.

The Drexler Blazers were a ton of fun to watch too. They had good defense, solid offense, but mostly they would RUN! It was running over the opponent to get a dunk. Today teams just run down on a fast break to jack up a 3. I can't imagine how boring it would've been to see Kersey and Buck fast break to shoot 10 threes per game.

Today every team jacks a ton of 3s and it's just made all the teams very similar which is super boring. I used to love watching good 3pt shooters.... But when the majority of attempts are 3s there's nothing exciting or special about it.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I like the 2nd and 3rd options, allow hand checking, move line back, eliminate corner

Seems to me that those are the two most reasonable/obvious options. Would doing both simultaneously be too drastic?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Hand checking opens up more ball movement. More ball movement makes the game more exciting

 

[BBert]

Eliminate the three point shot and make them play basketball.

Or at least let them hand check and tighten up three point defense. This would reduce the number of threes and force teams to move the ball, and it would open up the defense so the ball could move more freely nearer to the basket.

The three point shot, as Ralph Miller predicted, has ruined the game of basketball and reduced it to a boring shooting contest. Get rid of it.

 

[e_blazer]

So, is this the “we hate Steph Curry and Dame Lillard rule?

I think people love the long threes. It’s the over reliance on the 3 ball, especially by brick mason shooters, that’s annoying. How about only allowing 3s to count when they are below a set percentage of shots? Have an extra light that goes on when the threshold is open. Always on in the last two minutes of the game.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So, is this the “we hate Steph Curry and Dame Lillard" rule?

Not so much hate for them as much as hate what their success--and the success of the Celtics' offense this season--has done to the rest of the NBA.

 

[e_blazer]

Not so much hate for them as much as hate what their success--and the success of the Celtics' offense this season--has done to the rest of the NBA.

See edit above for serious proposal.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Biggest change I want to see is for the refs to stop calling so many sissy fouls. Let them play, allow for some contact.

 

[handiman]

The only 3-pointer that should count is dunks or finger rolls taking off from behind the line. If you haven't entered the paint's airspace by the time you shoot, it's a 2-pointer.

I'm okay with leaving the short corner 3's. If someone can figure out how to get a running start from there, more power to them.

 

[riverman]

Handchecking outside the arc makes total sense to me. While we're at it I'd like to get rid of goal tending like they do in Euro ball as well.

 

[JDC]

Eliminating the corner 3 would be terrible for spacing and have a huge negative trickle down. Move it back along with rest of the arc and widen the court makes sense though.

Making non-paint two's worth 2.5 points would be radical but I think that might be the only way to make the mid range and post game valuable to again to more than the elite in that area.

 

[inconceivable]

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

 

[riverman]

Eliminating the corner 3 would be terrible for spacing and have a huge negative trickle down. Move it back along with rest of the arc and widen the court makes sense though.

Making non-paint two's worth 2.5 points would be radical but I think that might be the only way to make the mid range post game valuable to again to more than the elite in that area.

Hand checking beyond the arc might really open up the midrange though.

 

[handiman]

Making non-paint two's worth 2.5 points would be radical but I think that might be the only way to make the mid range and post game valuable to again to more than the elite in that area.

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...

 

[JDC]

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...

Really like that idea.

And yeah river, didn't address that part of your post but I agree it might but I think the results would be pretty negligible

 

[PtldPlatypus]

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...

Really like that idea.

And yeah river, didn't address that part of your post but I agree it might but I think the results would be pretty negligible

I absolutely hate the idea, but I'll add it to the poll anyway.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Seems to me that those are the two most reasonable/obvious options. Would doing both simultaneously be too drastic?

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.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

So, is this the “we hate Steph Curry and Dame Lillard rule?

I think people love the long threes. It’s the over reliance on the 3 ball, especially by brick mason shooters, that’s annoying. How about only allowing 3s to count when they are below a set percentage of shots? Have an extra light that goes on when the threshold is open. Always on in the last two minutes of the game.

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?

 

[JDC]

I absolutely hate the idea, but I'll add it to the poll anyway.

Yeah it's likely too extreme.

 

[MickZagger]

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.

 

[MickZagger]

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.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

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...

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.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

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.

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.

 

[MickZagger]

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.

So I still get credit for the idea?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

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.

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?