OT: The 3-Point Shot

[Ice Man]

My take on the 3-point shot is that the rule is no longer required. Make all shots worth 2 points.

This is my thinking -

1) It was a good rule. Players circa 1980 were badly prepared, in sense that neither they nor their coaches realized how accurate -- and dangerous -- a well trained shooter could be from distances that they thought were absurd. They didn't try to learn how to hit 22+ foot shots and were therefore terrible at the task. Which made the game overly congested, particularly as NBA players got taller, heavier, and stronger.

2) But the rule's day is done. It is no longer necessary. A full generation's worth of players and coaches have grown up understanding the potential of long-range shots. The league is full of guys who can hit them at a 40% rate if open. That's the same percentage that they make of semi-contested midrange shots, which is fair -- an open shot from long distance and a semi-contested midrange shots should be worth the same amount.

If we eliminated the 3-point line, teams would harder at getting to the rim. This would occur with more low-post play, because today a lot of baskets are scored at the rim off drives from 3-point shots that are faked, and if we take away the 3 point line defenders won't commit to block those shots so aggressively. The lanes will be harder to penetrate. But that to me is a benefit, the game too much these days is pass, fake shot, pass fake shot, pass, fake shot, everybody is on the perimeter, and then eventually somebody either takes a 3-point shot or fakes and drives.

I think that if the 3 point shot were eliminated that NBA players would still take a lot of shots at the former 3-point range, because having an attempt that you can get at will with a 40% success rate is a solid backup option. But the 3-point shot would no longer be a first choice; as with a contested mid-range, it's something that teams would take if they couldn't work their offenses to get better options. You would no longer see teams take 3s early in the shot clock -- nor, God forbid, on a fast-break when a teammate is open at the rim.

I really,, really do not think that if the league eliminated the 3-point shot that the game would revert to being played solely from 20 feet inwards. The shooting genie is out of the bottle.

[2weekswithpay]

I've seen a lot of ideas about nerfing the 3pt shot, but I haven't found a single one that's appealing.

I don't think this benefits post play at all. Any great post player like Jokic or Embiid will be forced to pass. This is a no brainer decision for defenses. Why even give them a chance to score when you can make them pass and force a 16+ foot jumper instead?

No 3s and defenses are free to run whatever zone they want without restrictions isn't something I'm interested in. This kind of rule change shifts things in favor of the defense way too much IMO, and I'm not a fan of offenses reverting to the early 2000s. You can nerf offenses without removing the 3pt shot.

[kodo]

I don't think you need to remove the point value of the shot...this shot has existed since 1979. What's changed recently is how it's defended. It's treated as a special shot with a different set of rules altogether. The amount of contact you can put on a 3 point shooter is not remotely the same as you can someone taking a 2 point shot in the low post. Just remember all the contact, shoving, and even arm raking that Shaq went through getting his 2 point shots off, and imagine being able to commit that level of physicality on a 3 point shooter.

Stop treating the 3 point shot as a "no defense allowed" shot and you won't need to change the point value.
A 2 point shot in the low post should follow the exact physicality and defense allowed as a 3 point shot. If you can't even touch your fingers on the hand of the 3 point shooter, then touching your fingers on someone in the low post should also be a shooting foul.

[GoBlue72391]

I don't think you need to remove the point value of the shot...this shot has existed since 1979. What's changed recently is how it's defended. It's treated as a special shot with a different set of rules altogether. The amount of contact you can put on a 3 point shooter is not remotely the same as you can someone taking a 2 point shot in the low post. Just remember all the contact, shoving, and even arm raking that Shaq went through getting his 2 point shots off, and imagine being able to commit that level of physicality on a 3 point shooter.

Stop treating the 3 point shot as a "no defense allowed" shot and you won't need to change the point value.
A 2 point shot in the low post should follow the exact physicality and defense allowed as a 3 point shot. If you can't even touch your fingers on the hand of the 3 point shooter, then touching your fingers on someone in the low post should also be a shooting foul.

The rules for guarding a player posting up are different than guarding a jump shooter. You're allowed to use your forearm or hand against someone backing you down, otherwise it would just be free buckets. They obviously couldn't reasonably allow that kind of defense against perimeter shooters.

You either allow forearms and hands against 3 point shooters which will lead to injuries and sub-20% shooting, or take away a post defender's right to use his forearm/hand and make post ups essentially free points.

So no, the rules shouldn't be the same for each type of shot. On the other hand, I'm certainly not in favor of eliminating the 3-point shot.

[League Circles]

My take on the 3-point shot is that the rule is no longer required. Make all shots worth 2 points.

This is my thinking -

1) It was a good rule. Players circa 1980 were badly prepared, in sense that neither they nor their coaches realized how accurate -- and dangerous -- a well trained shooter could be from distances that they thought were absurd. They didn't try to learn how to hit 22+ foot shots and were therefore terrible at the task. Which made the game overly congested, particularly as NBA players got taller, heavier, and stronger.

2) But the rule's day is done. It is no longer necessary. A full generation's worth of players and coaches have grown up understanding the potential of long-range shots. The league is full of guys who can hit them at a 40% rate if open. That's the same percentage that they make of semi-contested midrange shots, which is fair -- an open shot from long distance and a semi-contested midrange shots should be worth the same amount.

If we eliminated the 3-point line, teams would harder at getting to the rim. This would occur with more low-post play, because today a lot of baskets are scored at the rim off drives from 3-point shots that are faked, and if we take away the 3 point line defenders won't commit to block those shots so aggressively. The lanes will be harder to penetrate. But that to me is a benefit, the game too much these days is pass, fake shot, pass fake shot, pass, fake shot, everybody is on the perimeter, and then eventually somebody either takes a 3-point shot or fakes and drives.

I think that if the 3 point shot were eliminated that NBA players would still take a lot of shots at the former 3-point range, because having an attempt that you can get at will with a 40% success rate is a solid backup option. But the 3-point shot would no longer be a first choice; as with a contested mid-range, it's something that teams would take if they couldn't work their offenses to get better options. You would no longer see teams take 3s early in the shot clock -- nor, God forbid, on a fast-break when a teammate is open at the rim.

I really,, really do not think that if the league eliminated the 3-point shot that the game would revert to being played solely from 20 feet inwards. The shooting genie is out of the bottle.

Can't believe I'm saying this but I think this is a great idea. So simple yet so true. I love it. They would definitely still space the floor.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

Something that will never happen but might be good for the sport is to adjust what points are worth. Instead of 3s and 2s, maybe it's 4s and 3s or 5s and 4s. A long range shot being worth 1.5 times more points does not make a lot of sense IMO. Maybe adjusting it to 1.25 balances out the expected values of various locations and makes scoring more diverse and interesting.
Since that's kind of a silly idea, maybe there is some potential rule change that makes it easier to defend against the three point shot. No clue what that would actually be.

[MrSparkle]

I agree with Kodo. My problem is how defenders are further disadvantaged, guarding the arc. Allow hand-checking on the perimeter! Also, allow FIBA style "goaltending" (swat shots after they touch rim). Two simple changes that would immediately reduce 3P%s.

There's just no way they'll remove 3P shots. It's too integral to the game now. It has been. How many classic games were decided by a 3-pointer? (Horry, Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, etc.) Just balance out its dominance.

[Ice Man]

Hmmm. I can't see permitting contact on a jump shot. That's just too radical (and devastating to shooters). But we could adopt Hollinger's suggestion and award 2 FTs on fouls on a 3-point attempt. (Although I would still award 3 FTs in the final minute of a game, to avoid intentional fouls of a shooter who is, say, taking a 3 point shot when his team is down 97-100 with 30 seconds left.)

As for the league refusing to eliminate the 3 point shot because it's too integral to the game, that's probably true. But my suggestion was not for what might be enacted, but rather what should be enacted.

As a side note, I'm fascinated by the idea that it took a rule change to teach basketball players how to make long-distance shots. That seems to me to imply some inefficiency in the player-development marketplace, because even without the 3-point line that ability is valuable.

[Evil_Headband]

Removing the shot seems too drastic. Maybe eliminating the corner three would be a compromise.

[DropStep]

As a side note, I'm fascinated by the idea that it took a rule change to teach basketball players how to make long-distance shots. That seems to me to imply some inefficiency in the player-development marketplace, because even without the 3-point line that ability is valuable.

The 3p rule change was 45 years ago. It wasn't that rule change, imo, so much as later rule changes on hand checking, etc. that made it more feasible. But I also think it was coaches who were too steeped in the dogma of basketball that made it take so long. You can't shoot a bunch of threes - that's bad offense, it isn't reliable - and so it was written. They had to see it work before they could believe it, and even then it took a while to buy into real change at lower levels. It was part of the basketball gospel that kids that wanted to gun it up there from distance were showoffs, and real basketball was cutting and screening and creating space and learning the dark arts of post offense, with isolation moves if you're a real star - get to the hole, or get an open 14 footer. This goes double for big guys. I can tell you for certain that some coaches, and I'm guessing it was most or nearly all, would yell at any big man who thought he could shoot at least through the 1980s, and probably some of the 90s and maybe long after. Who do you think you are, Bill Laimbeer with his 32.6% 3 point shooting on 0.6 attempts per game? Get your butt down on the post where you are supposed to be and get a rebound, or you'll be over here next to me. Now, a big can't even see the floor in many cases if they can't hit a three. I've always wondered if those coaches ever felt bad for yelling their whole careers at kids who loved to shoot from deep, and who thought (rightly, it turns out) that they could shoot that shot in games and win. I'm guessing not - they probably think they were right then and they're also right today, somehow. I bet big old Brook Lopez got told he couldn't and shouldn't shoot from range 1000 times. Then he practiced it for like one season mid-career and it turned out he was really good at it.

Steph Curry, above all, changed the holy scriptures of NBA basketball. He should be in the Hall just for that. The NBA went from 3's being some sort of weird garnish to the meal, to being the main course. You couldn't deny it watching him and Klay - even Chuck "you can't win that way" Barkley had to come around. We thought basketball was so modern in the 90s - and it was - but it's crazy how much it changed in 15 years or so.

[Ccwatercraft]

Not on board with eliminating 3s.

Remove corner 3 perhaps? Although it doesn't bother me personally.

No. I'd just leave it alone... there are other ways to improve things, this is too much

[dice]

Removing the shot seems too drastic. Maybe eliminating the corner three would be a compromise.

or have it like hockey and allow different court sizes, mandating that new arenas have wider courts to level out the 3 pt. distances

[MGB8]

My take on the 3-point shot is that the rule is no longer required. Make all shots worth 2 points.

This is my thinking -

1) It was a good rule. Players circa 1980 were badly prepared, in sense that neither they nor their coaches realized how accurate -- and dangerous -- a well trained shooter could be from distances that they thought were absurd. They didn't try to learn how to hit 22+ foot shots and were therefore terrible at the task. Which made the game overly congested, particularly as NBA players got taller, heavier, and stronger.

2) But the rule's day is done. It is no longer necessary. A full generation's worth of players and coaches have grown up understanding the potential of long-range shots. The league is full of guys who can hit them at a 40% rate if open. That's the same percentage that they make of semi-contested midrange shots, which is fair -- an open shot from long distance and a semi-contested midrange shots should be worth the same amount.

If we eliminated the 3-point line, teams would harder at getting to the rim. This would occur with more low-post play, because today a lot of baskets are scored at the rim off drives from 3-point shots that are faked, and if we take away the 3 point line defenders won't commit to block those shots so aggressively. The lanes will be harder to penetrate. But that to me is a benefit, the game too much these days is pass, fake shot, pass fake shot, pass, fake shot, everybody is on the perimeter, and then eventually somebody either takes a 3-point shot or fakes and drives.

I think that if the 3 point shot were eliminated that NBA players would still take a lot of shots at the former 3-point range, because having an attempt that you can get at will with a 40% success rate is a solid backup option. But the 3-point shot would no longer be a first choice; as with a contested mid-range, it's something that teams would take if they couldn't work their offenses to get better options. You would no longer see teams take 3s early in the shot clock -- nor, God forbid, on a fast-break when a teammate is open at the rim.

I really,, really do not think that if the league eliminated the 3-point shot that the game would revert to being played solely from 20 feet inwards. The shooting genie is out of the bottle.

Alternatively, you could split the difference by giving 3 fouls shots on a fouled miss (from behind the line) and two foul shots (so up to 4 pts), or count 3 plus one foul shot, on a fouled make. But if not fouled, only 2 pts for a make from behind the line.

[dice]

Hmmm. I can't see permitting contact on a jump shot. That's just too radical (and devastating to shooters). But we could adopt Hollinger's suggestion and award 2 FTs on fouls on a 3-point attempt. (Although I would still award 3 FTs in the final minute of a game, to avoid intentional fouls of a shooter who is, say, taking a 3 point shot when his team is down 97-100 with 30 seconds left.)

As for the league refusing to eliminate the 3 point shot because it's too integral to the game, that's probably true. But my suggestion was not for what might be enacted, but rather what should be enacted.

As a side note, I'm fascinated by the idea that it took a rule change to teach basketball players how to make long-distance shots. That seems to me to imply some inefficiency in the player-development marketplace, because even without the 3-point line that ability is valuable.

2 FTs for fouls on 3 pt shots is the way it used to be and should have been all along. i agree w/ the last minute exception though

[SalmonsSuperfan]

Removing the shot seems too drastic. Maybe eliminating the corner three would be a compromise.

or have it like hockey and allow different court sizes, mandating that new arenas have wider courts to level out the 3 pt. distances

I think wider courts would be a good path forward (even for reasons beyond the 3pt shot), but then they'd have to remove seats, right? can't really just remove the corner 3 specifically I don't think and the players still need some space to actually be in bounds when shooting...but making it longer distance/more like at the top of the key or making the entire distance longer would be beneficial I think. I just couldn't see it being a popular idea among teams to remove a row of seats from the 100s sections. News to me about hockey, are the rink sizes not uniform?

[dice]

Removing the shot seems too drastic. Maybe eliminating the corner three would be a compromise.

or have it like hockey and allow different court sizes, mandating that new arenas have wider courts to level out the 3 pt. distances

I think wider courts would be a good path forward (even for reasons beyond the 3pt shot), but then they'd have to remove seats, right?

which is why i suggested gradual implementation w/ new arenas

[coldfish]

The right answer is to reduce the shot value so that other shots have equal value. Make it worth 2.5 points.

Unfortunately, most of humanity can't do math so having a decimal point in the score would break everyone's brains.

[KissedByaRose1]

The right answer is to reduce the shot value so that other shots have equal value. Make it worth 2.5 points.

Unfortunately, most of humanity can't do math so having a decimal point in the score would break everyone's brains.

I always really liked Van Gundy's idea of getting rid of the corner 3. Would bring back the Power forward position/make mid range and posts ups matter a bit more again.

I'm very down for change though and the amount of 3 pointers is the biggest issue with the game right now for me above all else. 20 point leads don't matter at all anymore and just watching guys dribble the ball up and chuck from 30 feet multiple possessions really takes me out of it. The players got so much more skilled the last 15 years it's obvious we need a rule change but i expect that to happen never.

[jnrjr79]

The right answer is to reduce the shot value so that other shots have equal value. Make it worth 2.5 points.

Unfortunately, most of humanity can't do math so having a decimal point in the score would break everyone's brains.

The easier thing to do would just be to have 4-point and 5-point shots. Though brains will similarly melt seeing 260-point basketball scores and it would make adjusting for historical stat comparison context kind of annoying.

The simplest thing is probably to eliminate the corner three and push the line out further as may be necessary.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

I’m not a fan of it but definitely would prefer better balance letting guys guard again. The offense is too great at an advantage now. Take out the flopping and fishing for fouls would greatly improve the quality bring some physicality back