Does anyone remember when the NBA moved the 3-point line closer?

[Picasso]

This is CRAZY to think about, given the number of three pointers launched per game these days but:

"For three seasons beginning in 1994–95, the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring by shortening the distance of the line from 23 ft 9 in (7.24 m) (22 ft (6.71 m) at the corners) to a uniform 22 ft (6.71 m) around the basket. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-point_field_goal

Does anyone have any interesting thoughts or anecdotes related to this? Mine is that it didn't work.

I was 18 in 94, so I remember it being a dumb decision. The NBA was trying to make it easier to score, they also made the Derek Harper straight arm handcheck illegal that offseason. The 94 Finals was 7 games of no 100 pt tallies and the Knicks made up for choppy offensive talent by throwing everything they had into their D. Even the Bad Boy Pistons had consistent offensive talent before them. The Knicks had John Starks..... The Cavs under Mike Fratello were also milking every shot clock down to keep scores low so they could scrape out 44ish wins. That was an embarrassment for the NBA. They held opps to 90 points or thereabouts one year (still the all time record) and that was with the shortened arc. Lakers usually lost to those Cavs teams which was frustrating, but they were good at what they did. They weren't the only boring low-O team then, either. That's the general backdrop to the 22 foot arc. The only problem is that every Tom, Dick and Larry who had no business shooting from 22 feet started doing it. It was a gimmick that became progressively more obvious and it was mildly surprising that they did it for as long as 3 years. Game didn't appreciably suffer in overall quality when they moved it back imo.

I remember everything you said and I agree with pretty much all of it. As a bulls fan I would say the Knicks were still a good team. But damn. That Cavs that year were really pounding the ball and taking last second shots. It was smart because it kept the other team on the floor longer and they were winning games, but that was crazy to watch 23 seconds of offensive play per possession for a majority of the game by 1 one team. They had one of the highest times of possession in a season that I can remember watching myself. And the cavs were on tv quite a bit at that time.

[BigRedDog]

The rule change was funny. Meant to increase spacing and discourage teams from clogging the paint. All it did was make it easier for players to defend the paint, then make it out to the 3 point line to contest the shot.

Yeah the rule change was awkward. Remember, illegal defense rules were still in place so you couldn't zone or double the post until the guy had the ball. But the closer line enabled you to dig and recover quicker.

It did kinda help usher in the first generation of Stretch 4's as guys like Sam Perkins, Chris Mills, etc were pretty well suited to take advantage of the shorter line and still get off clean looks with congested spacing due to their height.

There were also a lot more post-ups by guards in those days. Guys like Mark Jackson, Penny Hardaway, Rod Strickland, Michael Jordan, etc lived in the post and could operate as offensive hubs and kick out to shooters if you doubled. Guys like Steve Kerr were just plain automatic with the shortened line. It's pretty darn boring to watch that era now there was just zero ball movement or player movement. Just a bunch of guys standing around all the time. That's why players could play so many minutes in that era there wasn't much conditioning required.

[jpengland]

Jordan's 3pt shooting numbers were all over the place after his first retirement, and really during his whole career.

In his short '95 season he shot 50% on 2 attempts per game, in '96 he shot 43% on 3.2 attempts per game. And in '97, hte last year of the shortened line, he shot 37% on 3.6 attempts per game.

Then when the line was moved back in '98 he shot 24% on only 1.5 attempts per game. His playoff numbers were equally as random, maybe even more so.

Well he did shoot 38% in 1990, the first year he started to add the 3 point to his repertoire, and that's with the normal line.

And then 27% on 1.2 attempts per game in 1992, but the next year he did get better, 35% on 2.9 attempts in '93. Like I said, pretty random.

Sample sizes.

1.2 attempts per game is basically 100 shots. Every shot is 1% so variance is obviously going to be huge.

[The_Hater]

NBA puts in a rule to increase 3 point shooting. Doesn't work and too many people don't like it, they move it back. 20 years later, pretty much the same thing from different rule changes, except now make it 30 3s a game, too many people don't like it again.... NBA says IDGAF. Perfectly logical.

They shortened the 3 pt line specifically to increase scoring, now they’re getting that increase in both pace and scoring so I’m not sure there’s a huge incentive for the league to reverse all of that. I for one have no desire to see a return to the 1990’s.

[RCM88x]

Well he did shoot 38% in 1990, the first year he started to add the 3 point to his repertoire, and that's with the normal line.

And then 27% on 1.2 attempts per game in 1992, but the next year he did get better, 35% on 2.9 attempts in '93. Like I said, pretty random.

Sample sizes.

1.2 attempts per game is basically 100 shots. Every shot is 1% so variance is obviously going to be huge.

Well yeah, he was all over the place in both % and attempts. There was almost no consistency in either aspect outside or 96 and 97.

[NPZ]

I remember everything you said and I agree with pretty much all of it. As a bulls fan I would say the Knicks were still a good team. But damn. That Cavs that year were really pounding the ball and taking last second shots. It was smart because it kept the other team on the floor longer and they were winning games, but that was crazy to watch 23 seconds of offensive play per possession for a majority of the game by 1 one team. They had one of the highest times of possession in a season that I can remember watching myself. And the cavs were on tv quite a bit at that time.

A point worth mentioning is that starting around the mid/late 90s, and not just w/ Cleveland, you began seeing a preponderance of 60-70 point games all over the league. Not that the post-MJ Bulls were a good team, but I remember they scored 49 in a game. Even Utah had a 54 point game in the 98 Finals. It was in 94/5 that the NBA began swinging the pendulum w/ a guided hand toward measures that would cheaply increase scoring. New rules that benefited the offensive player were added on year after year until we got to the point we're at now. And note that gaudy 130+ pt scores with no defensive stalwart teams feels icky, too. To quote Miyagi, "Balance key to life." ("What kind belt? Canvas! JC Penny!") I miss man-to-man defense and 90s Knicks type rosters now. I miss the midrange shot, too, call me Gramps. That pendulum has swung too far towards offense. We went from 2 arms on D to 1 straight arm to 1 arm w/ bent elbow to can't impede mofos at all. And now, after Shaq's 18 year career, the league pulls the rug on Hack-A-____. Really, NBA? I watched years of that nonsense w/ Dunleavy and Nellie out West and they finally get rid of it because of all the doinks who can't hit FTs.