Stratmaster wrote:Wait. You don't think extending the overall distance would matter. It would just mean players getting a little bit better. But the corner 3 is the most valuable spot on the court because...it is the shortest distance 3. And extending the width 2 feet would make it tougher because...it is longer. The 3 point line is 1'9" longer at the APEX than it is in the corner and you acknowledge the huge difference that makes. But extending it 1'9" at the Apex wouldn't have much effect? If distance is what makes the corner 3 more valuable, just using general logic and math, wouldn't you think that difficulty would increase exponentially as you add more distance to the longest point?None of what you are saying there makes any sense.
I think it would make a difference, the point is to make a difference. I'm saying it wouldn't fundamentally shift the style of the game. It would still need to be defended just like the regular 3 still needs to be defended. It doesn't fundamentally make the spot worthless (like removing it would), it just makes it the same value as the rest of the floor. In terms of schemes, this would create a much more subtle shift than removing it.
Compared to other lower level leagues, in HS the break doesn't even exist, and in college the break only saves you about 6 inches vs 21 inches in the NBA, so removing the break actually brings you closer to the college game and HS game rather than further away. Replacing the break with a smooth arc would bring you closer to those leagues rather than further away, making the break go out of bounds and removing the shot is a much larger shift in terms of style of play.
As far as the NCAA, I said if they felt it was causing a problem they would change it. Like they did after 7 seasons of seeing the NBA with the 3 point shot, or after they saw the NBA add the shot clock for 30 seasons.
Sure, maybe. I mean they have huge gaps between the NBA game now (different line length, longer shot clock, 1&1 for penalties, different foul rules, etc..). I wouldn't count on them making this change, but you never know. I agree if fans loved the change, the NCAA would probably follow suit if they thought it would increase popularity. I really doubt that would be the outcome that fans would love this change and it would increase popularity, but that's based on the fact that I think fans hate almost all major changes initially.
Data scientists have no say in any of this. The problem isn't the number of points scored, it is the way they are being scored. It is simply a bi-product that correcting the way the points are scored to make the product better would likely reduce the total points scored. As one NBA player said, no one is looking to move the game back to to under 100 points per team scoring. The problem and solution isn't to scientifically assess what percentage of a point each shot is ACTUALLY worth based on difficulty and then mathematically adjust each spot on the floor. Hey, we can assign 1 point for under the basket, 1.5 for free throw line distance, 2.0 for the top of the key distance and 2.5 for 3 point distance. YES. That will really draw the fans! The issue is making the game better to watch, not pleasing the fairness zealots.
You are starting with the assumption that the game isn't pleasing to watch as the cause for people watching less games. A data scientist would go in and evaluate whether that is true. I gave you plenty of reasons which are backed by data why that probably isn't true, and the assumption is put forward by a largely loud, biased crowd with a big voice in the industry that isn't looking at the problem holistically at all.
You've conveniently not spoken to any of the alternative points I raised about why viewership is stable and not setting records.
It is interesting that the league, the talking heads, the players, and a huge percentage of fans all think this is becoming an issue. But you don't. So that means "Lots of things people think are a problem aren't really a problem, because people are really bad at figuring out the true root cause of problems." To me, it appears you are having trouble understanding what the problem all of those people are discussing is. It isn't number crunching the total number of points. It's the eye test.
Not really, the "lots of people" talking about this aren't the people they are losing. They are losing the casual fans, and you can look at lots of data trends to see why. Generally, people are moving away from TV and generally people have way more interest when there is an interesting dynasty.
It'd be like trying to change some random golf rule to fix the rating decline when Tiger Woods isn't playing and a bunch of passionate golf fans arguing about the size of the greens or thickness of the grass or reducing club head size or whatever else might impact golf, but instead, there was a dynamic thing drawing interest to the game that is gone and those shifts in style to the game won't bring people back, because the people you lost weren't ones who cared deeply about the game, they were the ones who just found it an interesting moment in time and wanted to watch absolute greatness.
That's what happened when the Warriors vs LeBron ended, and it ended in an era where TV watching in general rapidly declined, again 1 in 2 people that would watch TV are no longer watching TV, and the NBA holds a greater percentage of the people left than it did 10 years ago. It's been incredibly durable in the face of overall TV watching declining.
There's really no evidence that too many threes is the root cause of any of the numbers shifting and a mountain of evidence that it isn't.