Take the 3 point line out tomorrow, how low do teams ppg plummet?

[Showtime80']

Since modern teams have no other way to manufacture scoring options aside from 3's and lay ups and PG's have no desire to run the ball consistently, what would the league scoring average drop to if you removed the 3 point line?

I say around the low 80's!

[r15mohd]

Since modern teams have no other way to manufacture scoring options aside from 3's and lay ups and PG's have no desire to run the ball consistently, what would the league scoring average drop to if you removed the 3 point line?

I say around the low 80's!

likely..and you'll see teams like SAS and Memphis become even more powerful with their post game presence

[Straight_Ballin]

likely..and you'll see teams like SAS and Memphis become even more powerful with their post game presence

This. It's really pathetic how the game has evolved into a shell of its former self. How will John Stockton's record ever be broken? Removal of the 3 point line and the resulting factors are evidence of this.

[Thesmallmamba]

Lol pace would go up


Playing for the 3 point shot requires more time off the shot clock as teams need to create space for open 3's and continue passing to shooters


No 3 pointers would make pace go up, it's easier to create 2 points than spot up 3 point jumpers


So scoring goes up

[Showtime80']

Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!!

Finally someone else mentions it. The TIME CONSUMPTION in playing for the 3 pointer versus 2's is SIGNIFICANT!!! That's something that the analytic geeks fail to mention when defending their "3 is better than 2" warped paradigm! Offensive schemes stagnate when your constantly setting up for 3's!

The problem is, where are the fast break pass first PG's to speed up tempo in the modern game?!? What you have now are basically the bastard offspring of the Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, Allen Iverson and Baron Davis factory of shoot first take the air out of the ball PG's!''

[GIF REACTION]

If you play like an 80's team you'll have way way too many turnovers

[Kvnzhangyay]

Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!!

Finally someone else mentions it. The TIME CONSUMPTION in playing for the 3 pointer versus 2's is SIGNIFICANT!!! That's something that the analytic geeks fail to mention when defending their "3 is better than 2" warped paradigm! Offensive schemes stagnate when your constantly setting up for 3's!

The problem is, where are the fast break pass first PG's to speed up tempo in the modern game?!? What you have now are basically the bastard offspring of the Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, Allen Iverson and Baron Davis factory of shoot first take the air out of the ball PG's!''

Why is a fast pace beneficial? In a fiat world, it would be beneficial to viewers, yes, but that would be catering to the entertainment side, and not the competitive side that 3-pointers now focus on

[Showtime80']

Modern teams DON'T have the personnel to play like 80's teams! They don't have the point guards, centers or even true power forwards to play that effectively.

Teams have less turnovers now because they waist 20+ seconds setting up for a 3 pointer and most of them have no consistent RUNNING games making up for the boring 3 point or lay up offensive monotone you see today.

I say, put the 3 point line in effect ONLY in the last 2 minutes of the quarter. Let teams spend the rest of the 40 minutes in trying to run VERSATILE OFFENSES!

The result may be ugly at first since most the present players have no clue how to establish consistent post, mid range or fast break games

[Showtime80']

Fast pace catering to the entertainment side!?! LOL! Now I've heard everything.

The fast break is one of the most FUNDAMENTAL aspects of basketball along with the inside post game dating back to the Celtics of the 60's which were the team that perfected the art. There are no two other more efficient ways to put pressure and TIRE OUT a defense than post play and fast break game!!!

All you do with the 3 point shot is BAIL OUT the defense instead putting it in foul trouble by pounding the ball inside or ramming it down their throats on the break!

Modern teams don't have any other choice since the skills and lack of fundamentals of today's players don't allow them to play for anything aside from 3's and layups! Not to mention the rule changes catering to soft perimeter players encouraging even MORE players to stagnate offenses consuming 20+ seconds off the shot clock dribbling around like a chicken with its head cut off 22 away from the basket!

[Kvnzhangyay]

Fast pace catering to the entertainment side!?! LOL! Now I've heard everything.

The fast break is one of the most FUNDAMENTAL aspects of basketball along with the inside post game dating back to the Celtics of the 60's which were the team that perfected the art. There are no two other more efficient ways to put pressure and TIRE OUT a defense than post play and fast break game!!!

All you do with the 3 point shot is BAIL OUT the defense instead putting it in foul trouble by pounding the ball inside or ramming it down their throats on the break!

Modern teams don't have any other choice since the skills and lack of fundamentals of today's players don't allow them to play for anything aside from 3's and layups! Not to mention the rule changes catering to soft perimeter players encouraging even MORE players to stagnate offenses consuming 20+ seconds off the shot clock dribbling around like a chicken with its head cut off 22 away from the basket!

What if I attack the core of your argument and say that a fast break is NOT a fundamental part of basketball? For that matter, what IS the DEFINITION of fundamental? How can you prove that your definition is right?

[sdot_thadon]

Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!!

Finally someone else mentions it. The TIME CONSUMPTION in playing for the 3 pointer versus 2's is SIGNIFICANT!!! That's something that the analytic geeks fail to mention when defending their "3 is better than 2" warped paradigm! Offensive schemes stagnate when your constantly setting up for 3's!

The problem is, where are the fast break pass first PG's to speed up tempo in the modern game?!? What you have now are basically the bastard offspring of the Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, Allen Iverson and Baron Davis factory of shoot first take the air out of the ball PG's!''
So every team just settles for 3s now, Is that what we've been reduced to? Or do offenses run sets with the 3 in mind? There is a difference. I suppose that means all the movement and spacing and passing that leads to these 3s are a stagnant offense? Wow.

On subject the scoring would fall off a cliff due to there being full fledge zone and not have an Avenue to bust it.

[ralph_i_el]

Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!! Thank you!!!!

Finally someone else mentions it. The TIME CONSUMPTION in playing for the 3 pointer versus 2's is SIGNIFICANT!!! That's something that the analytic geeks fail to mention when defending their "3 is better than 2" warped paradigm! Offensive schemes stagnate when your constantly setting up for 3's!

The problem is, where are the fast break pass first PG's to speed up tempo in the modern game?!? What you have now are basically the bastard offspring of the Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, Allen Iverson and Baron Davis factory of shoot first take the air out of the ball PG's!''

Offensive schemes stagnate when you're constantly letting one player ISO one-on-one. The teams that are setting up the most 3's are teams that break down defenses with passing and penetration, and space teams with shooting. I find it very entertaining. We saw a ton of great basketball last season.



Teams play a slower pace when they try to set up a lot of 3's, because we realize now that if you push the pace and try to score a lot, you're giving your opponent more possessions too. Now teams go for offensive efficiency per possession, even if it means slowing down the pace.

[Showtime80']

The ESSENCE of the game of basketball since its inception is to get the BEST and closest shot to the basket as possible!

A textbook fast break has rebounding, passing and an open efficient shot ideally taken under 15 feet or at the paint, all done before the defense has a chance to get set and only taking about 8 to 10 seconds off the shot clock. What part of that is not FUNDAMENTAL and OPTIMAL!

Blame the current crop of PG's who would rather shoot 25+ times a game than honing their craft in the fast break game. That's why modern offenses need so much time to materialize.

Jason Kidd and Steve Nash basically led a collection of role players to Finals fast and top of their conferences with the fast break style. The problem is their half court offenses were lackluster.

[ClipperRevival]

So every team just settles for 3s now, Is that what we've been reduced to? Or do offenses run sets with the 3 in mind? There is a difference. I suppose that means all the movement and spacing and passing that leads to these 3s are a stagnant offense? Wow.

On subject the scoring would fall off a cliff due to there being full fledge zone and not have an Avenue to bust it.

There is no such thing. Illegal D rule dictates that you can't stay more than 3 seconds in the painted area if you aren't at least an arm's length of your man. That means zone is only allowed outside the paint. The thing is, the paint is a pretty big area. So zone is only allowed outside the paint and since this is the era of spacing and 3 point shooting, it's not a good idea to run zone because guys at this level are too good to just guard an area. You have to stay attached to your man to defend the 3 and cover such a spaced court.

[GIF REACTION]

A wide open 3 pointer, which is what a lot of these 3 point shooting teams, is a VERY efficient shot. There was some data on how distance from a shooter affected 3pt percentage... Went exactly how you'd think. The further the defender, the higher the percentage

[pudman13]

This. It's really pathetic how the game has evolved into a shell of its former self.

Exactly....I've been saying for years that the 3-point shot has changed the game in a very negative way, and as of now people have been playing with it for so long that they are pretty much incapable of learning how to play real basketball again.

[pudman13]

The ESSENCE of the game of basketball since its inception is to get the BEST and closest shot to the basket as possible!

Bingo. the 3-point shot has changed the game into something that isn't really basketball.

[Showtime80']

Enjoy what a REAL offense is supposed to look like, everything setting up from inside out, the post ups creating the spacing, mid range game basically turning into 18 and 20 foot layups, timely 3 point shooting, fast breaking when the opportunity presents itself.

I give you the 1986 Celtics, the greatest team ever, RAPING the Showtime Lakers in the 1986 regular season. How much would the present day Warriors lose by to that team with the REAL rules back then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEbAQaLHT1E

Sad we're NEVER going to see an offensive symphony like that again!

[Showtime80']

Teams today just don't have the talent and fundamentals to play that way!

Thanks Nike and David Stern.

[3ball]

It isn't NEARLY as worthwhile to drive-and-kick for 2-pointers as it is 3-pointers.. It's a simple mathematical fact that without 3-pointers, the efficiency of screen rolls/drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post-ups.

This proves that the decline in post-ups is due to the rise of higher efficiency drive-and-kick made possible by 3-pointers, not defensive tactics.. In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy could prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick.

Since post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations were the only things left in the 80's without the 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick back worthwhile, we can say with certainty that Lebron would be half the player back then - he's simply not elite in any of these areas.

[fpliii]

Possessions are like currency in basketball.

When you secure the ball (and the origin of every possession isn't created equal...possessions beginning from live ball turnovers > missed shots > dead ball turnovers/inbounds), you want to maximize the EV (expected value) of that possession. Likewise, when you don't have the ball, you want to minimize the EV of your opponent's possession.

When you exceed your EV, that's more money in the bank. When you don't, your account takes a hit. When your opponent underachieves its EV, that's your gain too. When they overachieve, that's another loss.

This may all seem incredibly obvious, and it probably should be. Going back to the first line though, bank accounts aren't infinite. Nobody has unlimited possessions either. You have a set amount relative to your opponent. So they aren't created out of nowhere, and you can't assume the results of additional possessions would be created out of nowhere. It's not about doing as much as you can in a vacuum, it's about maximizing your opportunities given the number of possessions you use.

One of Dean Oliver's theses in Basketball On Paper was that underdogs should adopt "risky" strategies, to increase variance and decrease the likelihood of you achieving your EV (since you want to stray from it, more positively) and your opponent achieving its EV (you want them to stray too, in the other direction). More talented favorites will instead adopt less "risky" strategies.

The point being...viewing anything in terms of per game numbers is misguided, since an arbitrary marker of 80ppg or 100pg or whatever is meaningless in a vacuum. Points per game are relative to scoring climate. Remember, possessions are currency. When you expend extra possessions, you're essentially taking out a "loan" from your opponent. Yes, you have an extra opportunity to achieve your goals (either achieving your EV if you are a favorite, or straying from it if you are an underdog) each time you receive a "loan" payment from the opponent. But each time your opponent overachieves its EV, that's money lost, digging you in a deeper hole.

[90sgoat]

'Efficiency' geeks have to be the worst and I say that as someone who has a bachelors in economics and statistics.

The biggest error is assuming that correlation means causation. Even educated people make this mistake.

Another mistake is using an 'all else equal' assumption, when there hardly ever is basis for 'all else equal'.

An example of the above is assuming that 90s teams were inefficient for not shooting more threes, which is a fallacy of thinking the 90s were all else equal when rules were clearly not the same.

Another is thinking that the current relative efficiency of the 3 ball means it was an efficient shot in the past. This again assumes all else equal, but it simply isn't true as teams are massively lacking people who can shoot the mid range shot.

Take Tony Parker, who does all his damage from the mid range and no 3s. Or Wade.

Now with 3s a lot of other effects come in to play, notably lack of free throws, second a lack of plan B, difficulty changing pace. The Warriors would have lost massively to Lebron's Cavs with full roster or the Spurs or Memphis.