Printable View
Let's play a game.
People suggest sometimes getting rid of 3s entirely to "fix" the NBA, but it always seem like a joke, but what if it actually happened?
What would the league and the game look like if you could not make that extra point from distance?
I think it would lead to a lot more fastbreaks. Post ups. Early mid range shots.
would still bang walk on water's mom
Jesus would return to Earth.
[QUOTE=90sgoat;14966960]Let's play a game.
People suggest sometimes getting rid of 3s entirely to "fix" the NBA, but it always seem like a joke, but what if it actually happened?
What would the league and the game look like if you could not make that extra point from distance?
I think it would lead to a lot more fastbreaks. Post ups. Early mid range shots.[/QUOTE]
A lot of players today don't have the skill set to score inside. If they tried playing against the 1980s teams, they would get demolished.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14966962]Jesus would return to Earth.[/QUOTE]
MJ in basketball clothes?
The game would be way more balanced. Some might think the style of play would revert to the 1960s and '70s but that wouldn't happen. So many other things aside from the three-point line have changed: the dribbling, carrying, traveling interpretations, illegal screens, three in the key, five seconds back to the basket, etc.
The post-up would be utilized more for sure. You'd still have plenty of ball screens on and off the ball. The pick-and-roll game and hand-off sets would still be heavily used. Perimeter shooting would be used and extend far enough out to open up the paint, just like it has always been in NBA history.
What we have to understand is that, yes, shots closer to the basket are higher percentage and lead to more second chance opportunities. But they're more contested and generate more turnovers. Whereas although perimeter shots further from the basket are lower percentage they're less contested, result in fewer turnovers, and space the floor.
A lot of the best team offenses and offensive players in NBA history were perimeter-based, even before the introduction of the three-point line. Boston in the '50s with Cousy, Sharman, and Macauley. Kansas City in the '60s with Oscar Robertson running the pick-and-roll. Golden State in the '70s with Rick Barry.
Guys like Curry and Klay would still be supremely valuable.
They should remove it for at least a few years to encourage different offensive schemes.
Same travel and soft calls? Those are part of the problem.
Other things stay the same? We'll see lots and lots of boring free throw show.
[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14967032]The game would be way more balanced. Some might think the style of play would revert to the 1960s and '70s but that wouldn't happen. So many other things aside from the three-point line have changed: the dribbling, carrying, traveling interpretations, illegal screens, three in the key, five seconds back to the basket, etc.
The post-up would be utilized more for sure. You'd still have plenty of ball screens on and off the ball. The pick-and-roll game and hand-off sets would still be heavily used. Perimeter shooting would be used and extend far enough out to open up the paint, just like it has always been in NBA history.
What we have to understand is that, yes, shots closer to the basket are higher percentage and lead to more second chance opportunities. But they're more contested and generate more turnovers. Whereas although perimeter shots further from the basket are lower percentage they're less contested, result in fewer turnovers, and space the floor.
A lot of the best team offenses and offensive players in NBA history were perimeter-based, even before the introduction of the three-point line. Boston in the '50s with Cousy, Sharman, and Macauley. Kansas City in the '60s with Oscar Robertson running the pick-and-roll. Golden State in the '70s with Rick Barry.
Guys like Curry and Klay would still be supremely valuable.[/QUOTE]
Those who would suffer the most are the lanklet wings.