Yes or no, do you appreciate the game becoming all about the 3-pointer.

[90sgoat]

how?

defenses have no incentive to clog the paint anymore.

If there's a center in the key, that removes the need to overcommit from a help defender.

NBA runs one play and only one play:

High PnR with illegal moving screen
Fake towards the basket
See which side help commits
Pass to that corner
Shoot or swing
(shoot or swing)

This is literally every single play.

With a center in the key, the help defender doesn't have to commit because the center is there to take care of the drive.

Just watch FIBA basketball and see how the americans can't hit anything when they're not get wide open looks.

[Baller234]

If there's a center in the key, that removes the need to overcommit from a help defender.

NBA runs one play and only one play:

High PnR with illegal moving screen
Fake towards the basket
See which side help commits
Pass to that corner
Shoot or swing
(shoot or swing)

This is literally every single play.

With a center in the key, the help defender doesn't have to commit because the center is there to take care of the drive.

Just watch FIBA basketball and see how the americans can't hit anything when they're not get wide open looks.

interesting, never thought of it like that.

defensive 3 seconds doesn't make sense to begin with. i can understand why the offense isn't allowed to live in the paint but the defense naturally has to be positioned closer to the basket. the whole goal is to keep the other team away from the basket. it seems unfair to penalize them. it would be like penalizing a goalie for standing too close to the net.

[3ba11]

There was a point in time where 3's added a diversity to the game that added to the game, but now the hyper-focus and super-spacing creates crappier iso players that aren't used to heavy traffic or shooting contested 2-pointers, or having the quicker instinct that heavier traffic requires.. This weaker instinct and scoring touch gets exposed in international play when vastly less athletic teams trounce us routinely

[elementally morale]

I would add a chess element to it.

Each team has 24 available attempts per game. Use it wisely.

At the end of quarters I'd allow 1 extra end at the end of the game, last two minutes and overtime you can shoot as many as you want. But basically 24 attempts per team per game. Open threes you would still take but contested ones not so much. Fast break 3 on 2... just go for the **** layup.

[Baller234]

There was a point in time where 3's added a diversity to the game that added to the game, but now the hyper-focus and super-spacing creates crappier iso players that aren't used to heavy traffic or shooting contested 2-pointers, or having the quicker instinct that heavier traffic requires.. This weaker instinct and scoring touch gets exposed in international play when vastly less athletic teams trounce us routinely

yea, when it was considered a high risk shot. the concept of the 3 doesn't work if it's mathematically advantageous to shoot them at the expense of 2's.

when physical freaks like wilt became too physically dominant, the league had to adjust and change the rules accordingly. the powers that be decided it wasn't good for the game if someone really tall and really strong could just live under the basket and wait for the ball, so they widened the lanes.

we have reached the point where the shooters have become too good at the 3, which means it's no longer a high risk shot. that to me suggests it is time to adapt. either expand the width of the court and move the line back or get rid of it entirely. because by exploiting the 3 these teams have fundamentally changed the game and i'm not sure if it's for the better.

[tpols]

Bobby Knight gave an interesting position on the 3pt shot.

Letterman: Now what do you think about the 3point play?

Knight: Well we actually won the championship with it. But I really don't like it. It's like if you hit a 450 foot home run you oughta get 2 runs for it. And if you throw a 40 yard touchdown pass you get 9 points. I don't really like it.

[Goldrush25]

I don't think the game is all about the 3-pointer. It's about getting the most efficient shot. Just so happens that the two most efficient shots are the layup and the 3-pointer. The most efficient is the layup, hence why there are still far more shots around the rim than there are 3-pointers.

Basketball is about trying to work towards the best possible shot, it's not about gambling on low percentage 3's and hoping the math wins out in the long run. That is a clear sign that something needs to be changed.

You're contradicting yourself sir. "Gamble" is relative to the skill level of the person taking the shot. A 3-pointer is a gamble if I take it. It's not a gamble if Steph Curry takes it. In fact his expected value for thos shots probably dictates that he take more of them than he does. There is no hoping the math works out. If a player has demonstrated a certain level of skill the math is bound to work out in the long run.

I do agree that too many people shoot 3s but that's because there's a bunch of guys that shouldn't be shooting them at all. There is no such thing as too many if you're making them. The change that needs to happen is coaches telling sorry 3-point shooters to stop. If only the players who should be taking the shots were taking the shots, this wouldn't be a topic. Coaches, like in every other sport, try to fit square pegs into round holes, and elite athletes think that they're better than they really are. There aren't enough elite shooters to go around, so they try to fit guys into those roles that don't belong there, instead of building around their strengths. But I don't think penalizing the truly elite guys is the answer, nor is it fair to them.

And why would we want things to return to the way they were? Did you watch some of the basketball of the 90s? I lived through it, it was too much back to the basket, backing down boring style of play, because no one could really shoot 3s. That's what you want to bring back? Even with the proliferation of 3-point shots, there's more variety to the game today.

But pushing the three-point line back would just make the layup all the more valuable, particularly because the layup converts more reliably to another efficient shot, the free throw. I don't think we'd see more mid-range game because we have the data now. The mid-range has its place but it's not going to make a huge comeback no matter what they do to the rules.

[Baller234]

I don't think the game is all about the 3-pointer. It's about getting the most efficient shot. Just so happens that the two most efficient shots are the layup and the 3-pointer. The most efficient is the layup, hence why there are still far more shots around the rim than there are 3-pointers.



You're contradicting yourself sir. "Gamble" is relative to the skill level of the person taking the shot. A 3-pointer is a gamble if I take it. It's not a gamble if Steph Curry takes it. In fact his expected value for thos shots probably dictates that he take more of them than he does. There is no hoping the math works out. If a player has demonstrated a certain level of skill the math is bound to work out in the long run.

I do agree that too many people shoot 3s but that's because there's a bunch of guys that shouldn't be shooting them at all. There is no such thing as too many if you're making them. The change that needs to happen is coaches telling sorry 3-point shooters to stop. If only the players who should be taking the shots were taking the shots, this wouldn't be a topic. Coaches, like in every other sport, try to fit square pegs into round holes, and elite athletes think that they're better than they really are. There aren't enough elite shooters to go around, so they try to fit guys into those roles that don't belong there, instead of building around their strengths. But I don't think penalizing the truly elite guys is the answer, nor is it fair to them.

And why would we want things to return to the way they were? Did you watch some of the basketball of the 90s? I lived through it, it was too much back to the basket, backing down boring style of play, because no one could really shoot 3s. That's what you want to bring back? Even with the proliferation of 3-point shots, there's more variety to the game today.

But pushing the three-point line back would just make the layup all the more valuable, particularly because the layup converts more reliably to another efficient shot, the free throw. I don't think we'd see more mid-range game because we have the data now. The mid-range has its place but it's not going to make a huge comeback no matter what they do to the rules.

you are only proving my point.

the 3 point shot was not intended to be an "efficient" shot. it was an intended to be a high risk shot. if it's just another efficient shot, it fundamentally changes the approach to the game. as we've seen.

i do believe that if they pushed the 3pt line back, you would see the return of the mid range game. teams would have no choice.

[Axe]

A tall role player who's slow, heavy and cannot shoot threes is kind of useless on offense these days.

[jayfan]

No.


.

[Axe]

Just think about it. Shooting beyond the arc has become so common these days that even big guys with traditional roles do more so as well compared to those who played in the past generations. Thus, the ones who are good in that will often be valuable on the floor.

Using an interesting analogy, it's like current smartphones that can do a lot more than take pictures instantly yet that doesn't mean most people wouldn't see how good they are without considering the qualities of their built-in cameras and/or how they capture shots.

That's what's happening today more or less.