More like 36% in most years and they're taking and making considerably more. 12.7 attempts/game in 1997-98 vs 23.8 this year. In 20 years, more than half the shots in a game will be 3pt attempts.
Half the shots should be threes, because the make percentage adjusted for the difference in points makes the three point shot about as valuable as a good post up shot. Teams are finally catching up to the statistics.
Just get rid of the 3pt shot on the sides of the court. Just round it off to one end of the floor to the next. Fans won't like it at first but they will get over it just like any other change.
Now this is a truly interesting idea. I don't think I would do it (it doesn't open up the floor much alone) but it is something to think about.
We are far enough into the future that we should have led lit courts with hot spots that randomly light up (determined by game officials in Secaucus NJ). Hot spots grant bonus points determined by where they are on the floor. If a player hits from 3 hot spots in a row the ball is then drenched in butane and lit on fire. The player who hit the shots is awarded a pair of oven mitts.
If the premise for this is to take away GS's advantage from the current 3pt line, this change would have the exact opposite effect
The score is tied with 10 seconds left; what would you prefer; 1 Blazers opponent has the ball out of bounds or 2 Blazers have a chance to grab an offensive rebound that is bouncing off the rim? One situation has a clearly higher expected value and win probability than the other.
But you're forgetting that if they hit the shot (say for three) the score is no longer tied. Yes if they failed to score by missing then of course an offensive rebound is preferable. But if that situation keeps happening as time runs out you don't win the game. Eventually you have to make a shot. That's where valuing the makes by difficulty comes in. I don't know what concept you're trying to explain if it involves winning a game by not scoring.
Meyers and Dame can make that shot. So can Curry. I think teams would use it. It could certainly get a team back in a game in a hurry.
And if Charles Barkley played for all 30 teams we wouldn't have the five second post up rule. Or if Mikan played for all the teams, no goaltending rule...
This economy has gotten outta whack, with billionaires like Mike Cuban running around buying everything, getting richer, consolidating wealth, etc... ... so, I propose Mark Cuban gives me a bunch of fucking money, for no particular reason! Sounds fair to me!
An offensive rebound opportunity has value. Making the first free throw and missing the second is worth more to the offensive team than missing the first and making the second. Both scenarios result in 1 point. Similar situation over the long run for eFG%. A 3 point shooter hitting 2/6 shots is worth more than a 2 point shooter hitting 3/6. Both have an eFG% of 50%; but the first has additional offensive rebounding opportunities.
Heard an interesting proposal on Bill Simmons podcast; let the home team draw the 3 point line. So a team that wants to play inside as the Grizzlies could have it real far away. Teams that want to bomb threes all day could have it close. Would make home court advantage more important in the playoffs and thus regular season seeding more important as well.
I think the 3pt game actually balances out the game in a good way. Shots near the rim are still the most efficient, and a dominant post man is tough to stop, but without a 3pt shot lets a team do damage from outside. With the current rules, without a 3pt line, teams would just pack the paint. Now you have to defend the 3pt line, and that leaves the mid range open.
Exactly. There was a great 99% Invisible podcast episode about how lucky basketball was when they set the height of the rim at ten feet and the three point line at 23ish, because both were arbitrary decisions. Both decisions balance the game well.
