Here's a crazy/stupid suggestion: get rid of the 3 point shot. Why? Because it's taking over! The percentage of a team's shots that are 3-pointers has risen precipitously in recent years (somebody else can research the full details - I'm too lazy) and I just don't like it. Do I not like it because it makes Golden State effectively unbeatable? Maybe. But also because I just don't like watching nothing but long jumpers. Downside: big leads would be unassailable. But as we're usually the ones giving UP big leads, I don't mind. And besides, BUILDING a big lead would be harder. As it is, the big men have been effectively rendered obsolete. Pity the poor Okafors, Kanters, Marjanovics and Monroes, who would be much sought-after in prior eras. Now we get every 7-footer practicing his 3-pointers. It's unnatural! Where can tall people go if not into basketball? Who's with me!
Don't want to get rid of it completely, because it helps with spreading the floor, but I wouldn't be opposed to moving it back to 25 ft, and removing the sideline break in the arc so as to eliminate the corner 3.
Here's a better idea: Institute a 4 point shot. It would rid us of the insufferable, never successful, foul-foul-foul-and-pray-for-a-missed- freethrow BS at the end of games.
Can't get rid of the corner 3.. If anything, extend it a foot and widen the court by a foot on each side.
I hate when people feel bad for current players because they'd be "more valuable" in previous areas. Monroe, Okafor, and Kanter are all horrible defenders, and the latter two are still making $17M a year. If they could defend they'd be sought after. Nurk without a jumpshot is still a max contract level player.
I have to echo BGD--why do we need to keep the corner 3? What's the value to the game in having one section of the 3 point arc that is significantly closer/easier than the rest of it?
The value is stretching the defense to all parts of the court. You'd have no room in the paint to score because every defender would collapse hard from the sides.
Last year, the league average for 2-point FG% was 50.3%. That’s the same as a 33.5% 3-point shooter. But the league average 3-point FG% was 35.8%. So the 3-pointer is more valuable than a 2-pointer for an average team shooting average percentages. In fact, only two teams shot the two pointer better than 53.7%, which is what the league average 3-point FG% is worth as a two point shot. So the 3-pointer is really valuable right now. Really they should make the courts six feet wider and extend the three point line one foot out, to keep it in line with that 33.5%. Then in a few years extend it out another foot. It’d be like Social Security inflation adjustment. If 3-point FG% is 36% or higher for three straight seasons, extend the line. Just make it a normal thing that adjusts every few years.
If that were the case Dame, CJ, Curry, etc would just gobble up wide open 2-pointers. Shooters space the floor, not painted lines.
What needs to happen is another Shaq or Hakeem come along and completely decimate teams like the Warriors in the paint. That will change the way teams approach the game.
The Warriors were the best 2-point shooting team in the league last year. Maybe a big center beats them that way but probably not. The best defense is still a good offense... and being able to nut shot anyone you like. I do have to say that we were 27th in the league in FG% at the basket (0-3 feet). But above average in all other categories. Nurkic might lift us up a lot there and that makes us pretty dangerous.
The Warriors are an outlier, brought on because of extremely lucky drafting and timing. There's no way in hell they sign Durant if Curry was making the kind of money that he should have been making. That team won't be together forever, and the rest of the league is manageable.
It's interesting to think about. Would Shaq have all those rings if he came up in the current era? I'm not so sure. Yeah, he'd get his 30 in the paint, but his lack of mobility would mean pretty much any team with elite perimeter shooting would create all kinds of havoc.
The top of the key 3 is ridiculously long. To get rid of the sideline angle, they must get rid of the first row of seats. Ain't happenin'.
