Which 3-point line change would you prefer?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

How would you "fix" the NBA's 3-point problem?

  • Eliminate the 3-point line altogether

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • Move the 3-point line back and eliminate the corner 3

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • Permit hand-checking outside the arc

    Votes: 21 48.8%

  • Limit teams to a maximum number (20, 25?) of 3-point attempts per game

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • Limit 3-point shots to a specific time frame (final 2 minutes of a quarter, or 4th quarter only)

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • I wouldn't change anything

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • 3pt alley-oop

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • Change the scoring system (-1 for missed 3, 3's & 4's, 2-3-4 system, etc)

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Total voters
    43
PtldPlatypus

PtldPlatypus

Let's go Baby Blazers!
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
34,615
Likes
44,234
Points
113
Everyone's talking about how teams' over-reliance on the 3 is ruining basketball, and there are several suggestions that seem to be gaining a lot of traction/public support. So which is your favorite?
 
3pt alley-oop. If the shot is thrown behind the 3pt line it counts as 3pts. It would open the court more, lead to more dunks, and feature more exciting and dynamic plays.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
3pt alley-oop. If the shot is thrown behind the 3pt line it counts as 3pts. It would open the court more, lead to more dunks, and feature more exciting and dynamic plays.
Click to expand...
Would love it, though I doubt it would reduce 3-point shots. Still, you've got the power--add it to the poll.
 
Not having the 3s for certain quarters is interesting as you'd need totally different lineups and kind of have a rush to maximize your shots there if you had a big team or such. Just seems to wild to actually be considered.

Allowing some hand checking is just how the game used to be played so it's a traditional thing. That's totally feasible.

Moving the line back just adjusts to current skills of players. When the 3pt line was introduced nobody was skilled at shooting that far out so it was a difficult shot. Now it's a shot half the roster can hit 40-50% of the time since players have become so skilled at it. Moving the line back just adjusts to the way the 3pt line was originally intended.
 
I enjoyed watching some of those great defensive teams. The 2004 Pistons were a ton of fun to watch and could shut teams down. They had 5 straight games in March holding opponents under 70 points. The last 30 games of the season none of their opponents scored 100. They went on to win the finals.

Now there were other teams like Mavs that year that averaged 105 points and had a super exciting offense. So not every game was low scoring like the Pistons. There were tons of different way to construct a winning team and many different strategies teams could play with.

That actually made the 3s way more exciting because they meant something and to have those shooters it meant you were giving up defense or rebounding or some other compromise. It was a chess game where teams could have different pieces that all had advantages and disadvantages.

The Drexler Blazers were a ton of fun to watch too. They had good defense, solid offense, but mostly they would RUN! It was running over the opponent to get a dunk. Today teams just run down on a fast break to jack up a 3. I can't imagine how boring it would've been to see Kersey and Buck fast break to shoot 10 threes per game.

Today every team jacks a ton of 3s and it's just made all the teams very similar which is super boring. I used to love watching good 3pt shooters.... But when the majority of attempts are 3s there's nothing exciting or special about it.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
I like the 2nd and 3rd options, allow hand checking, move line back, eliminate corner
Click to expand...
Seems to me that those are the two most reasonable/obvious options. Would doing both simultaneously be too drastic?
 
Eliminate the three point shot and make them play basketball.

Or at least let them hand check and tighten up three point defense. This would reduce the number of threes and force teams to move the ball, and it would open up the defense so the ball could move more freely nearer to the basket.

The three point shot, as Ralph Miller predicted, has ruined the game of basketball and reduced it to a boring shooting contest. Get rid of it.
 
So, is this the “we hate Steph Curry and Dame Lillard rule?

I think people love the long threes. It’s the over reliance on the 3 ball, especially by brick mason shooters, that’s annoying. How about only allowing 3s to count when they are below a set percentage of shots? Have an extra light that goes on when the threshold is open. Always on in the last two minutes of the game.
 
Last edited:
e_blazer said:
So, is this the “we hate Steph Curry and Dame Lillard" rule?
Click to expand...
Not so much hate for them as much as hate what their success--and the success of the Celtics' offense this season--has done to the rest of the NBA.
 
The only 3-pointer that should count is dunks or finger rolls taking off from behind the line. If you haven't entered the paint's airspace by the time you shoot, it's a 2-pointer.

I'm okay with leaving the short corner 3's. If someone can figure out how to get a running start from there, more power to them.
 
Handchecking outside the arc makes total sense to me. While we're at it I'd like to get rid of goal tending like they do in Euro ball as well.
 
Eliminating the corner 3 would be terrible for spacing and have a huge negative trickle down. Move it back along with rest of the arc and widen the court makes sense though.

Making non-paint two's worth 2.5 points would be radical but I think that might be the only way to make the mid range and post game valuable to again to more than the elite in that area.
 
Last edited:
The ultimate solution is to assign 3 points for a standard basket and 4 beyond the arc. This way, the premium is only 33% instead of 50%. Furthermore, add a 5 pointer beyond the 4 point arc

Foul on 3 point shot missed
Attempt #1 = 1 pt
Attempt #2 = 2 pts

Foul on 4 point shot missed
Attempt #1 = 2 pts
Attempt #2 = 2 pts

Foul on 3 point shot made
Attempt #1 = 1 pt

Foul on 4 point shot made
Attempt #1 = 2 pt

Technical foul
Attempt #1 = 1 pt
 
JDC said:
Eliminating the corner 3 would be terrible for spacing and have a huge negative trickle down. Move it back along with rest of the arc and widen the court makes sense though.

Making non-paint two's worth 2.5 points would be radical but I think that might be the only way to make the mid range post game valuable to again to more than the elite in that area.
Click to expand...
Hand checking beyond the arc might really open up the midrange though.
 
JDC said:
Making non-paint two's worth 2.5 points would be radical but I think that might be the only way to make the mid range and post game valuable to again to more than the elite in that area.
Click to expand...

Without getting into half-points, you could probably accomplish the same thing by making a missed 3 be -1 points, perhaps excluding buzzer beaters (end of quarters only, not end of shot clock). That way, the mid-range 2-pointers are still encouraged, and there's no longer a bonus for sheer volume of 3-point shots. Don't take the 3 unless it's a good look for a good shooter...
 
handiman said:
Without getting into half-points, you could probably accomplish the same thing by making a missed 3 be -1 points, perhaps excluding buzzer beaters (end of quarters only, not end of shot clock). That way, the mid-range 2-pointers are still encouraged, and there's no longer a bonus for sheer volume of 3-point shots. Don't take the 3 unless it's a good look for a good shooter...
Click to expand...
Really like that idea.

And yeah river, didn't address that part of your post but I agree it might but I think the results would be pretty negligible
 
handiman said:
Without getting into half-points, you could probably accomplish the same thing by making a missed 3 be -1 points, perhaps excluding buzzer beaters (end of quarters only, not end of shot clock). That way, the mid-range 2-pointers are still encouraged, and there's no longer a bonus for sheer volume of 3-point shots. Don't take the 3 unless it's a good look for a good shooter...
Click to expand...
JDC said:
Really like that idea.

And yeah river, didn't address that part of your post but I agree it might but I think the results would be pretty negligible
Click to expand...
I absolutely hate the idea, but I'll add it to the poll anyway.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Seems to me that those are the two most reasonable/obvious options. Would doing both simultaneously be too drastic?
Click to expand...
Yeah kind of was wondering about that, seems like maybe they should just implement one or the other and then see how the game changes.

If they had more room in arenas I'd suggest widening the court so the 3pt line is the same distance around the entire floor. That is probably the least likely of any changes as they'd have to eliminate those expensive courtside seats. I don't think they can just push all the seats back either because they sometimes have a special entrance or other perks.
 
e_blazer said:
So, is this the “we hate Steph Curry and Dame Lillard rule?

I think people love the long threes. It’s the over reliance on the 3 ball, especially by brick mason shooters, that’s annoying. How about only allowing 3s to count when they are below a set percentage of shots? Have an extra light that goes on when the threshold is open. Always on in the last two minutes of the game.
Click to expand...
The Warriors are a part of it but their far from the only team, the Rockets for many years had far more, the Celtics now are averaging 51 threes and 40 twos per game. So thats more threes than all of layups, dunks, floaters, free throw distance jumpers, post moves, hook shots, fast breaks, putbacks, etc combined.

If people like the Steph/Dame long threes... why not have the 3pt line be longer back?
 
Hand checking.

Taking that away was when the NBA game started going down hill in my opinion.

It basically emphasized that they don’t want defense.

Moving the line out a foot or so would be good too.
 
Maybe prohibit a 3 pt attempt on a second chance opportunity. So if you’re going to take it, it better be the look you want because an offensive rebound would negate a second 3 pt opportunity.

I think it would in turn lower the amount of 3’s that are jacked up.
 
handiman said:
Without getting into half-points, you could probably accomplish the same thing by making a missed 3 be -1 points, perhaps excluding buzzer beaters (end of quarters only, not end of shot clock). That way, the mid-range 2-pointers are still encouraged, and there's no longer a bonus for sheer volume of 3-point shots. Don't take the 3 unless it's a good look for a good shooter...
Click to expand...
Never heard of that but its actually a really good idea. Really curious how the math would work if a missed 3 was -1 point.

Making 50% of twos is an expected value of 1 point
Currently making 33% of threes is an expected value of 1 point (Technically the three is superior here but will ignore that dynamic for now)

Obviously it would need to be much more than making .333 of them if a miss was -1

If you made 50% that would 1.5 points
But then the missed 50% would cost 0.5 points
So you'd again be at the expected value of 1 point as 50% on twos

So I'd tend to think this would harm the three too much as now they don't really have an advantage over a 2point shot.
 
MickZagger said:
Maybe prohibit a 3 pt attempt on a second chance opportunity. So if you’re going to take it, it better be the look you want because an offensive rebound would negate a second 3 pt opportunity.

I think it would in turn lower the amount of 3’s that are jacked up.
Click to expand...
I was going to post the same about 10 minutes ago, then decided it probably wouldn't be impactful enough. But I'd be intrigued by the idea.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Never heard of that but its actually a really good idea. Really curious how the math would work if a missed 3 was -1 point.

Making 50% of twos is an expected value of 1 point
Currently making 33% of threes is an expected value of 1 point (Technically the three is superior here but will ignore that dynamic for now)

Obviously it would need to be much more than making .333 of them if a miss was -1

If you made 50% that would 1.5 points
But then the missed 50% would cost 0.5 points
So you'd again be at the expected value of 1 point as 50% on twos

So I'd tend to think this would harm the three too much as now they don't really have an advantage over a 2point shot.
Click to expand...
Agreed--that's precisely why I said I hated the idea. It's one thing for the 3 to be too valuable; it's probably just as bad if not worse to make a 3 too risky. And also, are there any other sports where someone can lose points?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Draco
OT: Mark Cuban proposes deeper 3 point line
3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
7K
PtldPlatypus
PtldPlatypus
BonesJones
How do you prefer we guard the pick n roll?
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Orion Bailey
Orion Bailey
cmeese47
Does a great start and great game plan translate to playoff success?
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
cmeese47
cmeese47
wizenheimer
BB Injuries: If You Were Forced to Choose One
Replies
22
Views
949
TorturedBlazerFan
TorturedBlazerFan
BonesJones
This Organization Needs to Change Their Mindset
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
e_blazer
e_blazer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top