That's exactly why I think it could work. Disincentivize the 3 to where it's no more valuable of a shot on average than a 2, and you immediately fix the problem of teams jacking up as many 3s as possible. A great shooter still has reason to look for the 3, because he's probably better out there than he would be inside the arc.
If its the same value as a 2 - whats the point of having a 3? It would be simpler to just eliminate all 3's - as the expected value shooting 50% on this +3-1 is the same as shooting 50% on 2's. No need for this complicated subtract 1 add 3 math - just have all 2s in that case. I'm not for that idea - as I think there needs to be a middle ground where the floor is spaced but its less than the current excessive 3pt volume.
Some interesting stats from that article; "1996-97, the first season of shot-location data, the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls paced the league with 41.5 mid-range shots per game" "This season, the leading purveyors of the mid-range, the Sacramento Kings, take just 14.1 shots from the same area that Jordan enjoyed, with the majority of the NBA taking single-digit attempts per game." So basically Michael Jordan on one of the greatest basketball teams of all time if playing now would have been way less effective as today's Sacramento Kings. Thats not a knock on Jordan - thats a major knock on today's NBA.
"2015-16 Golden State Warriors averaged 31.6 3-point attempts per game -- No. 1 in the league -- en route to a 73-9 record. They would rank 29th this season, with only the Denver Nuggets attempting fewer per game (30.4). The defending champion Boston Celtics are first, averaging 51.1 3-point attempts per game" https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/43064227/had-change
After hearing some of the player comments and especially Adam Silver comments I'm actually beginning to think they really will do some rule changes eventually to address this.
You answered your own question. The added floor spacing of 3's makes them valuable when shot selectively at the same average worth as 2's. Fixed it for you.
I'm opposed to any significant change. Just allow a bit more hand checking. *Edit*Maybe have refs not call insignificant hand checking at crucial moments. But I think if you allow a challenge in those significant moments that might solve that problem. And obviously you're not allowed to be under somebody who's landing on a three-point shot. And three-point shooters shouldn't be allowed to hunt for the foul on the land by kicking their feet out or whatever. That should all be very clear on a review.
I still don't understand why we'd have a +3-1 that is effectively the same as a two. Why not only have +2? That was the rule until 1979. How is a +3-1 any better?
I thought about historical stats also. But I am sure a statistician can create a formula so we can easily compare pre and post 4 point era. Just because Dylan Harper ended his career with 50k pts does not mean he is better scorer than LeBron. It would be complicated for players whose career was when the change happen
Because it's 3 if you make it... Let's be honest, no one complains about the volume of 3-point shooting when a team is hot. It's the more typical games where a team misses 30-40 of them that are tough to watch. So, reward the hot shooting games and give them good reason to stop launching bad shots when it's an icy shooting night.
I say we remove the line but add three little circles just outside where it used to be (at the top and then about halfway round each side) and if you have a foot inside those circles it counts as three. Easier to defend, so requires more strategy.
I’ve long thought it would be interesting if there were a 4 point area on the court (LED) which would occasionally be lit, an equal amount of times for both teams. Miss from it and it turns off. however in this consideration I think it wild make the game too … wacky?
