Last year: 36.2% This year: 35.2% (rank 15) Last year: 27.2 attempts/game This year: 26.0 attempts/game There was a lot of talk about how we would suck at shooting 3s and how we would be taking a lot fewer. Those concerns seem to not be justified. Our offense is more guard oriented than it was last year, however.
I'd actually like the NBA to get rid of the 3 point shot, because it seems like every other shot is one these days (even if we've gone down, everyone else has gone WAY up). Or maybe just move the line back ten feet. Wouldn't affect Steph Curry then.
That would be interesting, but there's no way it happens because there would be less highlight dunks.
I've never understood the line of thinking that we should change the rules because people are becoming better at something. That's like saying, we don't want to see you improve your skill set. Defenses are there to make things more challenging, not artificial rules obstacles.
Not disagreeing, just writing out a thought. Rules should provide a framework where there is balance... that means there can be more than one strategy that can be successful. For example, if the three point shot was worth four points instead, nobody would ever, EVER shoot a two, because to shoot 35% on 4-pointers would be like shooting 70% on 2-pointers. Right now, 2P% is at 48.1%; if things were in balance (i.e., 3 points is worth exactly 1.5x more than 2 points in the rules), you'd see 3P% at around 32.1%... But right now, the league average is 34.5%, meaning a three point shot is worth 1.72x a two point shot, instead of 1.5x. Perimeter defenses make the two point shot easier to pull off, so there are more of them, but even if the league average were 33%, you should see as many 3-point shots taken as 2-point shots, which isn't the case, even in Golden State. BUT, this is a long evolution away from the old guard and their traditions rooted in the pre-three-point era, and the modern group that relies on math to come up with better scoring strategies. When we have a predominance of coaches from THIS era, we'll see a very very different game.
Because, by not changing the rules, you are indeed changing the game. It's similar to the bottle bill. It was $.05 in the 70s. It is the same amount in FORTY years later. By not changing the dollar amount, you have drastically changed things. Doing nothing is indeed doing something, but probably not what you wanted in the first place. /patented.bad.analogy
A dunk would actually mean something. Now its like an extra point in football where you screwed up if you missed it. Hell they could make dunks 3 points with a 12 foot hoop.
Yea I would prefer the line further back. NBA players are just too skilled now. The players are too big and fast to eliminate the shot completely as then the lane would be clogged. Defense is so much faster and elaborate nowdays the game would look nothing like the pleasing ball movement of 77 Blazers. Just don't see how a longer 3pt line is feasible without removing some courtside seats and I doubt owner$ are considering that. But in theory make the corner three 24 ft (basically where the top is now) and make the top 26 ft where many players shoot comfortably from. It would actually give more room inside the 3point line for players to create those plays.
They had talked about making a 4 point line, basically between the 3 and half court. I'd be down with that. Make it far enough that very few players can successfully shoot it. Definitely would make end of games much more interesting!
I double-dog dare you to sit and watch junior highers playing basketball 2 years after that rule is passed. It's PAINFUL enough to watch them taking terrible shots as it is.
keep the rules the same, stop having players juice with HGH, etc. THAT will bring them back down to earth.
