3 vs 2's dramatic change?

[Dogdeacon]

Zach Lowe has a good article this AM about the NBA finals and how the Warriors are 'proving' that a jump shooting team can win by virtue of 3's being worth 50% more than 2's. And I agree with the other thread hypothesis that 3pt shooting emphasis creates more of the blowout scores that we've suffered through in this year's NBA playoffs.

Last year there was a good article on pickup games where almost universally scoring was 1's and 2's, simply because pickup had always been scored as 1's and the easiest way to count was to add behind the arc shot as a 2. The resistance to change was mostly there are too many arguments about the score already. But not coincidentally in two pickup games that I play in this tradition was finally changed and 2 & 3's scoring was adopted. The keeping score aspect did not prove to be a challenge.

Anyway, I think basketball ought to look at a different scoring system. 50% more is in fact too much given the ease of these shots for NBA players. I think 4's and 5's would be best. Dramatic change unlikely but it is at least an interesting thought experiment and could happen if the recent 'explosion' of 3pters continues.

 

[Palatine]

Think about it in terms of potential points. If you shoot 12 three's there is a potential of 36 points. If you shoot 12 twos there is a potential of 24 points.

Or think of percentage. If you make 6 of twelve twos (50%) you earn 12 points. If you make 4 of twelve threes (33%) you earn 12 points.

Both ways of looking at it favor shooting beyond the arc. Frankly, I think it's harder to shoot 50% inside the arc than 33% outside of it. I'm surprised it has taken so long for this percentages to play out.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Think about it in terms of potential points. If you shoot 12 three's there is a potential of 36 points. If you shoot 12 twos there is a potential of 24 points.

Or think of percentage. If you make 6 of twelve twos (50%) you earn 12 points. If you make 4 of twelve threes (33%) you earn 12 points.

Both ways of looking at it favor shooting beyond the arc. Frankly, I think it's harder to shoot 50% inside the arc than 33% outside of it. I'm surprised it has taken so long for this percentages to play out.

Exactly, for a long time the operating assumption was that you need to shoot 33% behind the arc to favor those shots. Now that so many guys are at 40%+ the operating philosophy is you need to shoot better than 50% inside the arc to take those shots. And since there are more defenders closer to the basket players pass-out of anything but an easy lay-up for a 3pter. It is strange that it takes seeing 17 3pters go down = 51 pts* versus a miniscule 34pts if those shots were 2's.

*more than half of Warriorts pts until garbage time free throws

 

[TasteofUConn]

It's harder to guard a guy out 24 feet from the basket. The incentive of 50% more credit has distorted/changed the game of basketball. The challenge used to be to get the highest % shot possible. Now, that's no longer the case. Now, it makes more sense to take a lower % shot because you get a lot more credit and because it forces defenses to defend out 3 feet past the 3 point line, which creates crashing-to-the-hoop lanes. Call it getting "Biyomboed". Guy gets 25 boards and 18 points and is benched the next game because the other center can hit from 3. Boring.

This is probably only an NBA issue, because of talent concentration.

2 fixes, if the NBA wants to revert. 1- make it a 2.5 point line. Instant fix. 2 - put a limit on attempts per game.

I didn't even watch the last game because I knew it was going to be a 3 point shooting contest, which should be limited to all-star weekend.

 

[UChusky916]

It's easy to gereralize and say 'team's should put more emphasis on shooting the 3' after seeing what the Warriors have done of late. What people take for granted is the fact that the Warriors have arguably two of the top 5 best 3-pt shooters of ALL TIME on the same roster at the same time.

It's not as easy as taking more threes or putting emphasis on the 3, you need guys that make them at a consistently high percentage for the change in philosophy to pay off... that's not easy.

 

[Chin Diesel]

The math has always been the same.

33% of 3's equals 50% of 2's.

What is changing is the philisophy of which is easier to accomplish and which type of team is easier to build and sustain.

Also, what is easier to increase marginally. For example, is it easier to go from 33% to 35% with 3's than it is to go from 50% to 53% with 2's? Put another way, if you assume shooting 50% from 2's is as easy to do as shooting 33% from 3's, which is easier to increase above the baseline equivalency?

And not just skillwise but the quantity of players having that skill matters too.

 

[TasteofUConn]

It's easy to gereralize and say 'team's should put more emphasis on shooting the 3'

It's not "should". It's "are".
As in teams ARE putting more emphasis on the 3. Three pointers as a % of total shots has been going up every year, and it's going up faster than ever.
It doesn't matter whether you have "the two best ever." You can simply have "a bunch of scrubs who can bomb the 3 at a high rate," and you're ready to go.
The GSW results haven't created the change in style, but they sure will accelerate it.

 

[pnow15]

The mistake being made here is the assumption that a wide open 3 is harder to make than a well defensed 2.
When the 3 ball first came out it was from a distance that most fans and players thought was a difficult shot.
It was a difficult shot because players rarely shot from that range. The extra point changed the calculation as players continuously practiced the 3 shot until it became routine. For guys like Curry, the 3 is just the same as a mid range 2 and maybe easier than a contested layup. If you make a 5 point shot at half court, eventually there will be 5 point experts. The 3 has changed the game, turned it into a guard orientated game and away from the big man. It may be more fun.

 

[TasteofUConn]

. It may be more fun.

Cavs shoot 42% from 3, GSW shoot 33%, Cavs win with 15 point margin, another boring game. I suppose "fun" is a very personal thing.

 

[champs99and04]

My theory all along has been that, eventually, there is going to be an over-correction, and that the shots that were once expensive - the mid-range jumpers - will become more prevalent.

Every shot is still a negotiation between the offense and defense. The three point shot is worth 50% more, but the defense knows that the three point shot is worth 50% more. As teams begin to structure their defense around the current Spurs model (no threes, no free throws, no layups), it becomes imperative to hit mid-range jumpers at an efficient clip. There was a couple of plays tonight in which Golden State basically conceded wide open mid-range jumpers to LeBron - that's what the book tells you to do, but if the book is telling everybody the same thing, complete players tend to rise to the top. That's why I don't understand the sentiment that Curry and Thompson are gimmicks, or that they're exploiting some cheat code. Those guys are as good as they are because they can score at all three levels.

And if we're making stylistic choices, give me the the era of basketball that invites ball movement over the one that doesn't. Perhaps to some, watching Kobe score 40 in the triangle is more exciting than the symposium of ball movement that the Spurs and Warriors have orchestrated in recent years. Not me - I think the three point line highlights team building, promotes roster diversity, adds more of a strategic element to a sport people thought was lacking before.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

The NBA will slowly allow arm/hand checking above the arc to slowly creep back into the game over the next 3-4 years. That will lower 3-pt efficiency just enough to stop it from resembling an arcade game.

 

[Palatine]

Moving the arc back would lower the percentages. Or maybe eliminating the three from the corner by having the arc go out of bounds before it reaches the corner.

 

[msgordon]

Cavs shoot 42% from 3, GSW shoot 33%, Cavs win with 15 point margin, another boring game. I suppose "fun" is a very personal thing.

if you thought last nights game was boring, you're wasting your time anyway whether they take 2s or 3s or 10s. nba not for you

 

[pj]

Think about it in terms of potential points. If you shoot 12 three's there is a potential of 36 points. If you shoot 12 twos there is a potential of 24 points.

Or think of percentage. If you make 6 of twelve twos (50%) you earn 12 points. If you make 4 of twelve threes (33%) you earn 12 points.

Both ways of looking at it favor shooting beyond the arc.

Let me see if I understand. You are telling me that 3 is more than 2?

I knew that 4 > 1 but 3 > 2 is really mind-blowing.

 

[EBonz30]

NBA is thrilled with this type of basketball, I don't see a change in the rules for defense happening anytime soon.

All sports believe and I am sure they are right, the more scoring, the more viewers, which equals more money.

Pretty simple stuff.

Reason for no hand checking, 8 seconds instead of 10 to get it up the floor, illegal defense, the NBA wants more scoring, and like I said before I don't see them changing anytime soon.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Those guys are as good as they are because they can score at all three levels. .

There's no doubt that they're both great players. I don't think any sane person doubts that. Curry is the best shooter, over a very short period, that I have ever seen. Thompson, same thing, but maybe top 30.
What irks folks like me, in the minority, is that neither of these guys approaches being a great all-time all-around player. And if you were measuring that, by the way, Thompson would be rated higher, because Curry's defense is weak at best - it's great he's quick, but he's short, doesn't have explosive vertical, and he's very skinny. He plays on a team that bombs 3s, so there are a lot of long rebounds for guards. His game is completely dependent on the 3 ball. Without that 1 shot, he goes from being MVP to being a top 15 guy. Jordan? LBJ? Hardin? Westbrook? Would all be virtually unaffected in stature by the removal of the 3 point line.
If these playoffs have shown anything, it's that Curry cannot impose his will on every game he's in, and THAT is the true mark of an all-time great player. If his long shot is off, like in game 1, he doesn't add much value. How many true "stars" do you recall riding the bench and cheering for the bench scrubs during crunch time during a Game One of the NBA finals.
To me, Curry is the MC Hammer of the NBA, with "Can't Touch This" currently riding at number 1 in the charts. It will take 10 years before we can look back and properly assess his place in NBA history, AFTER the current buzz has left our ears.

 

[TasteofUConn]

if you thought last nights game was boring, you're wasting your time anyway whether they take 2s or 3s or 10s. nba not for you

Good point. I phrased that poorly. I should have said, "uncontested ending." Was not boring through 3 quarters.