11/21/24
April 12, 2005
Three-pointer is too close for comfort: When Illinois chucks up 40 three-pointers in a national championship game, of all things, it screams one thing: the 3-point arc needs to be moved BACK!! Division 1 basketball players are talented, and gaining an extra point on a routine shot has everyone launching away.
posted by dyams to basketball at 07:38 AM - 27 comments
When Illinois chucks up 40 three-pointers in a national championship game, of all things, it screams one thing ... ... they needed to develop an inside game.
posted by rcade at 08:11 AM on April 12, 2005
Excuse me, but Illinois lost. Because a team loses taking the lowest percentage shots on the floor we should change the rules? What, we don't want anyone else copying their losing strategy? This argument may have made more sense if Illinois had won a championship with their lopsided offensive scheme. Or, for that matter, if ANY team in recent history had won a championship with the 3 pointer as their ovewhelming strength. So long as teams with solid inside play continue to win, let's not spend too much time worrying about the quality of the game provided by NCAA men's basketball. After this past month, I think we can all agree that the game is extremely healthy and not in need of tampering. Leave well enough alone! Past 5 champs and thier MVP's: UNC - May Uconn - Okefor Syracuse - Anthony Maryland - Dixon Duke - Battier I wouldn't say that there exists any convincing evidence that the 3 point distance is having a negative effect on the quality of today's game.
posted by mayerkyl at 09:06 AM on April 12, 2005
Aww, it's a cheap three - these guys are too good for that. Winning or loosing be damned - just because the final games don't reflect its infinite cheapness, doesn't mean it's legit and healthy. Send it back! Most of the guys going out for the NBA take pride in taking the NBA three anyway... Except when they really need the cheapy.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:50 AM on April 12, 2005
If it were so "cheap" and these guys were "too good for that", then they would hit better than 30% (12/40), and they would win. A shot that you can't hit 70% of the time, should not be taken 40 times in a game. Poor shot selection and bad strategy does not necessitate a rules change.
posted by mayerkyl at 10:22 AM on April 12, 2005
They should get rid of the 3-point shot entirely. Back in the day, before 3 pointers, NBA games averaged well above todays standard of less than a 100. Many games were 118-114, and they played defense then. Nothing sucks more than opting for an outside shot because the other team is guarding the paint well. Make teams make the extra passes to get to the open player. I really despise players like Peja and Dirk because they wussy out and launch bombs because they have no inside game!
posted by bluekarma at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2005
I think we can all agree that the game is ... not in need of tampering. That seems to not be the case.
posted by chicobangs at 11:19 AM on April 12, 2005
They should get rid of the 3-point shot entirely. Yeah, they should get rid of that pesky rim and net contraption too! Bring back the peach basket.
posted by mayerkyl at 11:20 AM on April 12, 2005
Bring back the peach basket. And jumpballs after every basket.
posted by smithers at 12:27 PM on April 12, 2005
Bring back the travelling call to the NBA.
posted by jasonspaceman at 12:37 PM on April 12, 2005
The three-pointer is getting more popular in the NBA, too. Quentin Richardson has already attempted over 600 3s this season. I can't find the article, but there are some statisticians that think shooting 35-40% for three is better than 50% for two. Joe Johnson makes 46.5% of his attempts - he should shoot threes more! The game changes and players adapt to what works.
posted by dusted at 12:46 PM on April 12, 2005
I agree that the three point line is too close. It has definitely made the game boring. It has made point guards that can actually move the ball and get other players open less common. Now guards just get the ballat the top of the circle and shoot. I watched Nash last night, he got the ball at the three point line and instead of shooting, penetrated and dished the ball to Stoudamire for a dunk. This seems to be less and less comoon in the NBA, probably because of the closer three point line in college.
posted by Meathooks at 12:49 PM on April 12, 2005
more threes, not threes more
posted by dusted at 12:51 PM on April 12, 2005
One interesting thing with respect to the top three 3PT% shooters in the NBA (based on dusted's link) is that they all have a slightly lower overall FG% than 3PT%, meaning they actually shoot worse from the rest of the floor than from behind the arc. Nash at number 4 (.434 3PT%, .506 FG%) is the first player on that list who shoots better from the rest of the floor than from 3PT land and is the only one in the top 5 above 50% for overall FG%. Mike Miller and Jason Terry are the only two others in the top 10 for 3PT% who shoot 50% or better from the floor overall.
posted by holden at 01:19 PM on April 12, 2005
I can see that I'm in the minority, but I still contend that the 3 point line is not too close. I would consider the line too close if there was evidence demonstrating a direct proportion between teams shooting the most 3's and winnning. As it stands, the 3-pointer is sort of like a slot machine in Vegas. You can win for a while, but in the end the odds are always stacked against you. If you live by the 3, you will get cold, and die by the 3. Case in point, Illinois. An inside game and defense are must-haves at any level (Pistons, UNC, Lakers w/Shaq, UConn, Spurs) If the 3 is only a small factor of what goes into a good team, then the line is not too close. It will need to be moved back if/when it becomes a gimmick and when the Quentin Richardson's of the world win a championchip shooting that many 3's. Teams relying on the 3 during the regular season are usually short-lived in the playoffs, when the defensive intensity increases. Thus, teams playing "boring basketball" like the Pistons win. So let the 3 point hoisting teams bomb away, and then go home early, who cares? Anyway, we're debating nothing really. Hockey, now there's real problems.
posted by mayerkyl at 02:07 PM on April 12, 2005
Ok ... your guys are whinners ! I bet it is all over Nc winning the championship. I want to comment about the 3pt shot too .... taking away the 3pt shot is like taking about a 2pt conversion for football , or a birdie and eagle in golf , or an penatly shot in hockey ... they have it so you always can have a chance .
posted by NCTarheel at 02:15 PM on April 12, 2005
Take away the 3 point line all together? OK. In the meantime, I want a moving basket and a 9 x 5 steel wall with spikes to pop up out of the floor on random.
posted by LawnWrangler at 02:29 PM on April 12, 2005
taking away the 3pt shot is like taking about a 2pt conversion for football , or a birdie and eagle in golf , or an penatly shot in hockey ... they have it so you always can have a chance . Please explain to me how they can "remove" a birdie or eagle from golf. I'd be fascinated to find out how that could be done. And while you are at it, please explain the correlation between a penalty shot in hockey and the three point line in basketball. I must be missing something fundamental in your argument... I can't find the article, but there are some statisticians that think shooting 35-40% for three is better than 50% for two. Those would be ALL statisticians. 35%-40% success rate for 3 point shot = 1.05-1.20 points/attempt on average 50% success rate for 2 point shot = 1.00 points/attempt on average If you attempt each of them 100 times, then you will come out ahead somewhere between 5 and 20 points more with 3-point shots. Take away the 3 point line all together? OK. In the meantime, I want a moving basket and a 9 x 5 steel wall with spikes to pop up out of the floor on random. Oooh! I'd watch that! It's like a freaked-out version of NBA Jams!
posted by grum@work at 04:00 PM on April 12, 2005
Those would be ALL statisticians. OK, I was just trying to find one article in particular that broke down the exact percentage break that three-point shots either hurt or help a team. I think the author compared it to league overall non-three-point field goal percentage.
posted by dusted at 04:33 PM on April 12, 2005
It doesn't matter if they move the line back. The players will just practice and get good from that distance. Do we keep moving the line back? What about limiting the number of three-point shots that a team can attempt. That way they'll actually have to use strategy when using the shot of players just flinging it up whenever anybody want to hot-dog. That would force teams to have more of an inside game, not just grab a few three-point shooters and hope for the best.
posted by roberts at 05:36 PM on April 12, 2005
Lets not tamper with the 3 pt line too much the only suggest is to move to international length. I know from when I played US high school ball the line is too short I was a mid range shooter who struggled from long range, yet with the line where it was my ppg went up by 6-8pts. If you moved the line to international range maybe the team USA would not struggle so much at international tournaments, make it the same for the NBA. I know they changed it in the NBA but then put it back, they complain about low scores and they let youplay zone D, and make the 3pt line longer....how does that work???
posted by bballcoachreid at 11:30 PM on April 12, 2005
you all seem to forget, or just don't know, that the 3 pt. line has only existed in the NBA since the late 70's! It was first created by the old ABA. The NBA adopted it too attract more viewers and create more excitement and higher scoring games! Believe it or not newbies, the 3 pointer didn't exist for Jerry West or Oscar Robertson..ect and they seemed to have no problems with shooting percentages and 30 ppg! Saying they should move the rim higher or make the cort wider or the ball smaller(as in the WNBA) would be tampering with the purity of the game. The The 24 second clock, the in-bound pass, the restricted zone are all chnages made to level the playing field and were brought about to keep the game competetive. The 3-pt shot is overused and makes games boring.
posted by bluekarma at 10:51 AM on April 13, 2005
you all seem to forget, or just don't know, Believe it or not newbies, All of that condescencion and blathering just for the purpose of stating a mundane opinion? The 3-pt shot is overused and makes games boring. Not as boring as the unsolicited history lesson. I think most of us realize the 3-point line is a relatively modern addition to the game.
posted by mayerkyl at 02:52 PM on April 13, 2005
The three point shot has been around for decades and decades...since the beginning of basketball... except it was only worth two points then.
posted by chris2sy at 04:01 PM on April 13, 2005
Actually, it was only worth one point then. /runs for cover
posted by smithers at 08:47 AM on April 14, 2005
yup make it an NBA three. Hell there going to the NBA already why not help the get used to the new depth!
posted by rockhard10 at 10:02 AM on April 14, 2005
i am not so sure all of us KNOW that the 3 pt shot is a new addition. That is presumption. And many people are not as well read and as knowledgable as you might think.
posted by bluekarma at 11:06 AM on April 14, 2005
Absolutely. Make it an NBA three. Why this wasn't tabled years ago, is beyond me.