11/21/24
February 12, 2007
Abandoning Your Post.: Would abolishing the 3 point line improve FG%? Spacing? Kevin Arnovitz has some interesting analysis of SI's article about the issue.
posted by lilnemo to basketball at 03:13 PM - 15 comments
Hey and changing to a new basketball would be the obvious thing to do. And change the shot clock to 23.8 seconds. Free Throws should be guarded except for Shaq. Raise the goal to 11' before halftime and 12' after halftime. Extend the court to exactly one NYC block. Play Ball. Oh and let's not call it Basketball anymore. My point is can they just keep the rules and the game the same for ummmmm let's say ONE YEAR.
posted by 3pounddickey at 05:56 PM on February 12, 2007
My point is can they just keep the rules and the game the same for ummmmm let's say ONE YEAR. Hell, if you're such a purist, then why not go back to the original 13 rules? Of course, there wouldn't be any dribbling, dunking, or other shenanigans. If you don't agree with the article you could at least comment as to why. That is the point of the site you know. To actually like, discuss things. The 3-point shot is still a relatively young innovation that has been tweaked before. Personally I'm not in favor of altering it at all. Although it is abused by awful shooters too often, it is a useful tool. Allowing it within the last moments of play seems interesting, but would keep teams that are being blown out from mounting any sort of comeback. While percentages have plummeted over the last decade, I firmly believe it is up to coaches to gameplan they're 3PA strategies (take more than 3 and you're benched, take any if you're a center and you get a DNP-CD).
posted by lilnemo at 07:01 PM on February 12, 2007
I liked the idea of saving the 3-point line until later development. I would like to see it saved until college. If you can develop long range skills in high school, then when college comes, you can be rewarded for it. On the other side of the coin, I like to watch the few high school players that can nail it consistently. I do know I've watched too many games in which a team attempts to mount a comeback and they start launching 3's, when a steady dose of made 2's down the stretch would give them a better chance to win. If I coached a team, I'd explain that a made 10-12 ft. 2 is better than stepping back and missing the 3. I did that too many times in high school. I don't believe you'll ever get rid of it now. Besides, I love to stand up and throw up both arms when I know one is on the way through the rim.
posted by bavarianmotorworker at 07:58 PM on February 12, 2007
I'm not a huge basketball fan, not even a small one if I'm honest, but I don't see the need to get rid of the 3 point line. Surely it is down to the coaches to ensure that their players take their two-pointers if they can rather than try for 3? Also means the players have to think more, is that one extra point worth the risk of missing?
posted by Fence at 02:41 AM on February 13, 2007
The point Doc Rivers is making is the three point line determines where everyone sets up. So everyone's smushed in closer to the basket which cuts down on driving lanes and other movement. So there's an argument that the three-point line cuts down on offense, not only because it rewards what might otherwise be a bad shot, but it also limits the space on offense. I remember college basketball before the three-pointer but not well enough to remember if the above was true.
posted by SummersEve at 03:20 AM on February 13, 2007
I absolutely can't stand watching college basketball when one of those teams (like Butler) uses the three point shot as the basis for their entire offense.
posted by bperk at 09:35 AM on February 13, 2007
TOTALLY agree bperk -- I've seen way too many games where an inferior team just bombs threes all day long. They should move the line back to the NBA distance at least - Bob Ryan had a good column about this a couple of years ago, pointing out that the really good college shooters can hit from NBA three-point land.
posted by Venicemenace at 09:44 AM on February 13, 2007
The 3 point has only been around for a short while!Get rid of dunking!Then they have to shoot from outside,bring back beautiful layups etc.Or at least enforce existing rules,ie:10 people hanging around in the paint & no 3 sec. violation!Hanging on the rim & no technical!Larry Bird was only outside shooter since the 3 point rule!Before every team had at least 3 excellent outside shooters.Except for centers pre 3 point hall of famers were all outside shooters,layup artists & masters at hanging in the air drawing the 3 point play!Great basketball!Oh!!!&95% could shoot at least 80% from the line!!! End Of Rant!!!
posted by mdavidsf at 11:58 AM on February 13, 2007
If I remember correctly, the 3-point goal was adopted because outside shooting was becoming a lost art. More and more, basketball was becoming a game of "feed the big guy for a layup". The outside shot has indeed come back into the game. On the other hand, how many teams do you see in the NBA that run picks, weaves, and constant motion in order to break a man free down low. The game now is to force the ball inside, then when the double-team comes, you kick out to a shooter. Frankly, the NBA ought to keep the 3-point shot as it is now, but do away with the idiotic zone defense. Force teams to play man defense and allow for a double team. Do not allow a defender to just drop off his man and pack it down inside. If nothing else, this will encourage teams to employ less outside shooting from long range, and to look for the layups and short jumpers inside.
posted by Howard_T at 12:55 PM on February 13, 2007
what mdavidsf said!!! long live the Birdman!!
posted by bavarianmotorworker at 01:19 PM on February 13, 2007
Larry Bird was only outside shooter since the 3 point rule!Before every team had at least 3 excellent outside shooters. While I agree with some of what you wrote - 3 sec. violation espcially - the thing that has been lost from the game is the mid-range jumper. The lost art of the 15-foot jumper is why you have shooting percentages drop. It looked as if teams had 3 excellent outside shooters on each team, because guys shot the ball in their shooting range, not behind the 3 point line. Since the 3 point shot was introduced throughout basketball (Not just the NBA), why is it that shooting is getting worse? Because on all levels players are taught to shoot the 3, instead of developing the mid-range game needed to develop as good shooters. Doc Rivers is saying that teams only guard the low post and the 3 point line and not the space in between, so that's an area of the court which can be exploited. I don't know if Doc is the man to come up with a system to do that - his track record says no - but I get his premise.
posted by MrNix at 03:10 PM on February 13, 2007
On the other hand, how many teams do you see in the NBA that run picks, weaves, and constant motion in order to break a man free down low. The game now is to force the ball inside, then when the double-team comes, you kick out to a shooter. Frankly, the NBA ought to keep the 3-point shot as it is now, but do away with the idiotic zone defense. College teams have played zone forever and plenty of coaches (Bobby Knight, Coach K for example) can run motion offenses just fine.
posted by MrNix at 03:51 PM on February 13, 2007
Obviously someone doesnt know that its easier to have a layup blocked than a dunk. Thats why people do it, not just for flash. If anything the NBA should make the courts bigger and move the 3 point line out. If coaches cant keep their poor shooters from forcing 3s then thats their problem not ours.
posted by Drallig9399 at 08:03 AM on February 14, 2007
Obviously someone doesnt know that its easier to have a layup blocked than a dunk... I use the term "layup" in its generic sense as any shot taken from close range that involves putting the ball into the goal without having any appreciable distance for the ball to travel. That would include dunks. If a shooter attempts a classic layup, using the backboard (an art that is nearly with the dinosaurs now), it's almost impossible to block without either fouling or having goaltending called. The layups that are blocked are most often of the "runner" variety attempted from in front of or slightly to one side of the hoop. These are easily blocked, since the shooter's hands are often below the rim. I also think I have seen more contested dunks blocked lately than true classic layups. In the ancient game that I was taught in high school, the coach would go ballistic whenever anyone attempted a layup, including dunks, without using the backboard.
posted by Howard_T at 12:59 PM on February 14, 2007
A couple years ago, I had someone explain to me what Doc Rivers is saying about the spacing. Sure does sound like it could make offensive sets more interesting. I'll be interested to hear what some of the more experienced (read: older) spofites have to say about that.