[Grantland] Is It Time to Move the NBA 3-Point Line Back?

jsmee2000 · Jun 23, 2014

Is It Time to Move the NBA 3-Point Line Back?

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/is-it-time-to-move-the-nba-3-point-line-back/

By Kirk Goldsberry

It is it time to move the NBA’s 3-point line back? Has the shot become too easy and too frequent in today’s game?

From an analytical perspective, the 3-point shot is one of the most important scoring options on the court. But is it too easy for contemporary players? During the Finals, the Spurs made an incredible 47 percent of their 3s, which translates to 1.41 points per shot. It’s no wonder they attempted a third of their shots from beyond our magical point-inflating arc. The Heat weren’t too far behind. They made 40 percent of their 3s and also attempted a third of their shots from long range.

The league as a whole is not up to those levels, but it’s not trailing by much. During the regular season, 3s accounted for a record 26 percent of all shot attempts, and shooters made 36 percent of them. Considering that NBA players make only 39 percent of their 2-point jump shots, you don’t have to be Daryl Morey to figure out why teams and players are taking more 3s than ever before.

We’ve reached a point in the NBA when, with the exception of layups, dunks, and free throws, the expected value of a 3-point shot exceeds that of any other shot on the floor.

The NBA is a perimeter-driven league now. Is this what we want? From a sheer entertainment perspective, if you’re talking about teams like the Spurs and Heat, you’ve got a gorgeous product on the floor. But there are 28 other teams, and now that players and tactics have evolved to exploit the puffy virtues of the 3-point shot, our game is drastically different than it was only a few decades ago, and those changes are by no means complete.

Aside from the sideline, the 3-point arc has become the most important stripe on the floor. That unassuming curve now affects everything from offensive architecture and defensive priorities to playing time, draft stocks, and free-agent value. Maybe this is all OK, but we have to acknowledge that what started as an ABA marketing ploy has upended the way the game is played at the highest level.

The 3-point shot was introduced to the NBA in the 1979-80 season. It was a concept borrowed from the ABA, whose commissioner at the time, the prophetic George Mikan, suggested that the new line would give smaller players “a chance to score and open up the defense to make the game more enjoyable for the fans.” That’s exactly what happened, but it took some time to really take shape.

The first season after the NBA added the line, 3-pointers accounted for only 3.1 percent of field goal attempts. By the end of this season, that number had ballooned to 25.9 percent. Similarly, in that first year, NBA teams averaged 2.4 points per game beyond the arc; this year that number was 23.1.

The arc has become basketball’s version of a 1960s beltway that would bypass traditional routes near the city center and spawn a secondary economy. Sure, it was exciting, but it also threatened the traditional economic hub closer to the core. The same way that big-box stores pepper the periphery of our cities, spot-up shooters now decorate the edges of every NBA offense. Danny Green is Petco. Kyle Korver is Kohl’s. Trevor Ariza is Best Buy. Nick Young is Olive Garden.

More and more, offensive players are feasting on the all-you-can-eat beyond-the-arc breadsticks, while a rapidly fading old guard is holding down the spaces by the rim — the traditional epicenter of the basketball economy. It may still be vibrant, but as more of the offensive emphasis migrates away, the value of effective interior performers is diminishing, while the value of spot-up guys has never been higher.

During his first trip to the Finals, Tim Duncan defended the likes of Patrick Ewing and Marcus Camby. This time, Duncan had to supervise Rashard Lewis and Chris Bosh, who love to shop for points way out at Cabela’s.

The 3-point stripe has inflated the value of guys who can shoot from distance at the expense of more conventional “playmakers” and rebounders. One sleepy Steve Novak 3 is worth more than any ferociously awesome Russ Westbrook dunk, yet if the league were to get rid of the line tomorrow, players like Novak might not even earn a roster spot. Of course that won’t happen, but it does illustrate just how much impact the arc has had on the taxonomy of NBA players.

Few would argue that the proliferation of 3-point shots is a real problem, but it’s time to at least think about moving back the line as a means to temper the sprawling perimeter development. It’s also harder and harder to justify an extra 50 percent point reward for a shot that has become only marginally more difficult than any other jumper. This graph shows the relationship between shot distance and points per shot in the NBA during the 2013-14 regular season. You can see why 3-point shots are becoming more popular and why midrange shots are becoming less so.

Shooters are better than ever at draining 24-foot jumpers. Part of that is down to the way many teams design offensive sequences with the explicit goal of creating an open shot from that distance.

Moving the line back, thus turning those 24-foot shots into long 2s, is one way to close the efficiency gap that currently is driving the league’s obsession with 3-point shooting.

If the NBA is interested in examining how moving the line would affect long-range shooting, it can refer to its own history. During three years in the ’90s the league experimented with a shortened line (corners were basically the same). Unsurprisingly, 3-point attempts surged. By the end of that window — the 1996-97 season — 21 percent of field goal attempts were 3s. The next year, the league moved the line back about 19 inches to its original position, presumably because that number was too high. The number plummeted down to 16 percent. Keep in mind, this year the league shot 26 percent of its shots from beyond the arc.

We can also learn from the WNBA. Before last season, the league moved its 3-point line back 19.5 inches to correspond to FIBA’s line. The effects were immediate and significant. During the two seasons before that move, 25.3 percent of WNBA field goal attempts came from beyond the arc, and the league collectively converted 35.2 percent of those shots. When the line moved back, those numbers dipped to 21.5 percent and 32.7 percent, respectively.

In both cases the backward moves decreased both the frequency and efficiency of long-range shots, indirectly restoring more emphasis on the 2-point area. A move to a longer, 25-foot arc in the NBA would likely induce similar changes. During the 2013-14 regular season, NBA players attempted more than 52,000 3s. Just more than 25,000 of them were from deeper than 25 feet. As a whole, the league made 34.5 percent of those shots, compared to 38.4 percent of 3s closer than 25 feet.

That 38.4 percent number is especially high considering that 2-point shots from outside the restricted area go in less than 40 percent of the time. It’s no wonder the midrange game is dying: Why shoot a 40 percent 2-pointer when you can shoot a 38 percent 3-pointer? Moving the line back would both reduce the proficiency of 3-point shots in the NBA and restore some of that abandoned glory back to the midrange. But keep in mind, it’s not as if a move back to 25 feet would make 3-pointers impossible by any means.

Here are the top five NBA shooters from beyond 25 feet in 2013-14 (out of 95 players with a minimum 100 attempts):

1. Danny Green, 45.2 percent
2. Kyle Korver, 45.0 percent
3. Khris Middleton, 43.8 percent
4. Arron Afflalo, 42.6 percent
5. Mike Miller, 42.5 percent

Of course, there’s one pesky geometric issue with moving the NBA 3-point line back any farther at this point — the court’s too dang skinny. As Zach Lowe described in December, that problem has two potential solutions. One is to widen the court to accommodate a longer arc. Right now the court is 50 feet wide and includes a 3-foot buffer between the sideline and the corner portion of the 3-point arc. By adding six more feet of baseline, the league could both eliminate the shorter corner 3-pointers and accommodate a uniformly 25-foot-long 3-point shot.

It might look something like this:

A wider court would open up play even more, and enable teams to sell more courtside seats! However, changing the dimensions of the court is certain to meet lots of resistance — almost every basketball court in the world is 50 feet wide. The other solution is to keep the court the same size and simply eliminate the corner 3 altogether.

After all, it’s easy to argue against a system in which a 22-foot shot from one angle is worth 50 percent more than a 22-foot shot from another angle.

Yet the easiest “solution” of all is to say there is no problem here and just leave it all be. Not many people — including myself — are complaining about the kind of basketball being played right now in the NBA, and if the compliments directed at this year’s Spurs are any indication, people are downright smitten with it. That offense is gorgeous in a way that Duncan’s first championship team 15 years ago was not. Those old teams used to just dump the ball down to Duncan and David Robinson; this year’s team whipped the ball around the edges in search of the optimal shot, which is often beyond the arc.

That ball movement is not only fun to watch, it’s also the key to creating those open 3s in the first place. Eighty-four percent of NBA 3-pointers are assisted, so passing is an essential precursor to 3s, and in a weird way, the current line’s position means more pretty passing.

Regardless, the 3-point arc is the NBA’s version of a pitcher’s mound, and just as Major League Baseball periodically raises and lowers that thing to preserve a relatively steady competitive pitcher-batter relationship, the NBA has a responsibility to keep an eye on its own bubble.
Click to expand...

TheFreak · Jun 23, 2014

Absolutely. Van Gundy agrees.

RedRedemption · Jun 23, 2014

Wouldn't this hurt the Rockets? We shoot the most threes out of anyone in the NBA.

Aleron · Jun 23, 2014

don't tell the "murray is wrong, 2's better than 3's" goons that the finals was between 2 teams launching 3's in force

One thing i notice about that spurs list, is that they move their midrange in several feet before they even attempt taking them.

jordnnnn · Jun 23, 2014

Aleron said: ↑

don't tell the "murray is wrong, 2's better than 3's" goons that the finals was between 2 teams launching 3's in force

One thing i notice about that spurs list, is that they move their midrange in several feet before they even attempt taking them.
Click to expand...

This.

I can think of quite a few posters who really need to read this.

Turns out Moreys 3s, free throws and shots at the rim approach isn't so crazy.

GoRox2013 · Jun 23, 2014

jordnnnn said: ↑

This.

I can think of quite a few posters who really need to read this.

Turns out Moreys 3s, free throws and shots at the rim approach isn't so crazy.
Click to expand...

What's crazy is why we didn't have any pure 3pt shooters on the team to support this approach. I guess that's Les's fault too?

da_juice · Jun 23, 2014

Defenses will evolve to deal with corner 3s. And offenses will change accordingly. Dont punish the teams/coaches that figured it out. Let the defense learn and adapt.

Awesome · Jun 23, 2014

Yeah move it back to like it was in the beginning.

Lefty · Jun 23, 2014

da_juice said: ↑

Defenses will evolve to deal with corner 3s. And offenses will change accordingly. Dont punish the teams/coaches that figured it out. Let the defense learn and adapt.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.
Let the game evolve on its on.

SamFisher · Jun 23, 2014

da_juice said: ↑

Defenses will evolve to deal with corner 3s. And offenses will change accordingly. Dont punish the teams/coaches that figured it out. Let the defense learn and adapt.
Click to expand...

It's not just the corner though - today's players are just vastly better at getting the ball into the basket than the guys in the past.

Larry Bird used to be able to lead the league with 90 3 pointers made. 90!

Steph Curry led this year with 261, with no drop-off in percentage from Bird, whose 90 FGM would barely be in the top 100.

JayZ750 · Jun 23, 2014

I think it'd be interesting . It'd also be interesting to add a 4 pointer, maybe another 5 feet back... but will never happen. There's interesting, but not happening.

I don't think "the game is changing" is a good reason to make such a change to the 3 pointer. If the game was getting worse and un-watchable, sure... but as they note, it seems to have made the game better... so why change it?

SamFisher said: ↑

It's not just the corner though - today's players are just vastly better at getting the ball into the basket than the guys in the past.

Larry Bird used to be able to lead the league with 90 3 pointers made. 90!

Steph Curry led this year with 261, with no drop-off in percentage from Bird.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a difference between "better" and "more", though? Not that it means that much... but seems to just be a better understanding of how to use the 3 pointer, not necessarily better three point shooters... though there is that as well, given how current players have evolved. Certainly Curry is as good as anyone has ever been at the 3.

The question is can defenses catch-up. Run off the three, pack the paint?

B-Bob · Jun 23, 2014

I have always preferred the model of a gradient of rewarded points. 0.2 for a dunk shot, moving by increments of 0.1 points to 2.0 at a 15-ft jump-shot, and continuing in increments of 0.1 points to 4.0 points at half-court.

SamFisher · Jun 23, 2014

JayZ750 said: ↑

Isn't there a difference between "better" and "more", though? Not that it means that much... but seems to just be a better understanding of how to use the 3 pointer, not necessarily better three point shooters... though there is that as well, given how current players have evolved. Certainly Curry is as good as anyone has ever been at the 3.

The question is can defenses catch-up. Run off the three, pack the paint?
Click to expand...

I think that's a distincition without a difference. I don't think it's just corner three's that are causing the top 3 point shooters today to be light years ahead of the past - look at Steph Curry's shot chart, he's good from every area from almost every situation (assisted, unassisted, etc). Today's players make and take more, at a higher percentage - I think that counts as better.

The reason is probably that they've trained for it in a way that players in the past didn't (no 3 point line in HS, college, etc for Bird or Magic...)

torocan · Jun 23, 2014

Silly argument in my view. I don't see many calls to raise the height of the rim to compensate for taller players.

The offensive game has evolved and forced defenses to evolve with it.

Now, teams aren't able to defend Everything and must make hard choices. Prior to the 3 point line it was simply pack the paint and force guys out. Now they must pick their poison against specific teams.

Yes, bad defensive teams get punished more. Teams with poor defensive balance get punished more. And teams that are not offensively balanced get punished more.

However, shouldn't that be the goal? Don't we want teams to create balanced rosters on Offense AND Defense? Shouldn't it be about MORE than just rim protectors and quick perimeter defenders?

Efficiency on the arc drops when it's defended well, just as efficiency at the rim drops with a good rim protector.

No, they shouldn't move back the line. It took 30 years for the game to evolve offensively. It will take more time for defenses to fully evolve to compensate.

And let's be honest, the game is faster, more fluid, and more fun when players have to defend the ENTIRE half court instead of just zoning up or simply doubling the ball handler on every possession.

Every defensive scheme should involve making trade off choices. If teams aren't defending the 3 point line well, that's not on the game, that's on the defensive schemes and roster construction.

da_juice · Jun 23, 2014

torocan said: ↑

Silly argument in my view. I don't see many calls to raise the height of the rim to compensate for taller players.

The offensive game has evolved and forced defenses to evolve with it.

Now, teams aren't able to defend Everything and must make hard choices. Prior to the 3 point line it was simply pack the paint and force guys out. Now they must pick their poison against specific teams.

Yes, bad defensive teams get punished more. Teams with poor defensive balance get punished more. And teams that are not offensively balanced get punished more.

However, shouldn't that be the goal? Don't we want teams to create balanced rosters on Offense AND Defense? Shouldn't it be about MORE than just rim protectors and quick perimeter defenders?

Efficiency on the arc drops when it's defended well, just as efficiency at the rim drops with a good rim protector.

No, they shouldn't move back the line. It took 30 years for the game to evolve offensively. It will take more time for defenses to fully evolve to compensate.

And let's be honest, the game is faster, more fluid, and more fun when players have to defend the ENTIRE half court instead of just zoning up or simply doubling the ball handler on every possession.

Every defensive scheme should involve making trade off choices. If teams aren't defending the 3 point line well, that's not on the game, that's on the defensive schemes and roster construction.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

txppratt · Jun 23, 2014

court should be widened and lengthened to open up space for more motion offense - and it would accommodate a uniform 3 pt line.

rudan · Jun 23, 2014

B-Bob said: ↑

I have always preferred the model of a gradient of rewarded points. 0.2 for a dunk shot, moving by increments of 0.1 points to 2.0 at a 15-ft jump-shot, and continuing in increments of 0.1 points to 4.0 points at half-court.

Click to expand...

The replays/arguments would add about 2 hours to each game

B-Bob · Jun 23, 2014

What if we just switched the length and width of the court -- have any of you considered that? Basketball in a very wide, short court would fix most of the problems the article's author is complaining about. Or at least it would create enough new and horrific problems to completely mask whatever this author thinks is so bad.

Rocket River · Jun 23, 2014

Maybe time to widen/lengthen the court. *smirk*

Take out the corner three . . .that would be the least visited part of the court

Rocket River

robbie380 · Jun 23, 2014

It would be interesting to see how offense would change without the corner 3.

Forums

[Grantland] Is It Time to Move the NBA 3-Point Line Back?

jsmee2000 Contributing Member

TheFreak Contributing Member

RedRedemption Contributing Member

Aleron Contributing Member

jordnnnn Member

GoRox2013 Member

da_juice Member

Awesome Member

Lefty Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

JayZ750 Contributing Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

SamFisher Contributing Member

torocan Member

da_juice Member

txppratt Contributing Member

rudan Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

Rocket River Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

[Grantland] Is It Time to Move the NBA 3-Point Line Back?

jsmee2000 Contributing Member

TheFreak Contributing Member

RedRedemption Contributing Member

Aleron Contributing Member

jordnnnn Member

GoRox2013 Member

da_juice Member

Awesome Member

Lefty Member

SamFisher Contributing Member

JayZ750 Contributing Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

SamFisher Contributing Member

torocan Member

da_juice Member

txppratt Contributing Member

rudan Member

B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

Rocket River Member

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ) Supporting Member

Share This Page

robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
Supporting Member