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

I'm concerned that once again my basketball-related ideas are not being taken seriously.

(prepare your minds ...)

Spoiler

Yeah, NOW try a corner three!

 

wouldnt it just be easier to raise the height of the goal???

 

I think it would be easier to just get rid of the corner 3

 

I fail to see why we are placing fault on anyone for something that worked really well.

 

They should just normalize the value of a three pointer on a daily basis. Let's decide, that the ideal efficiency of a three point shot is 1 point per attempt. Every day, the league looks at what the cumulative percentage is for attempts behind the line, and adjusts the score for a successful attempt accordingly. So, if the percentage went up to 50%, then the shot becomes worth the same as a two pointer. At 33%, the shot is worth almost exactly 3 points. Score could be kept on a floating point system, and then rounded down (or up, you just need a rule) at intervals during the game -- maybe the half, maybe games end.

The cool thing about this is that it would keep announcers confused for probably close to a decade.

 

Hold up... what is happening that is negative?

 

Rudy Tomjanovich figured this out 20 years ago. This isn't new, so not sure we can expect defenses to evolve much. In fact, I might argue that it was the defenses that forced offenses to move out to the three-point line, and so a premium came on practicing it and recruiting it.

 

change the defense rules back to what they were in the 90's then.

Make zone illegal again then because moving it back will make teams just lock up the paint completely and dare teams to win with 3's.

 

Wouldn't mind making real, rarer 3-pt specialists. Seems like basically everyone can knock down 3's nowadays

 

Leave it add a 25 point line like back when MTV rock n jock......

 

I figure most of the NBA can hit them at about a 20 % clip

Rocket River

 

This would definitely mask how out of shape I currently am.

 

creates a lovely new sweet spot - the half court 3...... someone will need to fix that eventually

 

Oh my God. It's time to find a new sport, people. The Spurs have solved basketball.

Seriously though, I think the new NBA, Adam Silver's NBA, wants the Spurs style of basketball to proliferate. What's wrong with having the best team from roster spot 1 to 10? David Stern wanted teams to have the best 1 and 2, rarely 3. Now you actually have to move the ball because, just like soccer, the ball can move faster than the man, and with zone D they are allowing more and more the ability of a team defense to negate the skills of one man.

Silver is looking abroad to the likes of FIFA. We are seeing the changes in play already. Fewer dynasties, star-driven but no longer star-dominated. Shorter contracts: with every offseason it feels like being a compelling one with storylines abound. Teams with more creative ways to manipulate the cap, ways for savvy general managers to distance themselves from the duncecaps.

 

Widening the court is the most important part. Of course, that will never happen.

 

The game has evolved. Team knows how to create open 3s. Kids now begin practicing the shot as soon as they have the strength to heave the ball from that distance.

 

If they want to move it back I would want them to give a grace period of two years. So many players will have to adjust their game (pro and college) and coaches will need new game plans.

 

I was going to make a long post about how the game shouldn't be changed just to accommodate a new era of players who have "perfected" an overpowered advantage in the sport. My reasoning for this was going to be founded on the notion that, even though a player like Chamberlin revolutionized the idea of what a basketball player should look like and be able to do, well, that didn't spur any kind of rule change or dimensional shift in the sport...

However, I would've been totally wrong. It seems like the key was specifically widened in order to limit the effectiveness of a player like Chamberlin: http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html Look at the years 1964-65, where the lane is widened a whole four feet. It's even mentioned beneath that it was specifically done to "nerf" (to use a nerd-term) the over-powered advantage that Wilt had in the era.

By simply looking at the history, I have changed my mind and decided that it is reasonable to move the 3-point line back if the numbers are so out of hand--given the thorough analysis of league officials--that such a move is seen as mechanically necessary.

If, however, there is any reason not to move it back, it is because at what point would it end? If players are simply forced to adapt and adapt and adapt over time, then wouldn't a lengthened 3-point line eventually be perfected anyway? Shooting isn't like height or weight--humans can't just magically get taller and stronger, so a situation like Wilt's is an exceptional one that is difficult to replicate in the modern era. A fully-functional 8 foot tall player isn't going to be born tomorrow, but a player's ability to shoot the ball from a longer distance is something that can be trained for and perfected in a single lifetime.

 

With out the corner 3 miami would not be 2013 nba champs

 

I believe they created the goal-tending rule after players could reach higher than the rim. Well, at least they didn't change the height of the goal.

Rules change whenever a play becomes unbeatable.