3-point line

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Is the 3-point line really necessary?

I just read a book on the Knicks 69-70 season and read about a number of excellent games that took place when the only 3-point play occurred after a good, old-fashioned foul. Teams scored over 100 in games regularly, and players seemed to hit a higher percentage of shots.

Then I watch the Knicks/Heat game the other night and at the end, with NY up by four, all Miami looked for was a three... despite the fact they needed two scores all they did was take long-range shots (missing them all badly.)

Doesn't the 3 just invite players to take low-percentage shots and avoid contact, resulting in a poorer quality, less exciting game?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Is the 3-point line really necessary?

I just read a book on the Knicks 69-70 season and read about a number of excellent games that took place when the only 3-point play occurred after a good, old-fashioned foul. Teams scored over 100 in games regularly, and players seemed to hit a higher percentage of shots.

Then I watch the Knicks/Heat game the other night and at the end, with NY up by four, all Miami looked for was a three... despite the fact they needed two scores all they did was take long-range shots (missing them all badly.)

Doesn't the 3 just invite players to take low-percentage shots and avoid contact, resulting in a poorer quality, less exciting game?

The old 3 point line didn't, the current one (even though its been moved back recently) invites players like Antwaan Walker to shoot from there any time he gets the opportunity.

[14ers]

The 3 point line in the NBA ads strategy and excitement to the game. It makes defenders come out and guard the ball.

The 3 point line in college basketball is a freakin joke.

[rowech]

The 3 pointer ruined basketball. So many teams just chuck it continously. Everyone talks about strategy, etc. and in theory, coming out to guard it, should open all kinds of openings to increase scoring...since the three, scoring has just been going down.

The change I would like to see is to widen the court in both college and the NBA. The guys are just too big anymore.

[SFL Cat]

I don't think its the 3 point line per se. I think it's more that no one takes the time to become proficient in all the fundamentals anymore. It's all about taking it to the hoop, slamming it home and mugging for the camera.

[Arles]

Without the 3 pointer, how many kids would learn to shoot jumpers? If there wasn't the "glory" of hitting the 3, our shooting fundamentals would be even worse than they are now (if that's even possible). All the NBA would be is a post-player dunk fest.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by 14ers

The 3 point line in college basketball is a freakin joke.

Yea, they seriously need to move it out. At least make it to the international distance.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Arles

Without the 3 pointer, how many kids would learn to shoot jumpers? If there wasn't the "glory" of hitting the 3, our shooting fundamentals would be even worse than they are now (if that's even possible). All the NBA would be is a post-player dunk fest.

You have pros who can't even hit 60 percent of their free throws. My high school coach is rolling in his grave.

[Groundhog]

I won't deny that fundamentals are lacking in a lot of players, but people need to remember that a big part in the dropping scores and FG% is that players are much better defenders now. Hell, watch a game from the early 90s sometime and see the massive difference in athleticism between certain players on the floor. Now days pretty much every wing player is quick enough to prevent even the quickest guy on the court from getting too many good looks.

[Schmidty]

People who are crappy at shooting, and who are older than 35 or so, hate the 3 point line.

I love the 3 pointer, although I admit that it's partly because it was a huge reason why I was all-district my senior year, and why I still can hold my own on any playground.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am still in love with basketball, and a big reason for that is because of the 3 point line. It allows people who aren't that athletic to make an actual impact on the game, other than just passing. It's essential to making basketball a diverse game. (And no I don't mean that racially, idiots - I mean it in a skills way).

[SFL Cat]

I've always liked the 3-point line myself. But then, I was a big ABA fan back in the day.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

People who are crappy at shooting, and who are older than 35 or so, hate the 3 point line.

I love the 3 pointer, although I admit that it's partly because it was a huge reason why I was all-district my senior year, and why I still can hold my own on any playground.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am still in love with basketball, and a big reason for that is because of the 3 point line. It allows people who aren't that athletic to make an actual impact on the game, other than just passing. It's essential to making basketball a diverse game. (And no I don't mean that racially, idiots - I mean it in a skills way).

I agree. The three point line is crucial to the game now. Without it the post game becomes way too important, and those little guys who can shoot with range become not so important. Floor spacing would be ruined, and removing it from the US game would just seperate the US from the FIBA rules all the more.

What I would like to see however is both the NBA and NCAA just adopting the FIBA rules 100%. I've been watching quite a bit of Euro basketball lately, and the game flows really well. Perimeter defense in the NBA is an absolutely joke now, and allowing true zone defenses won't do anything but make teams play better by encouraging ball movement rather than isolation plays.

I was watching Knicks-Celtics a few hours ago (god only knows why they decided to screen that game over here), and the 5 minutes of it that I could bare to watch was Delonte West dribbling the ball for 10 seconds, making one token pass to someone, who then fired up a shot or drove inside on 3 defenders to hurl up a shot. There was no flow at all, no ball movement, and nothing resembling even a high school offense.

The Suns are one of the few teams that play with a fluid offense that looks to make the effective pass, and Steve Nash deserves a lot of credit for that, but watching the European leagues, or even the well coached NCAA teams, it really makes me sad to see how much more basketball-esque they are than this NBA product. Even our Australian league with it's poor talent level is generally a more exciting product.

[Dekanth]

A bit off topic, but I think the 35 second clock in college is a big reason why I find the college game more pleasing than the pro game. A 24 second clock doesn't let you reset the offense if your first plan is shut down, then it just becomes jack up the first open shot you see.

[Arles]

To follow up as well, I think the 3-point shoot should be the farthest thing from the minds of people trying to improve the college/pro game. Without a 3-pointer, would there be any drama in the first few rounds? You think a team like Wisc-Milwaukee, Montana or Utah State would have a prayer without a 3-pointer?

To the NBA, I'm completely for implementing more European rules to encourage more team play. In fact, I'd be in favor of setting up silly "4 point NBA jam hotspots" from 17 to 20 feet away before removing the three pointer. If anything, we should be encouraging kids to work on a good jumper and not take away the only motivation (ie, the 3) from a kid actually choosing to work on his jumpshot.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Arles

To follow up as well, I think the 3-point shoot should be the farthest thing from the minds of people trying to improve the college/pro game. Without a 3-pointer, would there be any drama in the first few rounds? You think a team like Wisc-Milwaukee, Montana or Utah State would have a prayer without a 3-pointer?

Yeah, this is very true as well. Smaller schools struggle to recruit height, which means that they would really be penalised by removing the 3-point line, and like Arlie says it's the 3-pointer that makes some of the all time classic upset games.

[SFL Cat]

I've always thought a game where a player is just hitting 3's at will is a beautiful thing.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

What I would like to see however is both the NBA and NCAA just adopting the FIBA rules 100%.

What he said.

[st.cronin]

+1 to Groundhog

NCAA basketball is ok, but the NBA is completely unwatchable to me.

[SuperGrover]

To follow up as well, I think the 3-point shoot should be the farthest thing from the minds of people trying to improve the college/pro game. Without a 3-pointer, would there be any drama in the first few rounds? You think a team like Wisc-Milwaukee, Montana or Utah State would have a prayer without a 3-pointer?

Only problem you have now is a team like Illinois shoots 40 3 point FGs in the NCAA championship game. That's not entertaining basketball either.

The NCAA line needs to be moved back. It's way too close.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

Only problem you have now is a team like Illinois shoots 40 3 point FGs in the NCAA championship game. That's not entertaining basketball either.

The NCAA line needs to be moved back. It's way too close.

Moving the line back certainly wouldn't hurt and I'm all for it, but I don't mind a team taking 40 3s. Teams that rely on shooting that many 3s usually wind up shooting themselves in the foot anyway, so the problem comes down to coaching more than the rules of the game.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Moving the line back certainly wouldn't hurt and I'm all for it, but I don't mind a team taking 40 3s. Teams that rely on shooting that many 3s usually wind up shooting themselves in the foot anyway, so the problem comes down to coaching more than the rules of the game.

Totally agree! This is my number one pet peeve with the NBA. None that they are not great coaches, more that they overcoach the game.

[stevew]

This is why Big John hates the 3 pointers..

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Is the 3-point line really necessary?

I just read a book on the Knicks 69-70 season and read about a number of excellent games that took place when the only 3-point play occurred after a good, old-fashioned foul. Teams scored over 100 in games regularly, and players seemed to hit a higher percentage of shots.

Then I watch the Knicks/Heat game the other night and at the end, with NY up by four, all Miami looked for was a three... despite the fact they needed two scores all they did was take long-range shots (missing them all badly.)

Doesn't the 3 just invite players to take low-percentage shots and avoid contact, resulting in a poorer quality, less exciting game?

I'd like to breakdown the situation you have referenced here. It is something that I notice bad college coaches do all the time. They hurry down and try to get the inside shot, if they make it it cuts the lead to one possession but then they are forced to foul to get the ball back. The other team which has put all its free throw shooters in the game for the last 20 seconds hits atleast 1 and usually both free throws and you are down 4 again and have made no progress. If you hit a 3 at the start of this scenario then you will be down by 3 again with a chance to tie in a worst case scenario.

[Icy]

Umm i like it, maybe it's because I'm more used to European basketball but i enjoy more watching a real 3pt/jumper specialist, who scores from everywhere and that nobody seems able to stop than a strong guy who only dunks again and again.

[molson]

I remember a game in the NCAA tournament about 5 or 6 years ago, Syracuse/Michigan St, where Syracuse completely dismantled the Spartans in the first half - scoring on fast breaks, the half court offense was clicking, it was a thing of beauty.

Then it was like Tom Izzo told his team at halftime, "we can't compete in basketball today, so from now on, everyone just shoot 3s every trip down". They did, went something ridiculous like 16-20, and won easily.

It would be like if the NFL gave bonus points for Field Goals beyond 50 yards, and a desperate team could just throw the playbook out the window and kick whenever they got to midfield.

Somehow, unfulfilling.

[Butter]

I wish they had a 4 point shot.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by molson

I remember a game in the NCAA tournament about 5 or 6 years ago, Syracuse/Michigan St, where Syracuse completely dismantled the Spartans in the first half - scoring on fast breaks, the half court offense was clicking, it was a thing of beauty.

Then it was like Tom Izzo told his team at halftime, "we can't compete in basketball today, so from now on, everyone just shoot 3s every trip down". They did, went something ridiculous like 16-20, and won easily.

It would be like if the NFL gave bonus points for Field Goals beyond 50 yards, and a desperate team could just throw the playbook out the window and kick whenever they got to midfield.

Somehow, unfulfilling.

Stop crying because a team can do something that's essential to basketball - Shoot a jump shot.

Any fucking team that shoots 16-20 in a half would have won anyway, 3 point or otherwise. That's 80%. So what's your point?

[KevinNU7]

Originally Posted by molson

I remember a game in the NCAA tournament about 5 or 6 years ago, Syracuse/Michigan St, where Syracuse completely dismantled the Spartans in the first half - scoring on fast breaks, the half court offense was clicking, it was a thing of beauty.

Then it was like Tom Izzo told his team at halftime, "we can't compete in basketball today, so from now on, everyone just shoot 3s every trip down". They did, went something ridiculous like 16-20, and won easily.

It would be like if the NFL gave bonus points for Field Goals beyond 50 yards, and a desperate team could just throw the playbook out the window and kick whenever they got to midfield.

Somehow, unfulfilling.

I don't buy it. To me it is the equivalent of a team going 5 wide no-huddle for the 2nd half and going for two all the time.

[Butter]

Well, he did say it was "like" Tom Izzo told his team that. In actuality, they just came out and had a great shooting half, and molson's still bitter about it 7 years later.

[st.cronin]

So a better analogy would be:

It was like Bill Belicheck told Tom Brady to complete all his passes in the second half, and then the Pats won. Totally unfair. Why can't every team have a qb that good.

[gstelmack]

Two words:

Larry Bird

The correct 3-point shot is a thing of beauty.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by stevew

This is why Big John hates the 3 pointers..

Grrrr...

That's not why, I just think the game suffers overall.

There are great individual moments though...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

That's not why, I just think the game suffers overall.

I think you need to blame ESPN more than the 3-point shot (for the same reason that ESPN is to blame for safeties in football head-hunting instead of making a tackle). Have you ever seen ESPN show a highlight real of a midrange jumper that wasn't a game winner? But they show big dunks or 3-point shots that changed momentum all the time. So now you have basketball players going for the dunk or throwing up 3-pointers like they are going out of style trying to get on SportsCenter to help build up their name so they can land a bigger contract.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think you need to blame ESPN more than the 3-point shot (for the same reason that ESPN is to blame for safeties in football head-hunting instead of making a tackle). Have you ever seen ESPN show a highlight real of a midrange jumper that wasn't a game winner? But they show big dunks or 3-point shots that changed momentum all the time. So now you have basketball players going for the dunk or throwing up 3-pointers like they are going out of style trying to get on SportsCenter to help build up their name so they can land a bigger contract.

The dunk or 3-pointer doesn't even need to change momentum... ESPN is great for showing a monster dunk as the play-of-the week (or whatever) when the point difference is 30-something and it has no impact on the game.

If there was no 3-line, the lane would be a little bit more congested and there would therefore be less dunking.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

The dunk or 3-pointer doesn't even need to change momentum... ESPN is great for showing a monster dunk as the play-of-the week (or whatever) when the point difference is 30-something and it has no impact on the game.

If there was no 3-line, the lane would be a little bit more congested and there would therefore be less dunking.

No there wouldn't. There would be fewer SUCCESSFUL dunks, but given that a dunk would be the only way to get a highlight more guys would be trying it.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I think I'd watch Sportscenter more if there were more highlights of primadonas picking their teeth off the floor...

Can we get a mop over here?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I think I'd watch Sportscenter more if there were more highlights of primadonas picking their teeth off the floor...

Can we get a mop over here?

Now that WOULD be fun...

[st.cronin]

Don't know it got on sportscenter, but in a recent game the Buckeye basketball coach dropped a piece of gum on the floor, picked it up and started chewing it.

Very innovative usage of the 5-second rule, that was.

[adubroff]

I personally don't think the problem with the NBA is the 3 point shot. It's the meaningless regular season and the lack of cohesion among the teams. If the teams were together for a longer period of time, I imagine the basketball would be higher quality.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Well, he did say it was "like" Tom Izzo told his team that. In actuality, they just came out and had a great shooting half, and molson's still bitter about it 7 years later.

Ya, that's probably true. Imagine being bitter enough about a game to turn someone against the 3-point shot.

[Butter]

Now that's bitter!