superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,973
Are there too many 3 pointers in the NBA today? I think so. The Celtics average about 50 three-pointers per game. The laggard (surprisingly the Nuggets) are at 30 threes per game.
The problem is that there aren't a lot of great ideas how to fix it. Move the line back? Maybe, but I'm not sure that will make a lot of difference. Guys are already shooting logo threes. And if you move the line back so far that only a few players can make it, you'll start to see more designated three point specialists who might not have the typical athletic ability required. I'm not a fan. Plus, you can't move the corner three back so you'd have to eliminate it.
Make it relatively less valuable? That's the best solution. Unfortunately, I don't think the public is ever going to accept a shot being worth 2.4 points. Decimals and team sports scores just don't go together.
Here's my idea, and tell me what you think: each team gets a maximum of 20 threes made per game. After a team hits 20, they can still take the threes -- they will just count for two. Maybe the number should be 18, or 22 -- I don't know. But I feel like this is the only way to prevent threes from taking over the game.
I think the problem with the three is that it's the most valuable thing in the game, but not nearly the most exciting. Mostly, it's just the same play over and over again. It's like in baseball -- the home run is the most valuable thing, but it's very far from the most exciting. Most HRs are generic, just like all the other homeruns. Excitement comes from guys trying to stretch a double into a triple, or a CF running down a long ball in the gap, or even base-stealing. Excitement comes from dunks, and circus shots, and "how the hell did he make that shot with two guys draped all over him," not from an open Payton Pritchard throwing the ball at the basket form long range 8 times a game.
Thoughts?
The problem is that there aren't a lot of great ideas how to fix it. Move the line back? Maybe, but I'm not sure that will make a lot of difference. Guys are already shooting logo threes. And if you move the line back so far that only a few players can make it, you'll start to see more designated three point specialists who might not have the typical athletic ability required. I'm not a fan. Plus, you can't move the corner three back so you'd have to eliminate it.
Make it relatively less valuable? That's the best solution. Unfortunately, I don't think the public is ever going to accept a shot being worth 2.4 points. Decimals and team sports scores just don't go together.
Here's my idea, and tell me what you think: each team gets a maximum of 20 threes made per game. After a team hits 20, they can still take the threes -- they will just count for two. Maybe the number should be 18, or 22 -- I don't know. But I feel like this is the only way to prevent threes from taking over the game.
I think the problem with the three is that it's the most valuable thing in the game, but not nearly the most exciting. Mostly, it's just the same play over and over again. It's like in baseball -- the home run is the most valuable thing, but it's very far from the most exciting. Most HRs are generic, just like all the other homeruns. Excitement comes from guys trying to stretch a double into a triple, or a CF running down a long ball in the gap, or even base-stealing. Excitement comes from dunks, and circus shots, and "how the hell did he make that shot with two guys draped all over him," not from an open Payton Pritchard throwing the ball at the basket form long range 8 times a game.
Thoughts?