PDA

View Full Version : Mark Cuban says NBA should mull moving 3 point arc back



Sportsguy9695
02-28-2016, 05:45 PM
Mark Cuban has a suggestion to reintroduce the midrange shot to the NBA game: Move back the 3-point arc.

"It's getting too close," the Dallas Mavericks owner said Friday night of the 3-point arc, which is 23 feet, 9 inches at the crest and 22 feet in the corners, where there is no room to move it back. "Guys are shooting a foot behind it anyways. ... That's something we should look at. It's worth looking at.

"I don't think the number of shots would decline, but I think it would reward skill and open up the court some more. So guys would still take [3-point] shots if it's seven inches back or whatever, but at the same time, it opens up the court for more drives, more midrange game."

Source: ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14855509/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-says-nba-mull-moving-3-point-arc-back)

ewing
02-28-2016, 06:16 PM
sure why not

mngopher35
02-28-2016, 06:22 PM
Wouldn't mind this at all

Raps08-09 Champ
02-28-2016, 06:25 PM
Maybe. I don't have a preference either way.

ewing
02-28-2016, 06:42 PM
i need to "mull" it over

Bostonjorge
02-28-2016, 06:56 PM
Hoping to hand cuff curry?

CHANGO
02-28-2016, 07:05 PM
Hoping to hand cuff curry?

That wouldn't affect Curry. That would affect the rest of 3pt shooters. So, no.

Anyways, I'm not a fan of changing aspects/rules after years, it's not fair to the future players or the actual players. If it was moving the line front it would be unfair to the past players. Records has been already set.

valade16
02-28-2016, 08:03 PM
I've never understood why it's 23' 9", why didn't they just make it 24'?

Shammyguy3
02-28-2016, 08:12 PM
As the game gets more skilled, players get better, it's only natural to implement new rules or amend previous rules. The 3 point shot being pushed back would be fine by me, and I think fine by most teams.

Would it be a little farther and hypothetically that much more difficult of a shot to hit? Yes. On the other hand though, that stretches the floor more making it more difficult for defenses to defend all useful areas on the court.


I'd be fine pushing it back more than a foot honestly. ****ing Nikola Mirotic would finally look like a normal 3 point shooter https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/nikola-mirotic1.jpg?quality=80

Chronz
02-28-2016, 08:26 PM
Isn't this an admission that the league has gotten better at shooting?

Scoots
02-28-2016, 08:29 PM
Just put a new arc sideline to sideline at 30 feet worth 4 points.

Seriously when curry was asked about it he didnt care at all if they moved it back and he's the reason for the debate.

As for historical significance ... The 96 bulls benefited from a shorter 3pt line and we can still discuss them in context.

flea
02-28-2016, 08:45 PM
Isn't this an admission that the league has gotten better at shooting?

Sure, as a result of favorable rules. I'm not against it because I don't care for games that are nothing but shootarounds and P&R drives over and over and over. But some fans like that style, so whatever.

If you want it to be fair you should give big men and cutters the same rules that shooters and ballhandlers get on the perimeter. You can't push guys off the block, you can't impede them when they set up, and you can't touch their bodies at all when they go up for a shot in the paint. Of course that would result in 180 PPG for each team and would defeat the entire purpose of even having defense, but at least you wouldn't give guards preferential treatment just because they're not nearly as good as bigs at the game. The way the rules are now is akin to how baseball would be if we let guys juice again and moved all the walls in to about 275 feet.

ewing
02-28-2016, 08:49 PM
Isn't this an admission that the league has gotten better at shooting?

of course it has. does anyone deny that? (honest question?)

valade16
02-28-2016, 08:57 PM
Does anyone think Curry wouldn't be a very good 3 point shooter in any era?

Chronz
02-28-2016, 09:01 PM
Sure, as a result of favorable rules. I'm not against it because I don't care for games that are nothing but shootarounds and P&R drives over and over and over. But some fans like that style, so whatever.
Not buying its the rules more than the skill and education of the game ever increasing. I mean the league brought the line in once and I dont recall this kind of spam abuse. I mean, we dont see Cuban asking for a simple Handcheck augment here. We have guys hitting 3's at a higher rate off the dribble than we had those old fogies when set ffs. You think thats the rules more than the skill? Agree to disagree, I remember all the WIDE OPEN clunkers from prior eras to think its the rules more than the talent.



If you want it to be fair you should give big men and cutters the same rules that shooters and ballhandlers get on the perimeter. You can't push guys off the block, you can't impede them when they set up, and you can't touch their bodies at all when they go up for a shot in the paint. Of course that would result in 180 PPG for each team and would defeat the entire purpose of even having defense, but at least you wouldn't give guards preferential treatment just because they're not nearly as good as bigs at the game. The way the rules are now is akin to how baseball would be if we let guys juice again and moved all the walls in to about 275 feet.
[/QUOTE]
That would be fair, I'd rather just get rid of zones. Go back to the days when you had to decide to either double the star or let him play 1v1, none of this byrbid **** that leads to the importance of floor spacing. But I guess some people want to see more of a team game.

WOwolfOL
02-28-2016, 09:10 PM
Raise the rim to 11 ft while you're at it

Chronz
02-28-2016, 09:10 PM
of course it has. does anyone deny that? (honest question?)

Yes they do. Here on PSD, JB himself denies it. Others hold onto the theory that hand checks would drastically reduce the perimeter game to the point where we dont see this increasing skill set. As always theres abit of truth to both sides but I've yet to see anyone actually even attempt to quantify anything, however minuscule. I've done some studies of my own, I disagree with the importance of handchecking in the face of superior athletes/zone schemes/coaching. An outdated argument but I would love to hear anyone explain how prior defenses are superior when the players smart enough to still be running successful teams disagree. I would LOVE to hear Jerry West on this matter. I used to think it was the slashers who thrived with the handcheck augments but as the league evolved it placed an importance on shooting. Im conflicted, its harder to compare eras than it used to be, I have a feeling this trend will continue as the decades mount.

BKLYNpigeon
02-28-2016, 09:11 PM
That wouldn't affect Curry. That would affect the rest of 3pt shooters. So, no.

Anyways, I'm not a fan of changing aspects/rules after years, it's not fair to the future players or the actual players. If it was moving the line front it would be unfair to the past players. Records has been already set.


In 94-97 the NBA moved the 3 point line back a few feet to increase scoring.

flea
02-28-2016, 09:19 PM
Not buying its the rules more than the skill and education of the game ever increasing. I mean the league brought the line in once and I dont recall this kind of spam abuse. I mean, we dont see Cuban asking for a simple Handcheck augment here. We have guys hitting 3's at a higher rate off the dribble than we had those old fogies when set ffs. You think thats the rules more than the skill? Agree to disagree, I remember all the WIDE OPEN clunkers from prior eras to think its the rules more than the talent

It's not just handchecking, it's the stuff they would do on pindown screens and - the biggest one IMO - the fact that shooters have some sort of weird "tunnel of space" to get off a shot where if you even graze a guy before or after his release it's a shooting foul (heaviest penalty in the game).

They've changed that rule periodically since the late 90s, generally with clarifications. IIRC the last clarification was sometime around 2009-2011 where they said even barely touching well after the release is still a shooting foul. Even a guy like Rip Hamilton had to really work for his shots, especially as a mid-range specialist, whereas now guys run free all over the court. The college game is way more physical defensively, and every year in the tournament there are complaints about guys getting handled without the ball - but that's part of the game. Changing that incentivized shooting to an absurd degree.

I agree Curry and Thompson would be elite shooters in any era. But they wouldn't put up 45% and 42% on 3s for their careers on huge volume in another era. I doubt Thompson would be as good as Miller or Allen like his numbers say he is. They are probably the 2 best shooters currently playing and in a shooter-friendly league - if jumpshots are what gets you hard then they are your team.

CHANGO
02-28-2016, 09:24 PM
Just put a new arc sideline to sideline at 30 feet worth 4 points.

Seriously when curry was asked about it he didnt care at all if they moved it back and he's the reason for the debate.

As for historical significance ... The 96 bulls benefited from a shorter 3pt line and we can still discuss them in context.

I would be fine with this.

My opposition with moving back the 3pt line is;

1) That we are playing games now, there are players that would be affected by this change, so' you are telling them basically, "if you want to get 3 points for your team, practice shooting from 2, 3 or whatever foot behind". Then there is Steph Curry, who would lead the league in that kind of shot.

2) Historical significance. Yes, players are getting better at 3pt shooting, but moving the line behind would raise more doubts, "X players have the record for more 3pters, oh but he was shooting from a shorter distance with the same amount of value.

Just put a friking 6 points line at halfcourt and let Curry lead the league on 6 points play. :D

CHANGO
02-28-2016, 09:26 PM
In 94-97 the NBA moved the 3 point line back a few feet to increase scoring.

Exactly, that's my point, today we still hear how X player benefited from that while other Y player was shooting from shorter distances. It makes records and history pointless or at least, the accuracy of that IMO.

5ass
02-28-2016, 10:48 PM
How can you push the 3 pt line back without widening the court?

mngopher35
02-28-2016, 11:04 PM
How can you push the 3 pt line back without widening the court?

I think the idea is extending the arc out further while leaving corners the same.

ewing
02-28-2016, 11:42 PM
It's not just handchecking, it's the stuff they would do on pindown screens and - the biggest one IMO - the fact that shooters have some sort of weird "tunnel of space" to get off a shot where if you even graze a guy before or after his release it's a shooting foul (heaviest penalty in the game).

They've changed that rule periodically since the late 90s, generally with clarifications. IIRC the last clarification was sometime around 2009-2011 where they said even barely touching well after the release is still a shooting foul. Even a guy like Rip Hamilton had to really work for his shots, especially as a mid-range specialist, whereas now guys run free all over the court. The college game is way more physical defensively, and every year in the tournament there are complaints about guys getting handled without the ball - but that's part of the game. Changing that incentivized shooting to an absurd degree.

I agree Curry and Thompson would be elite shooters in any era. But they wouldn't put up 45% and 42% on 3s for their careers on huge volume in another era. I doubt Thompson would be as good as Miller or Allen like his numbers say he is. They are probably the 2 best shooters currently playing and in a shooter-friendly league - if jumpshots are what gets you hard then they are your team.


those guys are great shooters and good players. i don't know what % they shoot in a different era but they are ballers and 2 truly great shooters. Curry is something new. Klay reminds me of Reggie. I do think that rule changes have made long range shooting more valuable and that has something to do with way Dale Davis would suck today but those guys can ball.

Scoots
02-29-2016, 01:10 AM
In 94-97 the NBA moved the 3 point line back a few feet to increase scoring.

They moved it in 21 inches ... not back, and not a few feet. The result was a whole lot more players taking 3s ... just like they are doing now :)

So they moved it back to where it was.

WOwolfOL
02-29-2016, 01:15 AM
Widen the court and move out the corner 3's as well; not just the arc.

LA_Raiders
02-29-2016, 01:21 AM
I agree, all teams are shooting way too many 3s; and all these 3 pts shooting makes the games boring.

mngopher35
02-29-2016, 01:24 AM
Widen the court and move out the corner 3's as well; not just the arc.

I'm not 100% sure but I feel like seats are already right there in every arena meaning it would cause renovations everywhere to do this. That is why i assumed they meant just the arch.

WOwolfOL
02-29-2016, 01:28 AM
I'm not 100% sure but I feel like seats are already right there in every arena meaning it would cause renovations everywhere to do this. That is why i assumed they meant just the arch.
That's true and I admittedly hadn't considered that lol

mngopher35
02-29-2016, 01:30 AM
If that weren't the case I would agree with what you said but that will probably be a fact or

Scoots
02-29-2016, 01:33 AM
Widen the court and move out the corner 3's as well; not just the arc.

That's what they'd have to do ... and they REALLY don't want to widen the court because the first seats lost are the most expensive ... FLOOR LEVEL.

Curry at one point in the playoffs was hitting like 80% from the left corner. Something truly absurd anyhow.

RaiderLakersA's
02-29-2016, 02:25 AM
Moving it back won't help. If they want less 3 pointers, just take away the 3 point line altogether. It won't hurt the sharpshooters, but it will remove the incentive for shooting the "j" from no man's land...because the most you'll get is only 2 points.

And if they really want to make things interesting, make any baskets scored in the paint during the last 2 minutes of each half worth 3 points.

eDush
02-29-2016, 03:24 AM
Moving it back won't help. If they want less 3 pointers, just take away the 3 point line altogether. It won't hurt the sharpshooters, but it will remove the incentive for shooting the "j" from no man's land...because the most you'll get is only 2 points.

And if they really want to make things interesting, make any baskets scored in the paint during the last 2 minutes of each half worth 3 points.

Good thing the league don't ask for your opinion on what should be done as it makes no sense. You eliminate the 3 point line, it will eliminate the excitement that comes with it because it prevents team from coming back into games if they are down by double digits or more. And making 3 points in the paint in last 2 minute is :laugh2:

If anything, 3 points cannot touch the rim....now that is a noble idea that no one thought about and it involves more skill to accomplish :nod: In fact, i will send that idea to the commish :clap:

Alayla
02-29-2016, 12:03 PM
Sure, as a result of favorable rules. I'm not against it because I don't care for games that are nothing but shootarounds and P&R drives over and over and over. But some fans like that style, so whatever.

If you want it to be fair you should give big men and cutters the same rules that shooters and ballhandlers get on the perimeter. You can't push guys off the block, you can't impede them when they set up, and you can't touch their bodies at all when they go up for a shot in the paint. Of course that would result in 180 PPG for each team and would defeat the entire purpose of even having defense, but at least you wouldn't give guards preferential treatment just because they're not nearly as good as bigs at the game. The way the rules are now is akin to how baseball would be if we let guys juice again and moved all the walls in to about 275 feet.

This

Hawkeye15
02-29-2016, 12:11 PM
Isn't this an admission that the league has gotten better at shooting?

no, defenses are way worse, nobody guards anyone, and Rick Mount is the greatest shooter to ever live.

Hawkeye15
02-29-2016, 12:14 PM
Not buying its the rules more than the skill and education of the game ever increasing. I mean the league brought the line in once and I dont recall this kind of spam abuse. I mean, we dont see Cuban asking for a simple Handcheck augment here. We have guys hitting 3's at a higher rate off the dribble than we had those old fogies when set ffs. You think thats the rules more than the skill? Agree to disagree, I remember all the WIDE OPEN clunkers from prior eras to think its the rules more than the talent.



That would be fair, I'd rather just get rid of zones. Go back to the days when you had to decide to either double the star or let him play 1v1, none of this byrbid **** that leads to the importance of floor spacing. But I guess some people want to see more of a team game.

rule changes absolutely have had an impact. Zones being allowed meant you can wall off the paint. Drive lanes are nowhere near as open as they were prior to 2001. So, the offenses decided that floor spacing was now at a higher premium, to force defenses to come out and guard them.

Cause, and effect. So now we have a ridiculous amount of great shooting, league wide. The studying of efficiency obviously further forced the 3 ball, but the initial reaction to packed in zones, was make them pay from deep.

Vinylman
02-29-2016, 12:50 PM
That wouldn't affect Curry. That would affect the rest of 3pt shooters. So, no.

Anyways, I'm not a fan of changing aspects/rules after years, it's not fair to the future players or the actual players. If it was moving the line front it would be unfair to the past players. Records has been already set.

laughable... rule changes have occurred throughout the history of the league... most records are irrelevant already...

KnicksorBust
02-29-2016, 12:54 PM
rule changes absolutely have had an impact. Zones being allowed meant you can wall off the paint. Drive lanes are nowhere near as open as they were prior to 2001. So, the offenses decided that floor spacing was now at a higher premium, to force defenses to come out and guard them.

Cause, and effect. So now we have a ridiculous amount of great shooting, league wide. The studying of efficiency obviously further forced the 3 ball, but the initial reaction to packed in zones, was make them pay from deep.

How do you feel about zones?

Scoots
02-29-2016, 01:03 PM
rule changes absolutely have had an impact. Zones being allowed meant you can wall off the paint. Drive lanes are nowhere near as open as they were prior to 2001. So, the offenses decided that floor spacing was now at a higher premium, to force defenses to come out and guard them.

Cause, and effect. So now we have a ridiculous amount of great shooting, league wide. The studying of efficiency obviously further forced the 3 ball, but the initial reaction to packed in zones, was make them pay from deep.

Also the elimination of hand checking was put in to increase drives to the basket, and the 3 point line was put in to open the floor to increase drives to the basket. The 3 second defensive rule and the 3 second offensive rules were put in place to open the floor to increase drives to the basket. The interference rules were put in place to increase the payoff for drives to the basket. The restricted area rule was put in place to increase drives to the basket.

I think I see a trend.

The issue this time is that players and coaches have figured out that they can exploit the 3 at a very high rate with special players.

Maybe the solution is to make a 3 worth 5, a 2 worth 4, and a FT worth 2 and not move the line at all. Then instead of a long shot being worth 50% more it's only worth 25% more. Then a long distance shooter would have to shoot 40% to score comparable to a 50% short shooter rather than the 33% it is now.

Vincent33
02-29-2016, 01:16 PM
They should put in the Rock n Jock 5pt, 10pt spots. Not too sure about the 25 and 50 point baskets for the last 2min though.

Hawkeye15
02-29-2016, 01:27 PM
How do you feel about zones?

I really don't have an opinion. I would imagine getting rid of them means more rim attacks, which is always fun to watch. But I don't care either way honestly.

Hawkeye15
02-29-2016, 01:28 PM
Also the elimination of hand checking was put in to increase drives to the basket, and the 3 point line was put in to open the floor to increase drives to the basket. The 3 second defensive rule and the 3 second offensive rules were put in place to open the floor to increase drives to the basket. The interference rules were put in place to increase the payoff for drives to the basket. The restricted area rule was put in place to increase drives to the basket.

I think I see a trend.

The issue this time is that players and coaches have figured out that they can exploit the 3 at a very high rate with special players.

Maybe the solution is to make a 3 worth 5, a 2 worth 4, and a FT worth 2 and not move the line at all. Then instead of a long shot being worth 50% more it's only worth 25% more. Then a long distance shooter would have to shoot 40% to score comparable to a 50% short shooter rather than the 33% it is now.

every rule change is for entertainment purposes.

IndyRealist
02-29-2016, 01:29 PM
Eliminate the corner 3 altogether. There's no reason we -have- to have a shortened 3pt arc in the corner. That alone would eliminate a lot of the 3pt barrage going on. Let the arc be 23'9" until it hits the out of bounds.

eDush
02-29-2016, 01:39 PM
Eliminate the corner 3 altogether. There's no reason we -have- to have a shortened 3pt arc in the corner. That alone would eliminate a lot of the 3pt barrage going on. Let the arc be 23'9" until it hits the out of bounds.

It's important to have the corner 3 otherwise no one will take it there which is one of the reaso. For spreading the floor otherwise they will never be guarded in eliminating floor spacing. If they can make a low percentage shot, so be it feels 2 measly points.

Tony_Starks
02-29-2016, 01:40 PM
Cuban was cool with the line when he had Nash, Dirk, Van Exel, and Finley dropping bombs like Saddam tho!

Chromehounds
02-29-2016, 01:41 PM
rule changes absolutely have had an impact. Zones being allowed meant you can wall off the paint. Drive lanes are nowhere near as open as they were prior to 2001. So, the offenses decided that floor spacing was now at a higher premium, to force defenses to come out and guard them.

Cause, and effect. So now we have a ridiculous amount of great shooting, league wide. The studying of efficiency obviously further forced the 3 ball, but the initial reaction to packed in zones, was make them pay from deep.

^What he said!

The feeble mind of Marck Cuban! Once in a few decades a phenomenal player landed in the Association and he's talking about changing the rules of the game....for one individual. Moving the line back by a few inches doesn't hurt Curry, it would only be tougher for the ordinary beings. By doing so you are rewarding Curry and hurting other players, hence, I guess Cuban is now mulling his original thought. if Cuban was on Trump's TV...You're Fired! :)

ewing
02-29-2016, 01:47 PM
make the ball heavier

Chromehounds
02-29-2016, 01:50 PM
Oval?

Scoots
02-29-2016, 01:54 PM
If you really want to de-emphasize the 3 in the modern game without significantly changing people's experience of the game you literally devalue the shot. Make it worth 2.5 instead of 3. Done.

eDush
02-29-2016, 04:31 PM
If you really want to de-emphasize the 3 in the modern game without significantly changing people's experience of the game you literally devalue the shot. Make it worth 2.5 instead of 3. Done.

Can you named any other professional team sports that uses fractions of a point...you can't. That's why it's not used cause it's too confusing for many of us who doesn't have your mind for math. This idea is almost as silly as the one where you get 3 points for scoring in the paint in the last 2 minutes :laugh2:

A solution to make it more difficult from a skill level for everyone, not just for some players like Cuban has suggested like for instance it cannot touch the rim...it needs to be a swwwwoooosssshhhh! We have enough technology in this day and age to tell whether the ball touch the rim or not without the need of official time outs to verify. Now that's a winner even for Cuban! :clap:

ewing
02-29-2016, 04:44 PM
landmines?

Lakers + Giants
02-29-2016, 07:01 PM
Legend has it that curry thought the half court line was the three point line.

flea
02-29-2016, 07:27 PM
Can you named any other professional team sports that uses fractions of a point...you can't. That's why it's not used cause it's too confusing for many of us who doesn't have your mind for math. This idea is almost as silly as the one where you get 3 points for scoring in the paint in the last 2 minutes :laugh2:

A solution to make it more difficult from a skill level for everyone, not just for some players like Cuban has suggested like for instance it cannot touch the rim...it needs to be a swwwwoooosssshhhh! We have enough technology in this day and age to tell whether the ball touch the rim or not without the need of official time outs to verify. Now that's a winner even for Cuban! :clap:

I agree with the sentiment but football and basketball already basically do fractional scoring - just without decimals. A field goal is worth twice a free throw, a 3 point shot is worth 1.5 times a field goal, etc.

Scoots
02-29-2016, 07:44 PM
Can you named any other professional team sports that uses fractions of a point...you can't. That's why it's not used cause it's too confusing for many of us who doesn't have your mind for math. This idea is almost as silly as the one where you get 3 points for scoring in the paint in the last 2 minutes :laugh2:

A solution to make it more difficult from a skill level for everyone, not just for some players like Cuban has suggested like for instance it cannot touch the rim...it needs to be a swwwwoooosssshhhh! We have enough technology in this day and age to tell whether the ball touch the rim or not without the need of official time outs to verify. Now that's a winner even for Cuban! :clap:

You clearly didn't read the whole thread. I said earlier to change 2 point shots to 4, 3s to 5 and FTs to 2. Mathematically it's the same.

eDush
02-29-2016, 09:19 PM
I agree with the sentiment but football and basketball already basically do fractional scoring - just without decimals. A field goal is worth twice a free throw, a 3 point shot is worth 1.5 times a field goal, etc.

Obviously i was referencing the decimals that is not in use. Didn't think i would need to spell it out in detail.


You clearly didn't read the whole thread. I said earlier to change 2 point shots to 4, 3s to 5 and FTs to 2. Mathematically it's the same.

Sorry I didn't but why would you do that, it just double the score total with teams getting over 200 points. We need to award the skill players who are sharpshooters so unless they can make a nothing but net beyond the arc, it will count as a 2 which includes bank shots. By doing this, i term swooosssshhh (https://youtu.be/Sc3m3BwfylA) would be the new common word use in basketball like Hail Mary for Football, i think.

Scoots
02-29-2016, 11:09 PM
Obviously i was referencing the decimals that is not in use. Didn't think i would need to spell it out in detail.

Sorry I didn't but why would you do that, it just double the score total with teams getting over 200 points. We need to award the skill players who are sharpshooters so unless they can make a nothing but net beyond the arc, it will count as a 2 which includes bank shots. By doing this, i term swooosssshhh (https://youtu.be/Sc3m3BwfylA) would be the new common word use in basketball like Hail Mary for Football, i think.

You REALLY don't get math. 5 is NOT double 3. I don't think anything needs to be changed, but if the issue is that there is too much 3 point shooting, you can either make it harder by moving the line back (which sounds to me like it would just make the game worse) or you can make it less valuable and reduce the incentive.

eDush
03-01-2016, 01:53 AM
You clearly didn't read the whole thread. I said earlier to change 2 point shots to 4, 3s to 5 and FTs to 2. Mathematically it's the same.


You REALLY don't get math. 5 is NOT double 3. I don't think anything needs to be changed, but if the issue is that there is too much 3 point shooting, you can either make it harder by moving the line back (which sounds to me like it would just make the game worse) or you can make it less valuable and reduce the incentive.

I don't get math but since it's the same across the board mathematically, it doesn't reduce the incentive or does it.

SeoulBeatz
03-01-2016, 02:15 AM
yeah... i'm still waiting for the 4 point half-court shot. game-changer.

IndyRealist
03-01-2016, 08:42 AM
I don't get math but since it's the same across the board mathematically, it doesn't reduce the incentive or does it. Originally outside the arc was worth 50% more, now it's only 25% more.

eDush
03-01-2016, 09:44 AM
I don't get math but since it's the same across the board mathematically, it doesn't reduce the incentive or does it. Originally outside the arc was worth 50% more, now it's only 25% more.

Since he added 2 points to both the dog and trey shots, it makes no difference unless you think that 4 and 5 point is less incentive now than 2 and 3 points respectively. I think we know who needs to take a math refresher course now :nod:

BKLYNpigeon
03-01-2016, 11:07 AM
Moving the 3 point line back is not because of Curry, you feeble minds, its about the league in general. Its for all the teams who want to shoot the 3 ball, but can't.

If you haven't noticed, the 3 point & line advanced metrics has killed the PF and Center positions.

IndyRealist
03-01-2016, 11:17 AM
Since he added 2 points to both the dog and trey shots, it makes no difference unless you think that 4 and 5 point is less incentive now than 2 and 3 points respectively. I think we know who needs to take a math refresher course now :nod:

Please tell me you're trolling.

Hawkeye15
03-01-2016, 11:50 AM
Moving the 3 point line back is not because of Curry, you feeble minds, its about the league in general. Its for all the teams who want to shoot the 3 ball, but can't.

If you haven't noticed, the 3 point & line advanced metrics has killed the PF and Center positions.

or developed them, depending on how you look at it.

Scoots
03-01-2016, 01:01 PM
It is about the big man game. This year if a PF can't shoot a 3 he almost can't play. The record level that 3 point shooting VOLUME has reached is radically changing the future of the NBA where big men are at an all time low in value.

At the beginning the wings were the least valuable players in the NBA, it's the opposite now and traditionalists don't like it.

eDush ... uhh ... I have no words for you.

Chromehounds
03-01-2016, 01:29 PM
Moving the 3 point line back is not because of Curry, you feeble minds, its about the league in general. Its for all the teams who want to shoot the 3 ball, but can't.

If you haven't noticed, the 3 point & line advanced metrics has killed the PF and Center positions.

So what are you trying to say, lets pack the lanes and make the 3pt less effective? The Barkley rear-end for 5 seconds in the lane is what's best? It's a new era buddy it's all about spacing, ball movements and players rotations. It's an art that you have to mastered to reap the benefits. The days of big guys backing in the lane are over, look at the Grizzlies.

Oh and before Curry the 3pt record stood for 6yrs, then Curry shattered it.. again and again. It's a copycat league so the mortals tried to immitate Curry and failed. Look at the root cause not the affect, the root cause remains one person, Curry. Feeble thoughts are for the feeble mind. ;)

Chromehounds
03-01-2016, 01:40 PM
It is about the big man game. This year if a PF can't shoot a 3 he almost can't play. The record level that 3 point shooting VOLUME has reached is radically changing the future of the NBA where big men are at an all time low in value.

At the beginning the wings were the least valuable players in the NBA, it's the opposite now and traditionalists don't like it.

eDush ... uhh ... I have no words for you.

You still taking him seriously? ;)

And eDush I believe Flea agreed with your comment, he was just adding spice to his reply.

Scoots
03-01-2016, 01:56 PM
The 3 point shot saved basketball. We can't do away with it. It was created to devalue big men (in, I think, 1965). It just took longer than intended :)

eDush
03-01-2016, 04:58 PM
Moving the 3 point line back is not because of Curry, you feeble minds, its about the league in general. Its for all the teams who want to shoot the 3 ball, but can't.


Maybe it's just me but that makes NO sense :crazy:

If it's for the players who can't shoot the 3, moving it back would not help them shoot the 3. Wouldn't it makes more sense to move it closer so they can hit the 3 or am i missing something here mister purposely misspelled name caller just to bait me poster :(

eDush
03-01-2016, 05:08 PM
Please tell me you're trolling.

Just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean i'm trolling. Some people on this thread are trolling me but i am not flagging them for it.

eDush
03-01-2016, 05:22 PM
The 3 point shot saved basketball. We can't do away with it. It was created to devalue big men (in, I think, 1965). It just took longer than intended :)

Is that really true Scoots? ...i thought the long distance 3 pointers was to award the sharp shooters which takes more skill from the hours and dedication it takes to master than just being born big so they can make easy dunks, hooks and layups in the paint like Wilt and Kareem. It awards average guys that were not physically gifted like Larry Bird and Curry to honed their craft to become good sharp shooters, the purest form of scoring in basketball :nod:

Still the fg% favors the big guys in the paint which has NEVER change even in this day and age but more players are better shooters now so they can be awarded for taking a lower % shot imho :clap:

DboneG
03-03-2016, 10:34 AM
Widen the court and move out the corner 3's as well; not just the arc.


Exactly! But, that would entail a redesign of all NBA stadium seating resulting in less money. Some of these stadiums double as hockey arenas. So, would the hockey owners go alone with a seating redesign? No! The NBA planning commission or whatever they are called are already discussing this..believe me on this. But, it won't be moved! Why?! MONEY.

Scoots
03-03-2016, 01:05 PM
Is that really true Scoots? ...i thought the long distance 3 pointers was to award the sharp shooters which takes more skill from the hours and dedication it takes to master than just being born big so they can make easy dunks, hooks and layups in the paint like Wilt and Kareem. It awards average guys that were not physically gifted like Larry Bird and Curry to honed their craft to become good sharp shooters, the purest form of scoring in basketball :nod:

Still the fg% favors the big guys in the paint which has NEVER change even in this day and age but more players are better shooters now so they can be awarded for taking a lower % shot imho :clap:

Yes it's really true. NBA offense got to the point that only size mattered so the team with the biggest athletic players usually won. The 3 was created to increase space and devalue bigs a little ... Goaltending, the paint and 3 second rules were for the same reason.

eDush
03-04-2016, 09:50 AM
Is that really true Scoots? ...i thought the long distance 3 pointers was to award the sharp shooters which takes more skill from the hours and dedication it takes to master than just being born big so they can make easy dunks, hooks and layups in the paint like Wilt and Kareem. It awards average guys that were not physically gifted like Larry Bird and Curry to honed their craft to become good sharp shooters, the purest form of scoring in basketball :nod:

Still the fg% favors the big guys in the paint which has NEVER change even in this day and age but more players are better shooters now so they can be awarded for taking a lower % shot imho :clap:

Yes it's really true. NBA offense got to the point that only size mattered so the team with the biggest athletic players usually won. The 3 was created to increase space and devalue bigs a little ... Goaltending, the paint and 3 second rules were for the same reason.
And it end up awarding and to encourage shooting. Whoever suggested scoring in the paint should be 3 point instead of the arc in the final 2 minutes of the game must be high on drug as it will force team to play 4 centers with a guard during that time to protect the rim and block shots on defense while getting dunks and unblock shots on the other end. Guys like Biyombi would be stars. We be starting Bogut, Speights, Varejoa and Fez along with Curry to dribble the ball and pass it to one of the big guys every time in a close game as he will not take a single long shot as it becomes 2 points at that time and no more ally oops scoring towards the basket he has mastered cause the paint will cluttered with 8 tall centers at the paint in the final minutes LMAO :laugh:

eDush
03-04-2016, 10:43 AM
In 94-97 the NBA moved the 3 point line back a few feet to increase scoring.

Exactly, that's my point, today we still hear how X player benefited from that while other Y player was shooting from shorter distances. It makes records and history pointless or at least, the accuracy of that IMO.

Huh?!? ...they move the line like 20in closer around that time, not a few feet farther :laugh2:. It's like the clueless following the clueless.

yibjijk
03-05-2016, 08:20 AM
Hoping to hand cuff curry?http://financeisok.com/loan/images/40.gif http://financeisok.com/loan/images/37.gif
http://financeisok.com/loan/images/39.gif

ewing
03-05-2016, 03:45 PM
but handing checking and walling off the paint guys????

eDush
03-05-2016, 05:52 PM
Cuban is just self serving that benefit his team cause if they were leading the league in 3s, he won't bring it up. The line is where it should be because if we move it back, it would only benefit a few players only namely Curry which is NOT FAIR :clap:

JasonJohnHorn
03-05-2016, 08:05 PM
Mark Cuban thinks the league should change any rule that doesn't give his team an advantage.

Shammyguy3
03-08-2016, 08:28 PM
i think they definitely should elongate the arc, not sure if they should widen the court.

superwill
03-08-2016, 09:06 PM
Should move it back to 27ft bring back the mid range game and raise the basket up to 12ft

Scoots
03-08-2016, 09:37 PM
i think they definitely should elongate the arc, not sure if they should widen the court.

The problem with that is that bigs will still spend too much of their time standing in that corner looking for the short 3.

I think the line should stay the same ... the coaches and players will adjust.

Gametime
03-10-2016, 07:00 PM
They should do away with the three point line.

Shammyguy3
03-13-2016, 03:12 PM
The problem with that is that bigs will still spend too much of their time standing in that corner looking for the short 3.

I think the line should stay the same ... the coaches and players will adjust.

Why do you think that? The corner three is already shorter, yet they don't spend too much of their time there. So I don't see how affecting an area of the court where they don't spend all that much time would impact them spending time in the corner three where they should already be spending a good portion of their time

Scoots
03-13-2016, 03:17 PM
Why do you think that? The corner three is already shorter, yet they don't spend too much of their time there. So I don't see how affecting an area of the court where they don't spend all that much time would impact them spending time in the corner three where they should already be spending a good portion of their time

Because moving the arc out up top will significantly increase the relative value of the corner. The trend to have bigs shooting 3s is already upon us, teams are drafting and paying for big players who can shoot so they will be shooting, but their success drops precipitously with increased distance so they will tend to move to the sides/corner even more than they do now.

Unless the court gets wider which isn't going to happen.

krazylegz
03-13-2016, 03:27 PM
they should just eliminate the three point shot....its only really been around for 35 years...think itd be cool

Scoots
03-13-2016, 03:42 PM
they should just eliminate the three point shot....its only really been around for 35 years...think itd be cool

NEVER going to happen. The line was introduced to make the game more popular because without it "normal" sized humans couldn't really compete. And people like to think they could play too.

Shammyguy3
03-13-2016, 06:18 PM
Because moving the arc out up top will significantly increase the relative value of the corner. The trend to have bigs shooting 3s is already upon us, teams are drafting and paying for big players who can shoot so they will be shooting, but their success drops precipitously with increased distance so they will tend to move to the sides/corner even more than they do now.

Unless the court gets wider which isn't going to happen.

The relative value wouldn't have as profound of an impact you're making it seem to be. If so, then we wouldn't see any bigs shooting at the top of the key 20 feet out when they can shoot a shot worth an extra point at only a shorter distance away.


Moving the arc back, especially at the top of the key, wouldn't necessarily have this "Every big will only shoot corner 3s." The bigs that can shoot from a certain distance, will continue to do so. Just as they do now. Pau Gasol cannot shoot from 25 feet out consistently, but he can do so from the corner three. Ryan Anderson on the other hand can shoot out to 25+ feet, so he takes those shots. If the line was changed, we wouldn't all of a sudden see Ryan Anderson not taking threes that are not in the corner.

Scoots
03-13-2016, 10:19 PM
The relative value wouldn't have as profound of an impact you're making it seem to be. If so, then we wouldn't see any bigs shooting at the top of the key 20 feet out when they can shoot a shot worth an extra point at only a shorter distance away.


Moving the arc back, especially at the top of the key, wouldn't necessarily have this "Every big will only shoot corner 3s." The bigs that can shoot from a certain distance, will continue to do so. Just as they do now. Pau Gasol cannot shoot from 25 feet out consistently, but he can do so from the corner three. Ryan Anderson on the other hand can shoot out to 25+ feet, so he takes those shots. If the line was changed, we wouldn't all of a sudden see Ryan Anderson not taking threes that are not in the corner.

I don't have the ability to look it up right now, but look at the drop in shooting percentage when you move out to 25'. It puts the 3 below the Mendoza line for most of the bigs in the NBA. So either they shoot from the corner or it's bad offense to shoot up top.

IndyRealist
03-14-2016, 08:29 AM
The relative value wouldn't have as profound of an impact you're making it seem to be. If so, then we wouldn't see any bigs shooting at the top of the key 20 feet out when they can shoot a shot worth an extra point at only a shorter distance away.


Moving the arc back, especially at the top of the key, wouldn't necessarily have this "Every big will only shoot corner 3s." The bigs that can shoot from a certain distance, will continue to do so. Just as they do now. Pau Gasol cannot shoot from 25 feet out consistently, but he can do so from the corner three. Ryan Anderson on the other hand can shoot out to 25+ feet, so he takes those shots. If the line was changed, we wouldn't all of a sudden see Ryan Anderson not taking threes that are not in the corner.

Shots from the top of the key are the result of either pick n pop or a pivot/high post scheme. I'm not sure it's relevant to the conversation, since that predates the 3pt shooting big man. They don't choose to shoot from their because it's optimal, it's because it facilitates other plays.

The answer, as I said before, is simply to eliminate the corner 3. The line stays at 23'9" until it hits out of bounds. The short corner, which is the highest percentage 3, is now worth 2. That eliminates a lot of the 3pt shooting bigs that can only shoot from the corners. They could still be used, but now the value isn't better than a long 2. Consequentially other big man traits, like rebounding and post play, will become more valuable again. You'd probably reduce the 3pt barrage by 20-30% league wide.