Impact Of The 3-Point Line Rule Change

[Saratoga2]

When comparing 2 point shots versus 3 point shots, it is just shooting percentage times the value of the shot. It is unlikely that the shooting percentage of any team will not be impacted to some degree by moving further out. I expect all teams to compensate by getting more shots off inside.

Watching Memphis this year, I notice they get a lot of shots from penetration with their big guards. With Scheyer, Henderson, Williams, Pocius and Smith, we have good size in that respect and should be able to adjust with a little more of the Memphis style offense.

[Troublemaker]

What about defensively? Year in and year out, Duke is among the leaders in allowing the fewest opponent 3s as a percentage of total points. Because it's tough to shoot 3s against us, and our opponents score mostly 2s already (specifically 2s, not free throws), could this hurt us defensively?

That's a good question. Will being more spread out on defense hurt Duke? Also, if 3-pt shooting percentage declines around the country, will that make Duke less special defensively since one of our biggest strengths is taking away the three? Will we feel like Joe Namath did when everyone started wearing white shoes?

I think it's really tough to say at this point that the rule change won't hurt Duke. We'll have to wait and see.

[Scorp4me]

Count me in the if it ain't broke don't fix it camp. I predict gnashing of teeth over it some point next year.

[riverside6]

Troublemaker, I agree, Duke's defense is the area is the most likely to affect them.

Until college baskeball catches up and shoots better at the 2 point shots, Duke's defensive philosophy will not change.

Just as mgtr said, the 2 point shot is weak because the benefit in practicing has gone down. With the benefit of the shot going up slightly now, you'll see more practice put into it.

It will be interesting to see also how this affects incoming recruits, as there will now be a learning curve.

[BlueintheFace]

What I am really not looking forward to is how every announcer is going to spend half the game, every game, explaining how the rule change has changed this or that. How it has extended Duke's tight man Defense and opened up the lane better for drives. How help side defense now must roll further.. blah blah blah. It's going to be terrible.

[MChambers]

OK, the following is not for Terps...

One can estimate the effect on 3-point accuracy using some basic physics. As the distance increases, the accuracy of a shot decreases by the square of the distance (because it can go arwy in either the long/short or left/right plane).

So, if the overall NCAA accuracy on 3 pointers is 35%, next year we should expect it to be 31.7% (.35 x 19.75 x 19.75 / 20.75 x 20.75).

Doesn't sound like much but it definetely makes the 3 pointer a worse bet compared to the two pointer. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the better shooters will still be effective from three point range, but coaches will have to be more selective in who they give the green light to.

Neal

This is interesting, but perhaps should be adjusted slightly, to take into account the fact that this year not all three pointers are taken from 19 feet nine inches. I assume the average would be more like 21 or 22 feet, meaning that the drop in accuracy would be slightly less than in your equation.

[SilkyJ]

Funny, because I was just thinking about that. If anything it'll hurt Singler with the amount of 3's he took on the line. I think getting him closer to the hoop helps us anyway.

I think Singler could learn a thing or two from Deng, who has a great jumpshot, but basically learned that he could be so much more effective taking 15-17 ft. pullups than 20+ foot three pointers. Maybe moving the line back will be an impetus that forces him to work on that midrange game...

[Olympic Fan]

Quote: "The national high-water accuracy mark came the first season the 19-9 distance was standardized in 1986-87. Then, from that .384 percentage, it never improved for 10 consecutive years, going down nine times.

Coaches nationwide howled about dwindling shooting fundamentals. Despite the extra point, players were more interesting in dunking their way onto "SportsCenter."

I think this is a fundamental mis-reading of the numbers. It was not that shooting accuracy dwindled after the introduction of the 3-point shot in 1986-87, but that the frequency of the shot increased steadily.

Yes, the highwater mark for 3-point accuracy was in 1987 (the first year of the rule), when NCAA teams averaged 38.4 percent from behind the line. But -- and it's a HUGE but -- NCAA games in 1987 averaged just 9.2 3-point attempts a game.

It's obvious what was happening -- teams were restricting the shot to their best shooters, shooting under the best conditions. Naturally, the 3-point percentage was high.

But as coaches learned the value of the weapon -- Pitino's Providence College team did a lot to drive that lesson home -- coaches allowed more shooters and more shots. They bought into the argument that 33 percent on 3-point shots is the same as 50 percent on two point shots (although I'm not sure that's true when you factor in fouls and offensive rebounding).

Still, it's an interesting debate, one I had with a JJ Redick hater who insisted that he was overrated, despite his NCAA record number of 3-pointers because he hit "just" 40 percent on 3s for his career. I countered with the question, which is the more effective player -- one who averaged 1 of 2 3-pointers a game (50 percent on 3s) or one who averages 4 of 10 3-pointers (40 percent)?

Coaches apparently preferred the second player.

Anyway, as 3-point average fell from 38.4 in 1987 to a low of 34.1 in 1997 (and stabilized in the 34-35 percent range), the number of attempts per game doubled -- it was 18.3 in 2004, the last year I have NCAA records for.

Again you have to ask, is it better to shoot 4 of 9 3-pointers (as teams did in 1987) or 7 of 18 (as they did in 2004)?

I think you'll see that 3-point accuracy doesn't drop as much as you expect next season, but that the number of attempts will fall dramatically. But players will adjust and in the next few years, you'll see attempts rise and percentages fall slightly.

I think coaches see 35 percent on 3s as the magic number. Teams will take as many 3s as they can while maintaining a 35-plus 3-point percentage. As the percentage drops below that, coaches will restrict their shooters and only take optimim shots.

I believe the balance between 3-point accuracy and 3-point attempts is at that point -- you want to take as many 3s as you can launch and maintain about a 35 percent accuracy.

[gofurman]

Well there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with an outside-oriented game... I guess some people just long for the game they knew years ago. Or they're just desperate for a few more crowd-pleasing dunks.

For those saying that the move will not effect Paulus, Scheyer, and anyone else who regularly shoots behind the line... Are you sure? I'd like to believe this is the case, but isn't part of the reason that these guys take their shots from so far behind the line sometimes because that's where they're open. Defenses tend to focus on guarding shots at the line, so if you're a few feet back you're more likely to have space to get your shot off (or, maybe you just catch a defender being lazy, or not paying attention). Once the line is moved back, I assume that anyone intending to guard against the 3 will be guarding the new line, and if Paulus can't get his shot off from there he'll be a few feet behind the new line.

One the other hand, one foot hardly seems like enough distance to make that big of a difference for someone already shooting from 20ft. (I'm sure there's some statistical significance, but how small is it?) Changing the amount of space to work with along the sidelines though seems like possibly the biggest factor to me.

this thing worries me...

How can you argue that the change won' t affect three-pt shooting pctgs? We allknow if you moved the line to 30 feet the percentages would fall ...so each foot they move it diminishes the percentage a little. That being the case, a team like Duke which shoots more threes than other teams should be hurt more than teams which shoot fewer threes. Don't you think?

[crimsonandblue]

The biggest pain will be that the women's line isn't moving, meaning you'll have at least two lines (and three for schools playing in pro arenas) junking up every court.

I like the move, but I won't like the looks of it.

[SilkyJ]

^good point, and one I feel isn't discussed enough. When I've played on courts with multiple lines (especially international vs. college where the difference is about a foot) it can be confusing when you are trying to keep your head up and pay attention to so many other things. I don't think its as big a deal with the NBA vs. college line due to the fact that they are 3 feet apart, but if you've got a line that's just 1 foot away, that just has to cause confusion for a player at least every now and again...