Living and Dying at the 3 Point Line

[MChambers]

Interesting Pomeroy article:

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=191&mode=print&nocache=1204233707

[mr. synellinden]

That is fascinating. Basically, the data suggests shooting 3 pointers or bunnies. Really interesting that shots between 5 and 10 feet have a lower % than 3s. Thinking about the GT game last night, how many shots within 5 feet did they miss? I'll bet their shooting percentage from 0-5 feet was less than 40%.

[Johnboy]

As stated in the article, guard against the three!! Maybe Coach K is on to something after all when our guards closely guard opponents outside (thereby giving up the drive on occasion). Turns out he knows a little bit about this game after all!

[Spret42]

He wrote: "That quintet constructs its defense to play the shot-selection game by encouraging opponents to drive to that dead zone on the floor where most players are uncomfortable hoisting a shot."

By making the three point shot a longer and therefore more risky long range shot, it will only be taken by legitimate shooters who have a green light. In my opinion the game becomes fully formed. Players who can hit consistently from 8-20 but who struggle from 22 and beyond will become more dangerous to defend because they will certainly be looking to shoot from 10 as opposed to 20 feet. Defending them becomes more difficult when they are looking to attack more of the floor, not just spot up at 19'9" because of the reward of the three.

I wrote something about Duke's defensive philosophy earlier this month. It is clear Duke's defense is to take away the three point shot with ball pressure and the rim by taking charges. A team willing to pull up and hit shots in between 8-18 feet and who can hit consistently will do quite well. K does exactly what he should do when scoring is being skewed by the 19' 9" 3 point shot. He forces teams to take the one shot no one wants to shoot.

I believe the 19' 9" 3 point shot in major men's college basketball is ridiculous. We reward players with a 50% increase in scoring for hitting what is in effect a nothing more than a mid range jumpshot. The fact that the three point line in college ball is not only closer to the high school line than the NBA line, but is in fact equal is quite simply insane beyond all reason. The line should be at the least 22' and perfectly set at 22'6".

I may be entirely wrong about this, but I have always hated the shortness of the 19'9" three point shot. It smacked of a lowering of the bar for the sake of "excitement" at the detriment to a fully formed game.

[dyedwab]

It's interesting because it is the ability to consistently hit a mid-key jumper that makes Gerald's driving ability so much more dangerous. And its so rare to see a guy who can both drive all the way in and beat his guy, but when he doesn't, stop and hit.

[pamtar]

The data behind the graph is nearly 4,000 games worth of charted shots over the past five seasons.

These data are skewed.

J.J. played within those 5 years. ;)

[Scorp4me]

I have absolutely no problem with the current distance of the 3 point line. If you want to say that it adversely affects college players in their transition to the NBA or affects our game when it comes to international play that's different. But as for how it affects the college game I personally love it. If you have a problem with it add a line further back and make it a 4 pointer. I say that in jest of course =) but I hate they're moving the line. Just my opinion of course, but it seems almost popular to complain of the current line. I just don't think everyone has that feeling.

[rsvman]

Well, the 3-point shot has changed the game almost immeasureably, that much is sure.

I've been watching college basketball since about 1967, and the game has just changed. Anybody who doesn't remember, or who wasn't around for the pre-3 days, watch a game on ESPN classic. Recently I watched Maryland vs. NC State from the David Thompson days. Wow. What a revelation.

Offenses focused mostly on getting the closest possible shot. Defenses focused almost exclusively on preventing the close shots. I remember my coaches telling me to let them shoot the outside shot. "That's the shot we want them to take" was a frequently heard phrase. Since there was no advantage to the long shot, why take it unless the defense forced it?

This led to the huge value of the big man. Now it seems that people are more enamored of quick, good-shooting guards than they are of big men, and little wonder, what with the extra point for a relatively short shot. Think about it. If you can make 40% of your 3-pointers, you'd have to shoot 60% from inside the arc to make it worth your while to shoot 2-point shots.

I think the line needs to be moved back, for sure.

[whereinthehellami]

I have absolutely no problem with the current distance of the 3 point line. If you want to say that it adversely affects college players in their transition to the NBA or affects our game when it comes to international play that's different. But as for how it affects the college game I personally love it. If you have a problem with it add a line further back and make it a 4 pointer. I say that in jest of course =) but I hate they're moving the line. Just my opinion of course, but it seems almost popular to complain of the current line. I just don't think everyone has that feeling.

I agree. Why not move the rim up half a foot to 10.5? Why is shooting a three instead of dunking the ball ruining the game? Maybe a dunk should be 1 point. Surely Naismith didn't intend the game to revolve around the dunk. To me there is nothing sweeter than a twenty-plus footer that tickles the twine. I know I'm in the minority and that it all comes down to dollars though.

[crimsonandblue]

Two points:

First, Henderson's mid-range game particularly his ability to fade after elevating, is Vince Carter-esque (and I mean that in a post-brick-laying at UNC-good way). He will be a fantastic pro and, like Carter, probably a better pro than college player (due to maturity and the ability to work on his range extensively once he hits the pros).

Second, moving the line back would make Duke's history of tremendous shooters, and its current collection, all the more valuable. The current 20'9" proposal isn't far enough, but it's a start. The point isn't to penalize distance shooters, it's to make the relative worth of scoring opportunities equivalent. The area between the three-point line and the lane shouldn't be a wasteland. Moving the line back should bring balance to the floor and make the game better. Looking at that chart of Pomeroy's just illustrates how skewed the game is by the short three point line.

[paulie dogs]

Well, the 3-point shot has changed the game almost immeasureably, that much is sure.

I've been watching college basketball since about 1967, and the game has just changed. Anybody who doesn't remember, or who wasn't around for the pre-3 days, watch a game on ESPN classic. Recently I watched Maryland vs. NC State from the David Thompson days. Wow. What a revelation.

Offenses focused mostly on getting the closest possible shot. Defenses focused almost exclusively on preventing the close shots. I remember my coaches telling me to let them shoot the outside shot. "That's the shot we want them to take" was a frequently heard phrase. Since there was no advantage to the long shot, why take it unless the defense forced it?

This led to the huge value of the big man. Now it seems that people are more enamored of quick, good-shooting guards than they are of big men, and little wonder, what with the extra point for a relatively short shot. Think about it. If you can make 40% of your 3-pointers, you'd have to shoot 60% from inside the arc to make it worth your while to shoot 2-point shots.

I think the line needs to be moved back, for sure.


And why exactly should the game favor the big men? I think the shorter 3 gives teams that don't have a quality big man (i.e. Duke) a chance to compete against those that do.

[rsvman]

And why exactly should the game favor the big men? I think the shorter 3 gives teams that don't have a quality big man (i.e. Duke) a chance to compete against those that do.

I'm not saying it should. I'm just saying that was the natural nature of the game. It's kind of like asking about football "and why exactly should the game favor the strong men?" or about track and field "and why exactly should the game favor the fast men?" It just DOES. And basketball just DID. And that's been changed by the 3-point shot. It's not necessarily bad and it's not necessarily good.

But the line needs to be moved back because right now the disparity is too great and the mid-range game is disappearing. Offenses are essentially drive in, draw the defenders, and dish to a 3-point shooter. If the defenders don't come running, make the lay-up. I think the game is more interesting if the mid-range area is also utilized.

[Spret42]

I know I look like a crank with these long posts but this thing is really bugging me lately. (Warning: This is a rambling mess, I am in desperate need of an editor.)

A long distance shot should certainly be rewarded with three points. However any made shot that gives a 50% increase in reward needs to be difficult enough to be a risk/reward proposition. The entire point of the three point shot as originally constituted in the ABA was to create that risk/reward for teams by rewarding the shooting efforts of players whose range extended beyond the standard shot. Over rewarding the mid-range shot throws off the equilibrium and skews the game. The long distance 22-23 foot shot which is fairly easy to create, and should be rewarded by an increase in reward, would be a threat posed only by the game’s best shooters

The key is a "long distance shot." 19'9" just is not a long distance shot. It is a standard jump shot.

Dean's four corners was an abomination because it reduced the game, the shot clock forced teams to actually play the sport in the most honest fashion. They had to work to score. The current 19’ 9’ 3 point shot reduces the game.

The game when fully formed and played at its best levels should be won by teams that have the most to offer and whose scoring abilities are diverse and varied, big men in the middle with post moves, slashing forward with pull up mid range abilities, and guards with long distance shooting abilities etc. . The threat of a big man down low, or a slashing forward, creates the open opportunity for a mid-range jump shot. The same way the threat on second and 4 of a dominant running game allows for the deep throw. The threat of a deep pass creates the ability to run for 8-10 yards.

Every sport is about working to produce the easiest possible scoring effort. Hence the team that is able to create a lay up or a dunk through 5 men working together should not have to score three times to every two times their opposition hits a mid-range jump shot. The threat a of a long distance guy who can score three points with a real long shot is just one more variable in the equation of a basketball game.

“And why exactly should the game favor the big men? I think the shorter 3 gives teams that don't have a quality big man (i.e. Duke) a chance to compete against those that do.”

Why should the game be set up to help a team full of jump shooters? A team without a post presence or the ability to dribble drive and attack all of the court should simply put – LOSE!!! A team that cannot hit a shot beyond 10 feet but has tremendous height should simply put - LOSE!! A team that can score in every phase should not be penalized and forced to enter a mid-range jump shot contest because the scoring has been skewed by giving an out of proportion reward for something that doesn't deserve it.

The game should never favor big men, nor should it favor jumpshooters, it should require a complete compliment of players capable of a variety of skills and abilities.

To the (i.e. Duke) thing. You move the line back to 22’ 6” and Duke isn’t going to lose, Coach Krzyzewski grew up playing and learning from Bob Knight far before the game was skewed by the 19’ 9” three pointer. He knows how to win under that system and he would win under that system. Hell, he might even win more, who knows.

[Cameron]

The line should be at the least 22' and perfectly set at 22'6".

Please. It would be RIDICULOUS to have a near NBA shot in the college game. If the college game ever promotes an NBA three-pointer, I'm done watching. Less than 10 percent of current college players could make that shot at a 30 percent clip. Probably less. How absurd would that be? Absurd plus an infinite number.

If you would like to see the scoring of games in the 70s and wanna-be long range bombers shooting up 24 foot bricks, then fine. I however do not prefer we go that direction.

Please don't kid yourself by thinking players who can't shoot threes now are going to all of a sudden stop chucking the long ball. This is not going to happen, folks. For guards, that three ball is eye candy. No, what this longer three-point distance is going to do is lower percentages beyond the arc even more, thus making for a sloppier game. We are certainly all entitled to our opinions, and mine just happens to be that college basketball needs to leave lay what doesn't need repairing. The game has been wonderful for the last twenty years, so leave it alone.

[Jumbo]

Please. It would be RIDICULOUS to have a near NBA shot in the college game. If the college game ever promotes an NBA three-pointer, I'm done watching. Less than 10 percent of current college players could make that shot at a 30 percent clip. Probably less. How absurd would that be? Absurd plus an infinite number.

If you would like to see the scoring of games in the 70s and wanna-be long range bombers shooting up 24 foot bricks, then fine. I however do not prefer we go that direction.

Please don't kid yourself by thinking players who can't shoot threes now are going to all of a sudden stop chucking the long ball. This is not going to happen, folks. For guards, that three ball is eye candy. No, what this longer three-point distance is going to do is lower percentages beyond the arc even more, thus making for a sloppier game. We are certainly all entitled to our opinions, and mine just happens to be that college basketball needs to leave lay what doesn't need repairing. The game has been wonderful for the last twenty years, so leave it alone.


I will respectfully disagree, Cameron. First, as mentioned, the college three-point line is essentially a mid-range jumper in the NBA. It is too easy. It has come to be the focal point of the college game, with unfair rewards.

Secondly, truly great shooters shouldn't have any problem knocking down treys from a couple feet further back. It will eliminate the mediocre shooters who don't deserve an extra point. But, the college game has plenty of kids who can shoot beautifully from long range -- the NBA doesn't have that market cornered. And those kids might actually be MORE prevalent at small schools. It's quite possible that they are simply brilliant shooters who are too small, slow or weak to do other things well. If the line moves back, and three-point shooting becomes more of a specialty, these guys would actually gain value.

I watch too many games where players chuck up three-pointer after three-pointer. Variety is the spice of life -- and the spice of basketball, too.

[Spret42]

I will respectfully disagree, Cameron. First, as mentioned, the college three-point line is essentially a mid-range jumper in the NBA. It is too easy. It has come to be the focal point of the college game, with unfair rewards.

Secondly, truly great shooters shouldn't have any problem knocking down treys from a couple feet further back. It will eliminate the mediocre shooters who don't deserve an extra point. But, the college game has plenty of kids who can shoot beautifully from long range -- the NBA doesn't have that market cornered. And those kids might actually be MORE prevalent at small schools. It's quite possible that they are simply brilliant shooters who are too small, slow or weak to do other things well. If the line moves back, and three-point shooting becomes more of a specialty, these guys would actually gain value.

I watch too many games where players chuck up three-pointer after three-pointer. Variety is the spice of life -- and the spice of basketball, too.

What he said.


By the way, the NBA line is 23' 6". So my line is still shorter than the NBA. This is major men's college basketball and 19' 9" is just not a difficult enough shot to be awarded 3 points.

[mapei]

Does anyone under 40 - heck, under 50 - complain about the 3-point shot? I think it's exciting, although I'm not particularly young myself. And I don't find much post play very exciting, because it tends to be either ponderous or rough.

For the record, I'd like to see the international line for all versions of the game. One game, one set of rules.

[Spret42]

If you would like to see the scoring of games in the 70s and wanna-be long range bombers shooting up 24 foot bricks, then fine. I however do not prefer we go that direction.



Do you really think that the game will be played the same way with a longer line? Do you really think we will see games with 40 three-pointers taken between both teams when there is only 1 or 2 guys on each squad who have legitimate long range shooting abilities?

The players on the floor are not there on their own. They are accountable to coaches for their decisions. Do you really think coaches are going to let their players bomb away shooting these supposed 24 feet bricks? Of course not, they are going to tell them to move inside and make the standard 18-20 foot jumpshot. The shot will be worth what it should be worth and the game will be put back into proper balance.

The three pointer will be a long range risk/reward shot and it's variable in the equation of a game will be where it belongs.

[Spret42]

Does anyone under 40 - heck, under 50 - complain about the 3-point shot? I think it's exciting, although I'm not particularly young myself. And I don't find much post play very exciting, because it tends to be either ponderous or rough.

For the record, I'd like to see the international line for all versions of the game. One game, one set of rules.

I am 33. So I guess the answer is yes. :p

[Lulu]

I don't like the logic in this thread.

First of all, if 20ft is "too easy" to earn 3 points, then a dunk must worth half a point, or less. Why don't we just hire some olympic judges to determine the value of each and every shot, or maybe that should be x games judges if we want to include style points as well.

I don't know why the "old" game is the "better" game. If you've ever hung around old people, you'll notice that "different" is always "worse". If today's game was the original, and we took away the 3 point line, everyone would complain that all someone has to do is be lucky enough to be born tall and they can play in the NBA (kinda true as it is...). If you ask me, tall people gain too much advantage in this sport, merely by being tall. I don't want to see the old style game where everyone just tries to cram in as close as they can to the basket. If people are upset that big men are less utilized, or losing their advantage, I say that's good, because it means those with true talent for the game (the abundance of shorter people and the few good enough to play) are becoming the greater factor in the game.

I don't think there was any dunking the day the game was invented. I'd almost guess there might not have been a layup that day either. Maybe basketball is a game that was supposed to include everyone, but tall people gamed the system and ruined the fun. Let's go ahead and raise those rims to 12ft or beyond then.....

[Spret42]

I don't like the logic in this thread.

First of all, if 20ft is "too easy" to earn 3 points, then a dunk must worth half a point, or less. Why don't we just hire some olympic judges to determine the value of each and every shot, or maybe that should be x games judges if we want to include style points as well.

I don't know why the "old" game is the "better" game. If you've ever hung around old people, you'll notice that "different" is always "worse". If today's game was the original, and we took away the 3 point line, everyone would complain that all someone has to do is be lucky enough to be born tall and they can play in the NBA (kinda true as it is...). If you ask me, tall people gain too much advantage in this sport, merely by being tall. I don't want to see the old style game where everyone just tries to cram in as close as they can to the basket. If people are upset that big men are less utilized, or losing their advantage, I say that's good, because it means those with true talent for the game (the abundance of shorter people and the few good enough to play) are becoming the greater factor in the game.

I don't think there was any dunking the day the game was invented. I'd almost guess there might not have been a layup that day either. Maybe basketball is a game that was supposed to include everyone, but tall people gamed the system and ruined the fun. Let's go ahead and raise those rims to 12ft or beyond then.....

The dunk is of course an easy shot.

The difficulty comes in PRODUCING a dunk. The difficulty and the test of the game for a team is five player's working both offensively and defensively, moving, cutting, passing. When that group is able to create high percentage dunk's and layups they should not lose or be at a disadvantage because we give an out of proportion award to a mid-range jumpshot. Remember, a team "settles" for jumpshots. They are by definition lower percentage shots. The long range shot will be something teams decide to risk in order to awarded with three points.

So now we dislike tall people herer? :) The idea that moving the three pointer will mean that being tall is all that is required to be a good basketball playeris rather silly. Great big men are skilled first and big second. Skill will always rule the day in basketball. Move the three point line back doesn't mean big men will dominate, it will mean that skilled big men's contributions will be equal to that of a skilled shooting guard unless the guard can consistently hit a long range jumpshot.

This is about the game being in proper balance.

Ok I am done rambling on about this..sorry all.

[Jumbo]

Does anyone under 40 - heck, under 50 - complain about the 3-point shot? I think it's exciting, although I'm not particularly young myself. And I don't find much post play very exciting, because it tends to be either ponderous or rough.

For the record, I'd like to see the international line for all versions of the game. One game, one set of rules.

I do, as do most of my friends. I don't think it's an age issue at all. I love the three-point shot. We'd still see plenty of threes if the college line got pushed back a couple of feet. It's just too close right now -- a shot I (and any decent shooter) can hit with ease.

[Karl Beem]

This guy implies (http://clutch3.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/what-if-the-college-and-nba-3-point-line-were-the-same-distance/) that the greater NBA distance has hurt JJ. That would surprise me (I haven't seen him play in the NBA) because JJ would frequently shoot from beyond the NBA line in college.

[MChambers]

The dunk is of course an easy shot.

The difficulty comes in PRODUCING a dunk. The difficulty and the test of the game for a team is five player's working both offensively and defensively, moving, cutting, passing. When that group is able to create high percentage dunk's and layups they should not lose or be at a disadvantage because we give an out of proportion award to a mid-range jumpshot. Remember, a team "settles" for jumpshots. They are by definition lower percentage shots. The long range shot will be something teams decide to risk in order to awarded with three points.

So now we dislike tall people herer? :) The idea that moving the three pointer will mean that being tall is all that is required to be a good basketball playeris rather silly. Great big men are skilled first and big second. Skill will always rule the day in basketball. Move the three point line back doesn't mean big men will dominate, it will mean that skilled big men's contributions will be equal to that of a skilled shooting guard unless the guard can consistently hit a long range jumpshot.

This is about the game being in proper balance.

Ok I am done rambling on about this..sorry all.

When asked if the basket should be raised, Abe Lemons said that instead they should cut a hole in the floor and everyone would go around recruiting [politically incorrect word for very short people], saying, "Hey there little fella, want to drive a Cadillac?" (Why isn't this quote in his Wikipedia entry, BTW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Lemons

I agree with those who want a balance. I like dunks, I like threes, and I even like mid-range shots. I think next year's move of the three point line is a good step. I'd be even happier if the NCAA went to the international three point line, which I believe is slightly further out.

Of course, I'm 50, so maybe I just don't get it.

[rsvman]

I don't like the logic in this thread.

First of all, if 20ft is "too easy" to earn 3 points, then a dunk must worth half a point, or less.....

This is actually a roundabout way of starting a pretty good argument for the exact opposite point of view that you went on to espouse. The real question is why shouldn't ALL shots count EXACTLY the same? It's certainly that way in golf, for example. If you leave a 20-foot putt hanging on the lip, it still costs you one stroke to get the ball into the hole. Why should a one-inch putt count the same as a 310-yard drive? Because they're both one stroke. They're both one swipe at the ball.

So why shouldn't ALL shots count two points (excepting free throws)? If a longer shot is worth three, why isn't there a 4-point line? How many points should Dockery have received for his last-second shot against Va Tech? Four? Five? What about Jerry West against the Knicks? He shot it from the top of the opposite key. Seven points? But then it turns out that we're probably rewarding shots that are mostly luck. The logic gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more you think about it, and all the problems are solved by saying that when the ball goes through the basket, the team gets TWO points. Period. Just like everytime you strike the ball in golf, you count ONE stroke. No exceptions.

For my part, I'm not old enough to believe that everything was better in the "old days," but I'm also not stupid enough to think that everything is better now. I'm prepared to live with the idea of a three-point line, even though it's not really all that logical, but I agree with Jumbo that the game will become much less one-dimensional and much more equitable the minute the line is moved out a ways.

[mapei]

I'm closer to Lulu, at least in spirit. I'm old enough to remember before the 3-point shot was introduced in college ball (I think it was in international rules already?), and for me the game is much more entertaining now.

I have often thought that the rim should be raised. I do think it's gotten a bit too easy for the close-in shots.

And as long as we're changing rules, I'd like to abolish the 1-and-1, and give the team that is being fouled the option of taking a new possession instead of being forced to hit FTs. The team that commits the foul should not be rewarded.

[Spret42]

I would even agree that all shots should count the same, but in the name of progress and adding another variable to the game we agreed that a three point shot was acceptable. However, the entire idea was centered around it being a long range risk/reward shot. 19' 9" doesn't qualify and it has thrown college basketball out of balance.

See how I accepted change and progress while preserving fundamental traditions. It is that kind of flexible, open minded yet sober thinking this country needs from it's next generation of leaders. I nominate me for dictator.:D

[Indoor66]

I would even agree that all shots should count the same, but in the name of progress and adding another variable to the game we agreed that a three point shot was acceptable. However, the entire idea was centered around it being a long range risk/reward shot. 19' 9" doesn't qualify and it has thrown college basketball out of balance.

See how I accepted change and progress while preserving fundamental traditions. It is that kind of flexible, open minded yet sober thinking this country needs from it's next generation of leaders. I nominate me for dictator.:D

After reading your thoughtful, well reasoned post, I decline to second the nomination. :) :D

[Jumbo]

I would even agree that all shots should count the same, but in the name of progress and adding another variable to the game we agreed that a three point shot was acceptable. However, the entire idea was centered around it being a long range risk/reward shot. 19' 9" doesn't qualify and it has thrown college basketball out of balance.

See how I accepted change and progress while preserving fundamental traditions. It is that kind of flexible, open minded yet sober thinking this country needs from it's next generation of leaders. I nominate me for dictator.:D

I don't know where you came from, but I think I love you. Are you new to the board? Did you ever post under a different name?

[gep]

And as long as we're changing rules, I'd like to abolish the 1-and-1, and give the team that is being fouled the option of taking a new possession instead of being forced to hit FTs. The team that commits the foul should not be rewarded.

Speaking of changing the rules... I was thinking of another... brought about by statistics that show some players with better percentages from 3-point range than FT. I know on occasion I've mentioned that the FT shooter should step back, or even jump-shoot, since he misses from the FT line. What about a 2-point FT from behind the 3-point line:eek: kinda like the 2-point conversion in football...