PDA

View Full Version : Impact Of The 3-Point Line Rule Change



buzz
04-06-2008, 11:17 PM
Next year the 3-point line moves back one foot to 20' 9". I'm curious to read others' thoughts on the impact of the rule change next year. Does this benefit or hurt a team like Duke?

OZZIE4DUKE
04-06-2008, 11:18 PM
Next year the 3-point line moves back one foot to 20' 9". I'm curious to read others' thoughts on the impact of the rule change next year. Does this benefit or hurt a team like Duke?

It will have almost no impact what so ever, even without Taylor King.

BlueintheFace
04-06-2008, 11:21 PM
Zero effect for Greg Paulus and Jon Scheyer. Might actually be an issue for Gerald... nothing a little hard work can't change. Same for Kyle.

geraldsneighbor
04-06-2008, 11:21 PM
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. Paulus and his shots were all well behind that line. If its a good shot though it will still go in.

geraldsneighbor
04-06-2008, 11:25 PM
Won't it be easier to spread the floor too?

I think d-mark wouldn't have shot as many 3's though.

BlueintheFace
04-06-2008, 11:42 PM
I predict lots of out of bounds calls early next year as our shooters set up a few feet behind the line (out of bounds) on drives so they can catch and step in to their shot. Adjustments will be made and it will all be good.

buzz
04-06-2008, 11:48 PM
A few questions to consider: What happens to other teams that have fewer good shooters than Duke? Will teams start to see/employ more zone-oriented defenses?

geraldsneighbor
04-06-2008, 11:54 PM
I hope people play zone vs. Duke. Maybe they'll only run man with half court pressure too.

Cameron
04-07-2008, 12:17 AM
I agree with Ozzie. The line change will have zero impact on our club. Greg and Jon already have range out to 20, 21 feet and Kyle has the type of pure shot that, with a little practice, will have him hitting those deeper three balls in no time. I think Nolan will be able to hit them as well. He has a nice shot and, besides, a foot is nothing at all for shooter who is already smooth. If it is, then they are not much of a shooter.

Gerald might need more practice than anyone else, but that's alright. I'd rather see him concentrating on tearing up the paths into the lane and slamming on jokes (haha, that was the first term that came to my mind, so I'm going to go with it). Gerald has a great, great mid range game and it will be nice to see him utilize it completely.

As for the whole line change thing in general, though, it's stupid. I know many here don't agree, but I just don't see why something that is not broken has to be reconstructed. Doesn't make sense to me. But, it appears to be a done deal so whatever.

I do believe there is one final vote, correct? Any chance that gets blocked, or not a chance in Hell?

BlueintheFace
04-07-2008, 12:25 AM
Here is my theory-

Most teams get three pointers by 1) playing an inside-outside game, or 2) get open looks on the break/ broken plays. Very few teams have offenses geared towards hitting three pointers. When the line is moved back next year, a lot of those threes are going to be rimming out or missing iron all together.

So, Coach K knew what was coming and used this season for one thing- to get Duke used to a system that will dominate while other teams struggle to hit threes they were used to hitting. He didn't care about ACC titles or Championships. He was just planning and plotting for this upcoming season when our team will dominate from behind the arc. HAH LAUGH AT OUR "WEAK" FRONT COURT NOW!!!!!

Makes sense right???

Cameron
04-07-2008, 12:36 AM
^^Great theory there, Blue!

Boy would that be Heaven if it worked "to plan":)

eddiehaskell
04-07-2008, 01:00 AM
As for the whole line change thing in general, though, it's stupid. I know many here don't agree, but I just don't see why something that is not broken has to be reconstructed. Doesn't make sense to me. But, it appears to be a done deal so whatever.

I do believe there is one final vote, correct? Any chance that gets blocked, or not a chance in Hell?I don't like it either.

Here is part of an article I read about it;
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." Since bottoming out at .341 in 1996-97, it slowly rose to .350 last season. The NCAA's concern in moving the line back wasn't so much the percentage of 3-pointers made as the percentage of 3-pointers taken and making the college game too outside oriented.So it's not that it's an easy shot - they want to change the amount of attempts. What's wrong with teams wanting to be outside oriented?

mgtr
04-07-2008, 02:08 AM
I think the current system is broken. I have seen teams which pay little attention to the three point line (except against a zone), and drive to the 12-15 foot range and pop a jumper. This has become a lost art, but it is always (well, almost always) available. True, you only get 2 points, but the likelihood is much higher of making the shot.
So, my point is that the further out they move the 3 point line, the more opportunities there are for good schools to score inside that line, leaving the area outside for the accurate guys. I have no problem with Hendo taking only 12-15' jump shots plus drives to the hoop next year. Let Paulus and Scheyer shoot outside the line.
Also, this may force Singler back inside, where he can do some real damage. I don't know what his 3 pt % was this year, but the coaches need to go over that with him, and get him to focus on the higher percentage shots. I think that anybody with a reliable 12-15 foot jump shot (like Hansbrough) will score some real points next year.

Lulu
04-07-2008, 03:36 AM
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.

riverside6
04-07-2008, 07:49 AM
I think the current system is broken. I have seen teams which pay little attention to the three point line (except against a zone), and drive to the 12-15 foot range and pop a jumper. This has become a lost art, but it is always (well, almost always) available. True, you only get 2 points, but the likelihood is much higher of making the shot.
So, my point is that the further out they move the 3 point line, the more opportunities there are for good schools to score inside that line, leaving the area outside for the accurate guys. I have no problem with Hendo taking only 12-15' jump shots plus drives to the hoop next year. Let Paulus and Scheyer shoot outside the line.
Also, this may force Singler back inside, where he can do some real damage. I don't know what his 3 pt % was this year, but the coaches need to go over that with him, and get him to focus on the higher percentage shots. I think that anybody with a reliable 12-15 foot jump shot (like Hansbrough) will score some real points next year.

This study (http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=191) by Ken Pomeroy says that players are actually more accurate from 19-9 than they are from 12-15 feet. Furthermore the difference from 19-9 to 20-9 is negligible.

MChambers
04-07-2008, 09:07 AM
Duke is fortunate to have at least two shooters (Paulus and Scheyer) that shouldn't be affected. Not clear how Gerald, Nolan, Kyle, and Eliot will do. But if Duke isn't affected on offense, other teams will be. So this should help the Devils, I think.

Defensively, I don't think it will affect K's philosophy, since Duke already guards well out past the three point line, but our personnel could. If Zoubek is to play big minutes, it will be harder to extend the defense.

mgtr
04-07-2008, 09:48 AM
This study (http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=191) by Ken Pomeroy says that players are actually more accurate from 19-9 than they are from 12-15 feet. Furthermore the difference from 19-9 to 20-9 is negligible.

I agree with KP, of course, since he has the data. But my point was that players don't practice that little jumper much, they are more interested in jacking one up from long distance. Probably the players who shoot short jumpers are the ones who cannot make a three, and who may not be very good shooters at all. The further you move out the three point line, the more players will practice the shorter shots. Now a one foot distance is not so great, but I believe it is not neglible.
If you run into a zone, the area around the free throw line is often open for a jump shot.
A well-known big guy from UNC can make the 12-15 shot fairly regularly, but I don't think he has hit a three in a game this year (on relatively few attempts, though).

Troublemaker
04-07-2008, 10:19 AM
I have to agree that it's inconclusive about whether Duke will be affected by this rule change. I mean, Duke relies on 3-pt shooting, and now the 3-pt line has been moved back. The only player I was certain wouldn't be affected was Taylor King. For the rest of the guys, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. I THINK Greg won't be affected, and I'm merely hopeful for every other player. I'm crossing my fingers that nobody on the team is affected, but even if just one guy is, it could make a significant impact. What if it's Kyle, for example? We saw how well Duke played down the stretch when he wasn't hitting from outside.

hurleyfor3
04-07-2008, 10:25 AM
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?

Neals384
04-07-2008, 10:26 AM
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

Saratoga2
04-07-2008, 10:31 AM
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
04-07-2008, 10:39 AM
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
04-07-2008, 10:45 AM
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
04-07-2008, 10:47 AM
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
04-07-2008, 10:54 AM
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
04-07-2008, 10:57 AM
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
04-07-2008, 01:05 PM
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
04-07-2008, 01:50 PM
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
04-07-2008, 03:14 PM
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
04-07-2008, 03:39 PM
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
04-07-2008, 03:57 PM
^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...