Bigger courts and four point shots?
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10517078/nba-weighing-expanded-court-4-point-shot
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10517078/nba-weighing-expanded-court-4-point-shot
Antoine Walker for 4?
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
Widening the court is a very good idea I think. The corner 3 probably isn't great for the game, insofar as it reduces a lot of the variety in the game. There's nothing wrong with the drive and kick, but its a richer game if most shots on the court have approximately the same expected value. The corner 3 screws with that a lot, as the change in distance really affects the % of the time it goes in. Widening the court to allow for a full semi-circle might solve that.
I would like to see a wider court, but with the wider European foul lane. The European lane rewards skill and the running game over bulk and the half court game.
Apparently the NBA had a few conversations, albeit casual about expanding the court dimensions and adding a 4 point shot.
I could see a case for making the floor bigger (though I'd oppose it), but a four pointer? Talk about a complete change.
I could see a case for making the floor bigger (though I'd oppose it), but a four pointer? Talk about a complete change.
Which would eliminate the corner 3 entirely? I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly. Is it the diagram Jer posted?Devizier said:
Then they can also put a second basket ten feet above the regular basket and that one can be worth 10 points! It will be awesome!
I'm almost sure I would have argued the three pointer was a bad idea-- I might have been right. Of course, I like post play.DukeSox said:
Seabass177 said:
Nothing compares to Slamball though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ouXw328WYI
Everything Americans like in one sport
Well Jer, if the NBA adopted that schematic, budding 3 point shooters would have to bind their feet, like medieval Chinese courtesans.
I guess the three had been in circulation in various forms since 1933 or something, so it wasn't totally out of no where. I'm pretty sure I would have hated the change at the time though. Anything that changes the real fundamentals of a game, tends to agitate me. Like I probably would have been incensed by the lowering of the mound... also the forward pass.
I think there's an argument to be made that with the advent of three or the forward pass, you really got a fundamentally different sport--strategy, tactics and game play all changed completely.
I think there's an argument to be made that with the advent of three or the forward pass, you really got a fundamentally different sport--strategy, tactics and game play all changed completely.
I'm all for this. It would improve Durant's offensive value while not really improving Lebron's.
Even better, Stephen Curry would become the 3rd best player in the league instantly.
Even better, Stephen Curry would become the 3rd best player in the league instantly.
Merging this thread with 10 posts from the NBA February game thread...
***
The NBA keeps trying to make the game higher-scoring and more entertaining, but the 3-point shot ended up going the other direction. It gets dull and predictable watching a two-man game while everyone else spots up around the perimeter. The league needs to find a way to revalue the mid-range game. Adding a 4-point shot might help extend the defense and open up the lane; it would also increase the chances for dramatic comebacks, which has to be a good thing.
***
The NBA keeps trying to make the game higher-scoring and more entertaining, but the 3-point shot ended up going the other direction. It gets dull and predictable watching a two-man game while everyone else spots up around the perimeter. The league needs to find a way to revalue the mid-range game. Adding a 4-point shot might help extend the defense and open up the lane; it would also increase the chances for dramatic comebacks, which has to be a good thing.
They should make the 3 shorter, like 18 feet, and may the current 3 pointer four. Then you'd get more mid-range shots
I would have thought shots at the rim have a higher expected value, too. But I can see how, among jumpers, this could throw things off. If anything, though, that should be an argument for adding a 4-pointer. If a shooter can hit the 30-footer with enough consistency, it expands the area of floor that can yield equivalent value. And I like the possibility of making comebacks more likely - I've heard of players having half court shot competitions at practices, so it could work. But I can't imagine it would ever become reality, especially without another league to show the viability first. Maybe if the Euros give it a try first?bowiac said:
When I saw the thread title I was hoping this was an announcement that Walker was signed to a 10 day contract.
I always thought they should make the rim 11 feet high to make it more of a shooter's game and less of a flip, tip, and swat game.
With the defense teams play now and the three point shot, I'm not sure you need this anymore. The NBA game is pretty different than it was 10 years ago.
Amongst the three broad categories of shots - at the rim, midrange, three - the three has too much value and it leads to a lot of variance. "Live by the three, die by the three". You might say the NBA wants to increase variance, as I believe no team sport has a higher chance of the favorite winning in a playoff series. Instead of moving it further out (which would introduce a bigger no-mans zone where no one wants to shoot from), why not just make a three worth 2.5 points? It's the 21st century - if people can figure out the NFL rules they can deal with fractions.
With the defense teams play now and the three point shot, I'm not sure you need this anymore. The NBA game is pretty different than it was 10 years ago.
Amongst the three broad categories of shots - at the rim, midrange, three - the three has too much value and it leads to a lot of variance. "Live by the three, die by the three". You might say the NBA wants to increase variance, as I believe no team sport has a higher chance of the favorite winning in a playoff series. Instead of moving it further out (which would introduce a bigger no-mans zone where no one wants to shoot from), why not just make a three worth 2.5 points? It's the 21st century - if people can figure out the NFL rules they can deal with fractions.
Ok, I'm game. If you miss a foul shot, your team should be penalized a point. Might cut down on some of the flopping while adding an interesting twist to the Hack-a-Shaq strategy to get your team back in the game. At the very least it will force players to spend more time learning how to make their damned free throws.
jose melendez said:
But which version of the fundamentals are you voting for? Should baseball go back to the loosely wrapped dead balls of the 1880's? Fielders not wearing gloves? Should we go all the way back to the original rules where you could get an out on the basepaths by throwing the ball at the runner?
Brickowski said:
Or they'd just avoid taking shots from that area. I'm pretty sure they could fine tune the spacing to balance the difficulty of setting your feet, with the ease of the shooting distance.
Ultimately I like simple solutions that are minimally disruptive. Changing the court size and adding new shot types all seem impractical.
In this case I'm trying to solve the dynamic that bowiac described... the value imbalance between the various shots on the court. The corner 3 is definitely an outlier in today's game.
While they did not say anything about changing court dimensions, the Harlem Globetrotters recently introduced a court with 4-point circles at certain spots on the floor.
How about adding the 4-point shot but along with it, also changing the rules so that a team getting fouled has the option of just inbounding the ball rather than shooting free throws?
The 4-pointer gives the losing team a chance to come back late in the game without fouling. Maybe that would get rid of the ridiculous, time-consuming, nearly pointless free throw parade at the end of most games.
The 4-pointer gives the losing team a chance to come back late in the game without fouling. Maybe that would get rid of the ridiculous, time-consuming, nearly pointless free throw parade at the end of most games.
smastroyin said:
All of those sound awesome.
The basepaths rule seems like the only fundamental change to the nature of the game, tantamount to adding the three.
I agree with this. Inbounds plays that are being heavily defended are generally more fun to watch than parades of free throws.moondog80 said:
moondog80 said:
Lou Carnaseca was pushing for the inbound option back in the 80s. I'm always surprised that it hasn't happened yet
Sprowl said:
I couldnt agree more. Between the reduction in big men with low post moves and the 3 making the the mid range game somewhat irrelevant, the league has moved towards a drive and kick model. So now we have guys just standing around waiting for a kickout and a bunch of one on one play and a reduction of team passing (think 86 Celtics) to generate open shots.
This is radical, but this could be fixed by moving in the 3pt line and starting the 3 pt arc at the free throw line. Forget about scoring totals because they would be insane, but think of the results on the game. Now a mid range jumper which currently is 'inefficient' because it doesnt get your FTs and is only worth 2pts if you hit it, is a better shot to take than what is currently a 3 pointer. There would be less emphasis on driving to the hoop because it would be more efficient to pull up than go for a layup/dunk unless you had a clear lane to the basket. The 'run them off the 3 and clog the lane' defenses wouldnt work whatsoever. From a spacing perspective it would truly be balanced because there wouldnt be these efficiency hotspots on the court. It truly would be a radical change, but I think we would again start to see the real team passing that is missing from today's game
Actually I think moving the three point line in is a terrible idea unless they're adding a four point line. The did this in the 90s and it resulted in possibly the ugliest era of basketball ever. The three point line was far enough in that defenders had an easier time closing off angles into the paint while still being able to run a shooter off the three (unless the shooter were setting up several feet behind the line. Moving the line back out resulted in lots of open floor space for offenses to operate.
nighthob said:
This sounds like my cousins arguing (when I was 10 or so) that the 24 second clock doesn't give you enough time to play good defense, and changing it to the college clock would help defenses.
As you note, you can shoot from as far behind the line as you want: moving the 3 point line out only helps the defense/hurts the offense.
The league is now backtracking: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-no-serious-discussions-4-003820670--nba.html
Devizier said:
It still might be enough of a disincentive. Foul a good shooter, shoot the FTs. Foul Shack, team has option to inbound the ball to get to better shooter. Also would allow for subsitution to get Shack out of game, get good FT shooters in.
Given the dramatic increase in the size of the players, enlarging the court makes a ton of sense. The more the defense has to spread, the more movement/flow you'll get. Forcing defenses to cover more area is great because the ball can always move faster than a player.
Players tend to shoot at the line. What can I tell you. The period they moved the line in was, without argument, the ugliest era of basketball it's been my displeasure to witness (and at my age I've witnessed a fuckton). Offenses got clogged, zone defenses were able to prevent dribble penetration and passing angles to the post while still being able to run shooters off the line. Floorspacing improved immediately the minute they moved the line back. So while you tell me that in theory it should have zero impact on spacing, empirically it did.SumnerH said:
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
The Gray Eagle said:
Great idea, elegantly presented. I'm totally in. I wish you posted as much as you used to, TGE.
The primary thing that makes NBA games unwatchable is the lack of drama at the end because you have to sit through interminable fouling. The reason the NBA likes that, though, is that the people most invested in the outcome (the game is almost over!) end up watching a shit-ton more commercials. Of course, they're cannibalizing their fanbase in order to squeeze out a few marginal dollars, so it's kinda them eating their seed corn... but hopefully they realize that investing in a more watchable game is a better long-term proposition.
nighthob said:
It's tough to put much credence in this, given the basic factual errors here (e.g. zone defenses were illegal during the time that the line was moved in), lack of evidence to back it up, and the fact that it doesn't agree at all with my memory of that era--1997-2000 seemed subjectively like the ugliest point in my viewing history, and that was after the line was moved back out.
Statistically, assists were higher during the time the line was moved in than they were in the 3 years after it was moved back, but that's mostly just the long term trendline. Still, there's nothing indicating that passing was cut off measurably. Steals also spiked after the line was moved back, which plays against your narrative.
Scoring was also higher with the line in than after it was moved out, but again that's the long-term trendline. Still, no evidence that things were clogged up. Pace stats also hit their nadir in 1998, after the line was moved out again.
Here's an idea from about 5 seconds ago. I think the problem here is that there are just way too many total possible fouls. While I understand 6 fouls is probably correct for a 48 minute game, too many players have way too many fouls 'to give' at the end, especially when you start bringing in the 9th, 10th, 11th guys off the bench to grab someone. So, either start the 4th quarter with everyone at 4 fouls, or, in the last 2 minutes, allow one foul per player. After the second foul, you're out until the end of the game or the start of overtime. Also, adopt the European time-out rules -- you can only call time-out during a dead ball or after a made basket.
What empirics?nighthob said:
In the 3 seasons where the line was moved in, teams averaged 107.53 points per 100 possessions, which controls for pace. In the season before, it was 106.3 and the season after, it was 105, for an average of 105.65. If you want to do a three year rolling average, the number is the same (105.63 with the line out). In other words, teams were scoring about 2 points per 100 possessions more with the line in.
Maybe that's just random, but a quick glance at efficiency suggests teams were scoring more during that period, even controlling for pace.