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
What would the benefit of a larger court even be?DrewDawg said:Bigger courts and four point shots?
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10517078/nba-weighing-expanded-court-4-point-shot
Devizier said:The NBA could just have the 3PT line run off the court before the baseline, too.
e mere notion of the NBA someday adopting a 4-pointer is believed to be an offshoot of a famed quote from then-Boston Celtics star Antoine Walker, who reportedly answered a question about why he took so many 3-point shots by saying: "Because there are no 4s."
Which would eliminate the corner 3 entirely? I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly. Is it the diagram Jer posted?Devizier said:The NBA could just have the 3PT line run off the court before the baseline, too.
This post brought to you by 1980.jose melendez said: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'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:This post brought to you by 1980.
NoXInNixon 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!
Seabass177 said:
Objectively, Rock N' Jock basketball is better than NBA basketball.
That was a lot easier in the days when no one played defense. I remember being pissed in the 70s that the NBA refused to adopt the three point line because those long Maravich jumpers would have turned him into superman.jose melendez said: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.
Dan Cortese approves this post.NoXInNixon 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 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: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.
jose melendez said: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.
Brickowski said:Well Jer, if the NBA adopted that schematic, budding 3 point shooters would have to bind their feet, like medieval Chinese courtesans.
The Gray Eagle said: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.
smastroyin 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?
I agree with this. Inbounds plays that are being heavily defended are generally more fun to watch than parades of free throws.moondog80 said:
This is a really interesting idea. I might support the inbound-the-ball option on a foul even without the 4 point line.
bowiac said:Which would eliminate the corner 3 entirely? I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly. Is it the diagram Jer posted?
jose melendez said: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.
moondog80 said:
This is a really interesting idea. I might support the inbound-the-ball option on a foul even without the 4 point line.
Sprowl said: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.
nighthob said: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.
This. It drives me nuts when I hear stuff like this.SumnerH said:
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.
Devizier said:The problem with the inbound-the-ball for fouls is that it creates no disincentive for fouling when behind.
In other words, you'll see even more hacking at the end of games.
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: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 width of the court is a huge factor since three defenders back can often wreck transition offense. An extra 10' in width would open up a lot of fast break opportunities.TheRooster said: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.
The Gray Eagle said: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.
nighthob said: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.
What empirics?nighthob said: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.