The 3-Point Shot Ruins Basketball
The NBA is finally thinking about the 3-point shot. Like maybe it should do something about it.
According to an article over at ESPN.com, commissioner Adam Silver admits NBA offenses are kind of cookie cutter – his phrase – and some of the blame belongs to 3-point shooting.
So, let me be clear. Every time I watch a game, and some guy dribbles the ball up the court and, instead of passing to a teammate, takes a 3 I groan. Or I look away. Or I change the channel.
Because, you’ll hate me for saying this, a game cluttered with 3-point shots, so many which don’t go into the hoop, is boring. Yes, boring.
And lacking subtlety, And lacking teamwork. Just plain lacking.
According to ESPN the Celtics, the worst offenders, are taking more than 51 3s a game. If they continue at that pace, they’ll break the league record. 3-point shooting is up all over the league.
Silver said the league is thinking of moving back the 3-point line, although he won’t commit to that. But that’s not my solution, so please bear with me.
If I were God, or at least Adam Silver, I would limit the number of 3-pointers a team is allowed to take in a game. Off the top of my head, I’d allow teams ten 3-pointers in the first half and ten 3-pointers in the second half. Period.
That way the 3 would be a specialized weapon a team uses when appropriate, say to catch up near the end of a game. Announcers would speculate when a team would use its 3s or if a team had gone over its allotment. The 3 would be, in a sense, like a 2-point conversion in the NFL, a catch-up tactic but not the main focus of the sport.
I understand my proposal doesn’t stand a chance. But I like it. Your thoughts?
Let me share some critical analysis of this proposal for limiting 3-pointers, thinking through the potential unintended consequences:
1. Strategic Hoarding & End-Game Chaos
The 10 shots per half limit would likely lead teams to hoard their 3-point attempts until the final minutes, creating extremely chaotic and potentially less entertaining end-game scenarios. Imagine every game ending with a frantic barrage of 3-point attempts, regardless of the score or situation.
2. Defensive Exploitation
Teams would exploit this rule by packing the paint even more aggressively when they know the opponent has used their 3-point allotment. This could actually make the game more one-dimensional, not less, as teams would be forced into predictable interior plays.
3. Strategic Confusion
What happens if a team accidentally shoots their 11th three-pointer? Is it a technical foul? Turnover? This adds an unnecessary layer of complexity and could lead to controversial game-deciding moments based on accounting rather than basketball skill.
4. Player Development Impact
Young players develop their games based on NBA rules. This limitation could discourage the development of shooting skills in favor of less efficient mid-range games, potentially harming the overall skill level of future players.
5. Star Player Impact
The rule could disproportionately affect stars like Steph Curry, Damian Lillard, or Trae Young who have built their careers around 3-point shooting. Their value would be artificially diminished not because of their skill, but because of an arbitrary limit.
6. Analytics Nightmare
Instead of teams optimizing for the most efficient shots (layups and 3-pointers), we'd see teams forced into taking more mid-range jumpers - essentially legislating inefficiency into the game.
A more nuanced solution might be to adjust the court dimensions or scoring system rather than imposing arbitrary limits. For instance, gradually increasing the distance of the 3-point line or creating a 4-point line could naturally redistribute shooting patterns while maintaining strategic freedom.
How about starting with following the rules and call traveling again