After being adopted in 1979-80, the NBA has finally discovered that 3 pointers are worth considerably more than 2 and fully optimized its power in recent years.
Simply reintroduce the rules that allowed for perimeter defense along with those that punished rolling screens and so on, the rules that were eliminated to facilitate the dominance of a popular Warriors team. They also need to call drives in the favor of defenders who are actually playing defense.
I agree, the league is highly unlikely to make the switch from 2/3 to 3/4. To balance the game, they would probably be better served trying to fiddle with defensive rules in a way that increases the difficulty of three point shots, but im not sure how feasible that will be
I completely agree, except I’d make shots outside the line 5 points and inside the line 4 points, which also solves the free throw problem, as they are worth 2 points. I’d also get rid of three shot fouls
Really you don’t need a major bonus because the lower the reward for shots beyond the arc, the more difficult it becomes to score inside. So it’s something that balances itself out the more the arc is devalued
Here's a different and radically simple idea. Eliminate the 3 pointer IN THE FIRST HALF ONLY -- start counting them in the second half. This incentivizes the midrange but avoids the absolutely impossible issue of .5 scores or 4-pointers skewing historical stats. So the 3rd and 4th quarters would look exactly like current NBA games, but each game would also feature 24 minutes of something a little more similar to pre-Curry basketball, with a very, very significant exception: today's shooting skills would still make open looks from downtown "good shots", for SOME shooters, even without the extra point in the first half, thus maintaining some of the current spacing. Scoring would probably go down only marginally, back to something reasonable, and each game would have different strategies used in both halves. It's the simplest, least complicated solution. No line or court changes, and no point changes except for the "egalitarian" first half. In the second half, go all out! Midrange and post would be practiced more and therefore those skills would improve (ie, come back).
I know this is an older post but I do wonder if introducing 3 point limits (per quarter) would help.
Maybe set it to 5, which is still above the average of Team 3PMs per quarter (hovering around 3-4 per quarter). Essentially, the idea is to prevent more blowouts and the idea would be to force teams to try other things. Once the 3PM cap is hit, maybe they put in the traditionally post players and have them go to work. With the new cap rules, this could force teams to experiment with more unique team dynamics and roster construction.
If it's too restrictive, maybe lift the cap in the fourth quarter/final 6 minutes to make it exciting.
Interesting take, you make some good points. As a longtime reader, I remember years ago you said shooting was an overvalued trait in the draft. Something like how shooting can be developed and teams were too high to pick shooters such as Doug McDermott.
With the rise of 3pt importance, do you still feel this way? Or is it more reasonable now to target shooting in the draft than it used to be?
Still feel that way bc the common perception of shooting value has increased since then as well.
The big hits are always gonna be guys like Kawhi who are mediocre NCAA shooters that become great NBA shooters. Guys like Doug McDermott are never going to fill out their non shooting flaws nearly as effectively.
This rule makes sense mathematically but it isn’t going to happen, if for no other reason than that there are many different basketball governing bodies and they all aren’t going to make the switch at once. Wouldn’t it make more sense to tweak the rules to make it harder to get threes off?
1) no screens at all allowed outside 15-18 from the basketball. A lot of the threes that get made are the result of a guy acting like a football tackle pushing the perimeter defender out of the way.
2) forward space in front of the shooter belongs to the defender.
3) fouls on three pointers are worth 2 free throws.
I think there are a number of viable strategies to devalue the 3:
1)Change value ratio to 3s/4s
2) redraw the lines (no corners or simply farther)
3) change hand checking rules
4) dunks worth 3, or maybe even decimal scoring based on shot location (not gonna happen)
If the goal is truly to allow for differentiating strategies, what is wrong with allowing the home team to draw their own 3 point line (or lack thereof). I suppose we want more competitive games, so if the Bucks w/ Giannis play no 3’s at home that is too unfair to a team like GS? My counterpoint would be that it would force all teams to be more balanced up and down the roster.
I think that would be interesting and fun, but man would it be insane to go game to game with 3 pointers vs no 3 pointers.
It’s going to end up with homecourt being worth too much in extreme circumstances. If a team wants to bring back the grit n grind grizzlies w/ no 3 point arc, they might go 38-3 at home and 7-34 at home or smthg insane
Dean…..please come back. On a desert draft island
Simply reintroduce the rules that allowed for perimeter defense along with those that punished rolling screens and so on, the rules that were eliminated to facilitate the dominance of a popular Warriors team. They also need to call drives in the favor of defenders who are actually playing defense.
I agree, the league is highly unlikely to make the switch from 2/3 to 3/4. To balance the game, they would probably be better served trying to fiddle with defensive rules in a way that increases the difficulty of three point shots, but im not sure how feasible that will be
I completely agree, except I’d make shots outside the line 5 points and inside the line 4 points, which also solves the free throw problem, as they are worth 2 points. I’d also get rid of three shot fouls
That would be a reasonable solution as well
Really you don’t need a major bonus because the lower the reward for shots beyond the arc, the more difficult it becomes to score inside. So it’s something that balances itself out the more the arc is devalued
I want the 5-pointer to be from beyond mid court.
Dean - where have you been?
Was watching the 2025 draft and wanted to get your take. Seems like Edgecombe, Knueppel, Johnson, Fears, and Demin were all total stinkers.
Come back and give us logical draft analysis rather than this consensus, everybody thinks V.J. Edgecombe is #3, garbage.
Hope to see new content soon!
I agreed with consensus more than usual this year. I had VJ #3. Don’t see anybody else to put above him.
I like Kon + Egor too. Fears i’m meh on but he has huge upside.
Bad year for hot takes. I didnt love many freshmen, but most of them are not bad and there weren’t any decent older prospects to put above them
Glad to see you respond. Hoping to see content for the 2026 Draft or other hoops thoughts soon (not sure if you are still working with an NBA team).
Here's a different and radically simple idea. Eliminate the 3 pointer IN THE FIRST HALF ONLY -- start counting them in the second half. This incentivizes the midrange but avoids the absolutely impossible issue of .5 scores or 4-pointers skewing historical stats. So the 3rd and 4th quarters would look exactly like current NBA games, but each game would also feature 24 minutes of something a little more similar to pre-Curry basketball, with a very, very significant exception: today's shooting skills would still make open looks from downtown "good shots", for SOME shooters, even without the extra point in the first half, thus maintaining some of the current spacing. Scoring would probably go down only marginally, back to something reasonable, and each game would have different strategies used in both halves. It's the simplest, least complicated solution. No line or court changes, and no point changes except for the "egalitarian" first half. In the second half, go all out! Midrange and post would be practiced more and therefore those skills would improve (ie, come back).
I know this is an older post but I do wonder if introducing 3 point limits (per quarter) would help.
Maybe set it to 5, which is still above the average of Team 3PMs per quarter (hovering around 3-4 per quarter). Essentially, the idea is to prevent more blowouts and the idea would be to force teams to try other things. Once the 3PM cap is hit, maybe they put in the traditionally post players and have them go to work. With the new cap rules, this could force teams to experiment with more unique team dynamics and roster construction.
If it's too restrictive, maybe lift the cap in the fourth quarter/final 6 minutes to make it exciting.
Haven't seen anything from you in almost 4 months. Thoughts on Collin Murray Boyles? Right now he's surpassed Topic for me.
Doing consulting for an NBA team. No draft content this year
Damnnnn congrats man
New big board soon? Feel like a lot has happened lol
Sorry no draft content this year
Interesting take, you make some good points. As a longtime reader, I remember years ago you said shooting was an overvalued trait in the draft. Something like how shooting can be developed and teams were too high to pick shooters such as Doug McDermott.
With the rise of 3pt importance, do you still feel this way? Or is it more reasonable now to target shooting in the draft than it used to be?
Still feel that way bc the common perception of shooting value has increased since then as well.
The big hits are always gonna be guys like Kawhi who are mediocre NCAA shooters that become great NBA shooters. Guys like Doug McDermott are never going to fill out their non shooting flaws nearly as effectively.
This rule makes sense mathematically but it isn’t going to happen, if for no other reason than that there are many different basketball governing bodies and they all aren’t going to make the switch at once. Wouldn’t it make more sense to tweak the rules to make it harder to get threes off?
1) no screens at all allowed outside 15-18 from the basketball. A lot of the threes that get made are the result of a guy acting like a football tackle pushing the perimeter defender out of the way.
2) forward space in front of the shooter belongs to the defender.
3) fouls on three pointers are worth 2 free throws.
I think there are a number of viable strategies to devalue the 3:
1)Change value ratio to 3s/4s
2) redraw the lines (no corners or simply farther)
3) change hand checking rules
4) dunks worth 3, or maybe even decimal scoring based on shot location (not gonna happen)
If the goal is truly to allow for differentiating strategies, what is wrong with allowing the home team to draw their own 3 point line (or lack thereof). I suppose we want more competitive games, so if the Bucks w/ Giannis play no 3’s at home that is too unfair to a team like GS? My counterpoint would be that it would force all teams to be more balanced up and down the roster.
I think that would be interesting and fun, but man would it be insane to go game to game with 3 pointers vs no 3 pointers.
It’s going to end up with homecourt being worth too much in extreme circumstances. If a team wants to bring back the grit n grind grizzlies w/ no 3 point arc, they might go 38-3 at home and 7-34 at home or smthg insane