If the NBA took away the 3 point line.....

[the cool]

Not a damn thing would change

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

I don't think you get what OP is saying breh. You want nikkas taking 25 ft 2 pointers regardless of how good a shooter they are. Curry shooting long 2s at 44% clip isn't gonna beat a team shooting mid range and layups at a higher percentage. Lets say a team averages 10 made 3s a game, bump it down to 2s and that's a ten point difference. A team like Houston would be the worst team in the league.

I get what he's saying and no Curry wouldn't take long 2s but make no mistake he would still bake nikkas on the dribble and break down the defense..

Teams that thrive on ball movement cannot be stopped.. them GS cats would still Avg 30 assist a game.. y'all forgetting them getting defensive stops and gettin out on the fast break..

Remember how Miami wit Bron and Wade use to do the league with the defense and fast break..

 

[The God Poster]

I dunno if grizz would have 3 titles but those 3s add up. No 3 point line and the grizz with a 1- 2 years younger zbo could beat the warriors.

The Warriors made 43 more threes than the Grizz in their series, 7 per game difference.
The year before that the Thunder made 25 more threes, game 7 the Thunder were 11-19 from three, the Grizz were 5-17.
The year before that the Spurs used the threat of the three to dismantle them.
The year before that the Clippers beat them in 7, having made 19 more threes and in game 7 the Grizz didn't make a single three.
The year before that the Thunder beat them in 7 and made 19 more threes in the series.

We're talking about a team that won 50+ games while being one of the worst three point shooting teams in the league, and you can point to the lack of 3 point shooting as the reason they've lost several series. Without the three point shot they would have won a few titles, they were built with the old rules in mind and it showed when they kept coming up short vs teams that could shoot.



This years Jazz team would be a serious threat to win the title without a 3 line, because Gobert's defense gets that much better when he doesn't need to respect dudes taking 23 foot 2 pointers.

Ball movement & shot making>>>>

Why wouldn't defenses still respect shooters who are deadly from 23ft out. Maybe I'm missing something? You telling me teams aren't gonna guard them because it's no longer 3pts.

Grizzlies were hurt by bad coaching & injuries more than anything .

 

[Bay Area]

Another thing that we have to consider is nikkas arent gonna give Steph or Klay a wide open corner 3 just because it only counts as 2. shyt is still layup status for them.

Edit:^^^posted at the same time

 

[Malta]

Im not gonna front like KD is Tim Duncan or Hakeem in the post but you'd have to think he would refine his post moves.

I think we would be seeing KD, Livingston and Klay backing people down all game. Mcgee would still be a lob threat.

The Grizzlies would be a problem but could the Jazz really outscore the Warriors even with Goberts presence in the paint? Who is gonna score enough points for them on the other end?

The teams that don't take a lot of threes wouldn't really be hit as hard as the Rockets, Cavs or Warriors. Those teams all rely on high screens, if you remove the threat of three point shooting the high screen is just because you know the big is going to roll or take a long ass two and you just go under every single time because who cares if the guard is taking a 40% shot if the values are the same. Those Grizz teams at their best were perfectly equipped to deal with low volume three point shooting, the issue is that teams weren't taking a low volume. They would shrink the floor and offer up a steady diet of Gasol & Randolph on the other end, because both those guys at their peaks could score 15-20ppg on 50%.


The Spurs would destroy everyone this year if there were no 3 point line, they currently sit at 25th in attempts per game. The Jazz would lose to them, but the Jazz score enough now with average 3 point shooting, remove the 3 point shooting and they don't have to make drastic adjustments, they'd probably just play Gobert + Favors together without staggering it for Diaw + Lyles, because shooting is no longer important.

 

[Malta]

Ball movement & shot making>>>>

Why wouldn't defenses still respect shooters who are deadly from 23ft out. Maybe I'm missing something? You telling me teams aren't gonna guard them because it's no longer 3pts.

Grizzlies were hurt by bad coaching & injuries more than anything .

No, teams aren't going to close out hard as fukk on shots from three point distance. This is about math and math only, the reason why three point shooting is so deadly is because 33% from three is equal to shooting 50% from 2. Curry is shooting 41% from three this year, think about this, if he's lined up from 23 feet and you know it's going to be a 41% shot why would you close out on him if the value of the shot is still 2 pts? No more overplay & having to respect his 3 point shot and it's harder for him to get to the rim, he'd still score but it wouldn't be the same as now and there wouldn't be the same level of demoralizing shooting.

The reason they have such great ball movement is because teams have to pick them up earlier than they do basically any team that has ever played, defenses are stretched out when they play the Warriors. Nobody is closing out hard on Draymond taking a 23 footer, that automatically kills his ability to drive hard when guys close out on him. Nobody is gonna give a fukk about Klay taking a corner three if it's worth 2 points because as great as he's shooting from there it's still only a 41% shot from one corner and 47% from the other.

 

[Jplaya2023]

I've been saying it for a while now, but if the grizzlies came along 15-25 years earlier, they would have at least one title

15-25 years earlier put them roughly between 1992-2002, what year are they winning a title?

 

[DoubleClutch]

I think one of the reasons Curry can beat a lot of players off the dribble is because hes such a 3 point threat. So he has space to operate and a bunch of picks far from the rim to help him get players off balance. Also Warriors entire offense is great because all the spacing their 3 point shooters create.

Warriors would be a completely different team.

Derozan already plays as if the 3 point line doesn't exist of course if he has an open 3 he takes it. Just like Jordan. But other than that he just plays his game.

A lot of players nowadays are looking for the 3 point line. Always conscious of it. Depending on it.

It would be crazy to see the difference if NBA had a rule where they took away the 3 point line randomly

 

[Malta]

I think one of the reasons Curry can beat a lot of players off the dribble is because hes such a 3 point threat. So he has space to operate and a bunch of picks far from the rim to help him get players off balance. Also Warriors entire offense is great because all the spacing their 3 point shooters create.

Warriors would be a completely different team.

Derozan already plays as if the 3 point line doesn't exist of course if he has an open 3 he takes it. Just like Jordan. But other than that he just plays his game.

A lot of players nowadays are looking for the 3 point line. Always conscious of it. Depending on it.

It would be crazy to see the difference if NBA had a rule where they took away the 3 point line randomly

That Pelicans team would be monster status if there were no 3 point line, just throwing the ball to Boogie and Davis for 48 minutes a night