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

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Which player and/or team would suffer the most.

Obviously, Warriors and Rockets wouldn't be the same.

Derozan would probably be the best player in the league

I always remember whenever I'd play pickup and there was no 3 point line or 3 pointers allowed (not my rules ) I'd hate it because it completely changes the game. Like nobody will come out to guard you,

But my midrange is GOAT so it really didn't matter much


Anyways, I just think the 3 point line has too much power in todays game, to the point that even centers are shooting it now and some are even taking more than guards.

Remember the greatest player of All Time didn't need 3 pointers to dominate.
The 3 pointer should be a luxury not something teams depend on night in and night out to survive.

 

[bl2k8]

Some of y'all are so resistant to change the three point line been around for like 30 years, why shouldn't squads be dependent on it, it's the more valuable shot. Go watch some old games on YouTube if you wanna see basketball played without emphasis on the 3

 

[Malta]

Don't matter you still gotta guard the J from 15ft out or 20ft out..

A shooter you still have to guard with a 3pt line or no 3pt line

Nope, the threat of the three point shot is how a lot of guys are getting themselves open now, you remove that and teams would be happy with guys taking long twos. Without a three point line teams like the Grizz, Clippers, Bulls, Pistons would be a lot better this year, and the Spurs would be unbeatable because they don't take a lot of threes to begin with.

 

[Bay Area]

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.

Like someone else mentioned, Pistol Pete used to be a star in the league.

We've already seen what the league looks like without the 3 point shot.

nikkas acting like Curry is only great from long range, hes good mid range as well.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

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.

 

[Malta]

Like someone else mentioned, Pistol Pete used to be a star in the league.

We've already seen what the league looks like without the 3 point shot.

nikkas acting like Curry is only great from long range, hes good mid range as well.

Pete was taller than Curry and he also played on garbage teams for most of his career, and needed a ton of shots to score his points, he wasn't exactly efficient.

Curry wouldn't be a superstar without the threat of his 3 point shooting, it's not a knock to say that

 

[FukkaPaidEmail]

We play with 4 and 5 pointers here in dallas pickup games

 

[360Waves]

Curry would be flipping burgers.

 

[Bay Area]

Pete was taller than Curry and he also played on garbage teams for most of his career, and needed a ton of shots to score his points, he wasn't exactly efficient.

Curry wouldn't be a superstar without the threat of his 3 point shooting, it's not a knock to say that

Im not saying he would be the same caliber of player.

I've been more so responding to the people acting like he would be trash even though him and Kyrie are the best acrobatic finishers around the rim at the guard position.

Currys handles, passing, mid range and finishing ability are being incredibly discounted.

I absolutely understand the spacing argument because of the threat of the 3 point shot but that would impact any modern guard.

 

[Remote]

If you eliminated the 3 pointer, the entire game changes.

I couldn't even say that Golden State or Houston would suffer. I think they'd just have to adapt to a different style of play. Could they? Maybe. Perhaps the Currys and Hardens would develop more of a mid-range game. Who knows.

But this is why I can't understand a lot of you losers who insist that today's teams would dominate teams from other eras. If past teams had adopted a philosophy that 3 pointers were as valuable as they are...they would have adapted to make it a more integral part of their game.

 

[No..Money..Mo..Problems]

Like someone else mentioned, Pistol Pete used to be a star in the league.

We've already seen what the league looks like without the 3 point shot.

nikkas acting like Curry is only great from long range, hes good mid range as well.

Nobody's saying he's not great his team wouldn't be as dominate as they are now without the 3 point line. Defenders are always off balance or out of position trying to over play the 3 which gives curry space to work with when he hesitates and drives the ball. Without the element of giving up a extra point the defender wouldn't care how many perimeter shots Curry takes cuz at 45% they ain't beating you.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

If you eliminated the 3 pointer, the entire game changes.

I couldn't even say that Golden State or Houston would suffer. I think they'd just have to adapt to a different style of play. Could they? Maybe. Perhaps the Currys and Hardens would develop more of a mid-range game. Who knows.

But this is why I can't understand a lot of you losers who insist that today's teams would dominate teams from other eras. If past teams had adopted a philosophy that 3 pointers were as valuable as they are...they would have adapted to make it a more integral part of their game.

You know that the teams people on here refer to in that regard are teams that had the three point line and chose not to use it. It's not like they're talking about pre merger teams.

 

[Remote]

You know that the teams people on here refer to in that regard are teams that had the three point line and chose not to use it. It's not like they're talking about pre merger teams.

For at least 10 years after the 3 pointer was introduced, it was considered a gimmick.
They had it. They didn't particularly value it.

 

[No..Money..Mo..Problems]

If they kept the same philosophy of shooting deep shots yes they would. Even the best shooters only shoot 45% from deep so if theres no incentive of a extra point theres no need to be out there when layups, post ups and mid range shots are more likely to go in for the same 2 points.

 

[The God Poster]

Grizz would have 3 titles.

No they wouldn't ...you would still have to guard the Steph & Klays of the game.