Subtracting a point per miss to solve NBA three point dilemma

[Belize King]

Cap made threes at 12. You can still bomb away if you want but the rest of the game your “three” will be worth two.

I’m good if you push the mark to 16. Maybe even twenty.

Celtics bytch asses still taking 50 threes a game?

 

[Belize King]

make dunks worth 3

He would average 50 a game.

Might be the best idea. The game would balance out, big men would be back. The rim challenges would be crazy.

You might be on to something.

 

[SchoolboyC]

why y'all nikkas refuse to do the math?!! I mean I'm not doing it because I'm confident I'm right, y'all can't be serious thinking Steph will only take 2s (which will also -1 for misses) instead of 3s (which will still only -1 for misses) . Don't he shoot at 40% from 3?? I think the math will tell you that's better than 50% 2s all day even with the -1.


EDIT: I just looked it up, this muthaphucka shoots 42.5% from three for his CAREER. He shooting 3s no matter what the rule change is.

Of course you sympathize with losers; you're a Drake Stan we're done here bucko

Because reducing points for misses makes everyone inefficient. It gives such an advantage to defenses that you’re basically trading one extreme for an even bigger extreme. You’re not just making 3-pt shots have less value, you make offenses as a whole less valuable.

Steph on average this season makes 4 3s a game and misses 6. Under your proposed rule where each miss docks a point, it makes that go from 12 points on 10 shots to 6 points on 10 shots, which is what being a 20% 3-pt shooter currently nets you. So your rule change would essentially make Steph Curry have the same value as a 3-pt shooter as Zion Williamson currently does

And if you do the math, it does the same for 2-pt shots. If you took 100 2PA under your proposed idea where each miss reduces a point, you would have to hit them at a 67% clip to have more points than shot attempts instead of 50% like it is now. Even prime LA Shaq didn’t do that.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Because reducing points for misses makes everyone inefficient. It gives such an advantage to defenses that you’re basically trading one extreme for an even bigger extreme. You’re not just making 3-pt shots have less value, you make offenses as a whole less valuable.

Steph on average this season makes 4 3s a game and misses 6. Under your proposed rule where each miss docks a point, it makes that go from 12 points on 10 shots to 6 points on 10 shots, which is what being a 20% 3-pt shooter currently nets you. So your rule change would essentially make Steph Curry have the same value as a 3-pt shooter as Zion Williamson currently does

And if you do the math, it does the same for 2-pt shots. If you took 100 2PA under your proposed idea where each miss reduces a point, you would have to hit them at a 67% clip to have more points than shot attempts instead of 50% like it is now. Even prime LA Shaq didn’t do that.

You’d get final scores at best resembling pacers/pistons 2004 . There’d be no reason whatsoever to shoot beyond 15-18 feet anymore.

 

[Paper Boi]

He would average 50 a game.

Might be the best idea. The game would balance out, big men would be back. The rim challenges would be crazy.

You might be on to something.

bring back the excitement

 

[SoSoSlick]

Not bad. Risk reward. Needs more strategic thought into it. Maybe a requirement for designating 3 point shooters to only two players on the floor at a time. Tag them with an arm band or something. Takes away allowing basically everyone to be a Wide Receiver.

 

[VegetasHairline]

Games gonna start in the negative!

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Not bad. Risk reward. Needs more strategic thought into it. Maybe a requirement for designating 3 point shooters to only two players on the floor at a time. Tag them with an arm band or something.

This shyt would make a game more convoluted and confusing than nfl refs trying to evaluate what is or isn’t a catch. Eventually coaches will find a scheme that effectively defends behind the arc and players will attack the paint more.

 

[Belize King]

Those dynamic courts is the future. Cap each quarter at 9 three attempts per quarter. Once the 9th is taken, take the line off the court for the rest of the quarter.

As we speak, Celtics are at 47 threes taken.

Shooting at a 43% clip though.

 

[SoSoSlick]

This shyt would make a game more convoluted and confusing than nfl refs trying to evaluate what is or isn’t a catch. Eventually coaches will find a scheme that effectively defends behind the arc and players will attack the paint more.

It would definitely change a game that could use some change. Everyone shooting 3s ain't it. Making positions more important and strategic would be a positive IMO. It'd basically be a new game so I can see how some would be against it tho.

 

[BBG]

Because reducing points for misses makes everyone inefficient. It gives such an advantage to defenses that you’re basically trading one extreme for an even bigger extreme. You’re not just making 3-pt shots have less value, you make offenses as a whole less valuable.

Steph on average this season makes 4 3s a game and misses 6. Under your proposed rule where each miss docks a point, it makes that go from 12 points on 10 shots to 6 points on 10 shots, which is what being a 20% 3-pt shooter currently nets you. So your rule change would essentially make Steph Curry have the same value as a 3-pt shooter as Zion Williamson currently does

And if you do the math, it does the same for 2-pt shots. If you took 100 2PA under your proposed idea where each miss reduces a point, you would have to hit them at a 67% clip to have more points than shot attempts instead of 50% like it is now. Even prime LA Shaq didn’t do that.

I mean I understand what you're saying, but it really should balance out, I'm not understanding the problem. There's no point in comparing efficiency. Motherfukking duh efficiency will plummet in a world where you are docked for missing shots, that's exactly the point

Extrapolating current understanding of efficiency into a set that is purposely reducing said efficiency is pointless.


You act like the Tony Allen's of the league will all of a sudden become max players because better shot attempts are further rewarded. I know in football we like to say defense wins games, but not only is this not football.... You literally HAVE to score to win regardless of what you're playing so that quote is quite literally not true.



You even made my point for me by admitting 2s efficiency drop as well. That is the entire. Damn. Point. Both drop, but the 3s will suffer more because people are chuck those at rates far worse than 2s.


With the simple "addition" of -1 the market adjusts, people will shoot less 3s, overall more efficient shot making further encouraged.

Games gonna start in the negative!

Now this is hilarious, did not even think about that. Easy fix though, you can't have less than 0 points, so your first misses don't count until you actually have some points. Then if you score and keep missing until you're at 0, you just stay there until you make again. Imagine teams holding the records for longest time spent at 0 points n sht

 

[dizzy4111]

Out of all the solutions I've read, this is easily the worst

 

[Second Chance Lance]

Great idea , so when these wakk nba teams going 9-47 spamming 3 ‘s they’ll lose 38 points on the scoreboard

Which should discourage them , fukk the nba still wouldn’t watch

Omg, this is hilarious.

 

[ReturnOfJudah]

nikka turning the league into a full court game of 21

 

[SchoolboyC]

I mean I understand what you're saying, but it really should balance out, I'm not understanding the problem. There's no point in comparing efficiency. Motherfukking duh efficiency will plummet in a world where you are docked for missing shots, that's exactly the point

Extrapolating current understanding of efficiency into a set that is purposely reducing said efficiency is pointless.


You act like the Tony Allen's of the league will all of a sudden become max players because better shot attempts are further rewarded. I know in football we like to say defense wins games, but not only is this not football.... You literally HAVE to score to win regardless of what you're playing so that quote is quite literally not true.



You even made my point for me by admitting 2s efficiency drop as well. That is the entire. Damn. Point. Both drop, but the 3s will suffer more because people are chuck those at rates far worse than 2s.


With the simple "addition" of -1 the market adjusts, people will shoot less 3s, overall more efficient shot making further encouraged.

Yes, the Tony Allen’s & Lu Dort’s of the world would have significantly more value if forcing a miss takes a point off the scoreboard, they at the point would be directly increasing scoring margins

Your proposed system requires teams to shoot 67% from 2 and 50% from 3 per 100 shots just to break even. I don’t think you grasp the difficulty of that. If 2000 Shaq & 2016 Steph would be made inefficient players then yes maybe you should consider that it tilts value far too extreme to the defense’s favor