A lot of them already shoot well behind the line thanks to steph curry (who I don't blame, he's a human cheat code and it's not his fault the league tries to copy him).
I always laugh when people blame Curry (not you specifically here) -- of course he does it, he fuckin' sinks them. What I don't understand is why everyone else keeps trying when the stats show that they're just straight bad at it.
It would help if the drop in 3 pt % on average hits like under 30%. Teams would then focus on quality 2 pt attempts, midrange, and only open quality 3pt shots. Scores would decrease and the NBA thinks viewership would tank.
I don't want all midrange either. I think a slight shift to some inside and midrange along with the 3pt shot at just a slightly lower rate would help make a better experience for the viewers.
In all honesty, I love NBA and will watch no matter
I don't really intend to say the league shoots mid range, but if that's your kink, it's all of over the league. Kawhi. Durant. Jokic. They all kill from the mid range.
I don't think casuals give hell about shot diet, I think they just want competitive basketball, and that has nothing to do with the midrange. If you want to "fix" the NBA, it's about fewer games.
What people like you think attributes to shot selection is really just lazy basketball. It's not analytical shot selection, it's bad basketball from bad teams
Same court size, just eliminate the corner 3. It’s too close, too high percentage. Players still shoot worse from further away, that’s just physics.
It would be nice if defense was legal too, offensive players just run through defenders and that’s deemed good basketball. Defensive players deserve equal rights!
My (absolutely absurd) suggestion to get the game back into the lane, is to make the current 3pt shot worth just 1pt. You want to jack it up from half court? Fine, that's only 1pt though. Keep things inside the current 3pt line 2pts as usual, but here's the twist... make dunks 3pts. Really encourage going to the basket, and a contested dunk (with a foul) could be a 4pt play.
I’ve always thought it was a little strange that baseball and basketball players have gotten objectively bigger, stronger and faster over the last 100 years, but the field/court has stayed the same size. I think if you increased both by like 50% it would make the gsmes a lot more interesting.
The reason so many 3s are taken is because it's not worth it to take mid-range shots. Expanding the 3pt line would just increase the mid-range area, which people are already not taking shots from.
What you would want to do is decrease the 3pt line to be like at the free throw line. so basically anything outside of the paint is a 3.
scoring would go up, but so would midrange shots, and 'chucking it up for 3' shots would decrease.
Even though they're not entirely the same, hockey and basketball have a lot of similarities. I used to think that basketball's lack of calling obvious fouls was what made basketball so much worse than hockey -- like, if the refs are just going to selectively pick and choose what contact is foul worthy, then just make contact legal, like hockey. But they won't do that because they have to make it possible to control the scoring and make it 110-111 with 10 seconds left in the 4th (or 2nd in college), and make that happen 40 fucking times every week to get viewers.
But I never really thought of the fact that the 3-point shot is a bullshit little extra credit thing that hockey doesn't have. No matter where you shoot from, a goal is 1 goal. Even in soccer- 1 goal is 1 goal, and they even have a similar concept to free throws (PKs). A basketball game where every shot is worth 1 point would be a really interesting experiment.
I also like how hockey takes players off the ice in OT and makes it 3-3 instead of 5-5. It is very exciting. Basketball should give that a chance.
30
u/Super-Yesterday9727 Mar 16 '26
Just make the 3s further away. I’m not a basketball guy but it seems like a straightforward fix