By now, the ongoing 3-point revolution in the NBA is no longer news. In fact, it is a necessary mainstay of the game. Every team has embraced this purposeful arbitrage of earning 50% more points by shooting from 23 feet as opposed to 22 feet and in.
There are endless ways to illustrate this runaway train of a trend. So far in the 2020–21 season, the top 100 highest-volume (HV) shooters as measured by attempts per game are jacking up an average of 6.3 threes per game. Back in 2001, it was 3.5 per game. By comparison, legendary Hall-of-Fame marksmen Ray Allen and Reggie Miller averaged 5.7 and 4.7 threes per game over their careers. In today’s league, they’d rank 63rd and 94th in attempts per game, behind the likes of Luguentz Dort, Kevin Huerter, and Darius Bazley.
Furthermore, if we define players who attempt at least half of their shots from beyond the arc as 3-point specialists, then 52 of the aforementioned 100 HV shooters this season are specialists, compared to only 6 of the HV shooters 20 years ago. What’s more, the specialist moniker itself is becoming a misnomer. This rudimentary definition would’ve included Steph Curry, Damian Lillard, James Harden, and Fred VanVleet, who are stars/leaders of their respective teams and playing on big contracts. As further proof, most of these ‘specialists’ today average nearly 30 minutes a game, consistent with the workload of a starter, whereas the 6 specialists from 2001 averaged 20 mpg, consistent with the workload of role players.
Not surprisingly, the 3-point revolution has led to a boost in offensive output, thrilling in-game comebacks, advanced metrics leading to head-scratching contracts, gasping fans as the ball travels about 30 feet in the air, and most importantly, revenue. So perhaps nothing needs to be fixed, especially from a business standpoint. Who’s to say we should be awarding size and power over sharpshooters? In fact, for business sake, we should even consider 4-point lines and 5-point hotspots.
The NBA seems fun now, but what about in a few years?
But would a league in which mid-range shots are worth less and less be sustainable in the long run? What happens if 70 — 90% of shots are taken from beyond the arc in the near future, with put-backs and fast break layups becoming the only 2-pointers worth taking (statistical comparisons to historical players be damned)?
With respect to the ‘beauty’ of the game, a key question is whether we want to be watching the offensive scheme depicted below on repeat (because this is where analytics say we’re headed). Dubbed the ‘SprawlBall era’, a lineup of 4 spot-up shooters and 1 playmaker/ball-hander (who can also shoot well) becomes the optimal offensive strategy (i.e. the probability of stopping a good playmaker drops with the floor spread out, while the odds of getting three points per possession increases with 4 capable shooters coupled with modern rules that protect shooters).
Some simplified math supports variations of this ‘4- to 5-man out’ scheme (leaving aside the impact of targeted defensive schemes, personnel, and playoff intensity for the moment): an above-average offensive post-up player could make about 50% of their 2-point attempts, translating to about 1 point per possession. A 3-point shooter would only need to make 33% of their threes to match that output, arguably with much less energy expanded (a traditional big would need to ‘bully’ his way to the basket, spin, dribble, pump fake, and/or use footwork to try to decrease distance to the hoop).
Players’ skillsets have clearly been evolving to meet the increased demand for shooting. So far this season, around 150 qualifying players (enough to make up 40% of all active rosters) shoot above 33% from beyond the arc, compared to just 73 such players 20 years ago. That number is only going to increase. So are we over-rewarding this skillset especially since you don’t really need to be that great of a shooter to justify shooting in high volume? Wouldn’t the ‘beauty’ of the game eventually be compromised?
For argument’s sake, let’s just say we want to deemphasize the ever-increasing premium placed on spot-up shooters and the growing cohort of 3-D guys that are being valued more and more just for the first dimension of their skillset. What are some relatively easy, less controversial options to slow this trend toward over-rewarding (both in points and salary) this one skillset?
While some extreme options have been suggested in recent years, we’ll stick to ones that likely face the least resistance.
Option 1: No more corner 3s
An ESPN writer has already suggested pushing out the corner 3s to match the distance of a three from the top of the arc, but doesn’t go as far as to eliminate it altogether. Simply straighten out the line at the bend of the arc and draw it out to the sidelines. This serves to reduce but not eliminate the incentive to shoot from deep.
Right now, virtually every team’s offensive scheme involves having 2 shooters loitering in the corner waiting for a catch-and-shoot opportunity. In fact, ball-handlers are so aware of this that even mediocre playmakers can make a split-second decision to toss the ball into a corner knowing a teammate is standing ready to launch the lowest effort 3-point shot of the game.
Taking that option out would require more diverse offensive schemes, as stationing 2 guys in the corner or all 5 guys at the top of the arc are both impractical. Also, it would swing the valued skill back toward players with a post-up or midrange game. The feasibility of a lineup with 3 good shooters and 2 non-shooters who are decent screeners, rebounders, shot blockers, and/or post-up players would be back in fashion. This option could bring balance back to the game and still satisfy those who love the current 3-point craze.
Option 2: Threes are worth 2.5 (or 2 for 5)
This doesn’t require much explanation. By shrinking the reward, the number of shooters considered capable would be reduced significantly. Using the same back-of-the-envelope math as above, if the conversion rate on a 2-pointer for a decent player is around 50%, then a marksman would need to convert 40% of their threes to justify shooting them. Based on this season, the number of capable shooters would be cut from 150 to 57. The reward would thus be more aligned with the incremental difficulty of shooting a three versus a two.
The obvious downside would be the mathematical headache of calculating half points. You could imagine a team falsely hoping to erase a 5.5 point lead with two offensive possessions left in a game. One variation on this option would be to require 2 long-range shots to earn 5 points (i.e. first shot is worth 2 points, 2nd shot is worth 3, 3rd shot is 2, 4th shot is 3, and so on).
Option 3: Turn the 3 second rule into the 5-second rule
This option doesn’t directly address the temptation of jacking threes from afar, but the initial driving force behind the offensive 3 second rule was to minimize the cherry-picking ways of the ancient past (e.g. Leroy Edwards). If you give bigs 5 or even 6 seconds of the shot clock to establish and maintain a good offensive position near the hoop instead, teams are more enticed to strategize around lobbing a pass deep into the post where the scoring percentages are well above 50%. Over time, this rule change may swing offensive strategies enough to bring back some version of the old days when guys like Shaq, Duncan, KG, Malone, Olajuwon, Robinson, Barkley, Ewing, Yao, McHale, Kareem, etc. were vital parts of championship contenders.
This may be the most ‘politically’ palatable tweak that isn’t seen as directly sticking it to capable shooters and wannabe shooters. But of course the debate will always go back to whether the beauty of the game is improved by encouraging bigs to be a focal point vs. encouraging shots to come further and further away from the basket.
My bet is sooner or later fans will reminisce about the lost art of around-the-basket dominance and clamor for a more balanced mix of both. Perhaps the skilled big men are being phased out too aggressively.
