Why the 3pt shot is better than a long 2

[GIF REACTION]

A lot of these modern, conservative defenses that deny middle and push baseline run under the mantra of give them the long two.. Run them off the 3 and protect the paint

[StephHamann]

OP just discovered that

3>2

[nathanjizzle]

its a valid point for sure.

[GIF REACTION]

Gervin is wrong there but I can understand what he might be trying to say

The 2 is a better shot when the scenario demands just to score, ala tied score game winners etc.... Now he didn't say that, but if you need to make 1 basket, a higher % bucket of any nature is best... Although going all the way to the hoop will probably be no-called in the last seconds of a game.

[Marchesk]

Move the 3pt line back until the percentages equal out so that a long two and a three give you the same value. That would balance the game out.

Would make for a better product, much as a I love seeing Curry jack up crazy threes all game long.

[Marchesk]

Gervin is wrong there but I can understand what he might be trying to say

It was just funny because he was a tad salty Klay broke his scoring record, thanks in no small part to the three point line.

Old timers are the best. Salty and bitter as f**k, but with interesting observations and a great perspective on the game.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Move the 3pt line back until the percentages equal out so that a long two and a three give you the same value. That would balance the game out.

Would make for a better product, much as a I love seeing Curry jack up crazy threes all game long.

How would that work though?

That would make people not shoot threes altogether. A 3 point shot is balanced out because, for obvious reasons, it's harder to get a 3 point shot than an open midrange. It's like putting barriers so that layups only score around 44%

[ClipperRevival]

Gervin is wrong there but I can understand what he might be trying to say

The 2 is a better shot when the scenario demands just to score, ala tied score game winners etc.... Now he didn't say that, but if you need to make 1 basket, a higher % bucket of any nature is best... Although going all the way to the hoop will probably be no-called in the last seconds of a game.

The game is being dummied down though. It's all about the 3 now or taking it to the rack and everything in between isn't being emphasized enough. The 3 doesn't emphasize basic fundamentals, like proper footwork. Guys are only trying to be specialized as a "3 & D guy" or "stretch 4". It's all about just shooting a set shot. The game is so much more than just standing still and waiting for someone to get you the ball. You should be able to do more. But there is such a huge emphasis on the 3 today, you can be nothing but a great spot up shooter (Korver) and he considered a HUGE asset.

[GIF REACTION]

The game is being dummied down though. It's all about the 3 now or taking it to the rack and everything in between isn't being emphasized enough. The 3 doesn't emphasize basic fundamentals, like proper footwork. Guys are only trying to be specialized as a "3 & D guy" or "stretch 4". It's all about just shooting a set shot. The game is so much more than just standing still and waiting for someone to get you the ball. You should be able to do more. But there is such a huge emphasis on the 3 today, you can be nothing but a great spot up shooter (Korver) and he considered a HUGE asset.

Because not all 5 players can have the ball at once

The closest you will get to your old school style hard-on are the Spurs

[Straight_Ballin]

Couldn't be further from the truth. By jacking up early 3's you're just bailing out the Defense.

Better to make the defense work for 20 seconds by running sets, rather than chucking up 3's and running back.

That being said, yes; obviously shooting 35% on 3's is better than 50% on 2's.

No, it is correct. If the guy shooting the ball is racing down court to launch the shot right after the inbound pass, his team is all behind him (less running, less energy expended for his team, and less energy for the shooter who stops at the 3 point line instead of driving it all the way in) meanwhile while the opposition has all ran back into their defensive set. After the bucket is scored, the opposition now has to run all the way back and play offense against a fresh team's defense because they expended less energy the play before, and the cycle repeats itself. The opposition now on offense expends more energy setting screens, back cutting, running around on offense, coming off of picks, getting boxed out, etc etc etc. I've actually been on a team that used this strategy because our bench was short handed. When you have multiple shooters that are fast, you can do this. Not for the entire stretch of the game, but in short bursts.

[ClipperRevival]

Because not all 5 players can have the ball at once

The closest you will get to your old school style hard-on are the Spurs

My point is, with the emphasis on the 3 that it is today, a strictly spot up shooter like Korver is more valuable than ever before, because the league shoots and emphasizes the 3 more than ever before. He doesn't even need to be able to do anything else. You always had spot up shooters but their value wasn't as great. And that's what a lot of guys coming out of college strive to become once they figure out they won't be a star. They try to find their niche and most of the time, it has to do with shooting the 3. Whether for a SG (spot up shooter), SF (3 & D) or PF/C (stretch 4/5). With such an emphasis on just one aspect of the game, the league is being dummied down.

And the Spurs are the team that first emphasized the 3 so there is nothing old school about them. The only thing "old school" about them is they always stressed team ball, which is the way you should play.

[Showtime80']

That is definitely true for today's mid range and post up game deprived soft pathetic league!

Seriously, if you took the 3 point line out of the NBA tomorrow, would ANY teams other than the Spurs, Clippers, Thunder or Warriors break 90 points per game while the rest of the league would hover around the 80 point mark! Last year 16 teams failed to crack 100 points and only 2 reached 105 or better. If the "3 is better than 2" were really real then the league as a WHOLE would have not problems breaking 100 on a consistent basis.

Teams today rely on the 3 pointer because THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICES! When you have no TRUE DOMINANT LOW POST CENTERS combined with scoring first ball dominant PG's and wings that pound the air out of the ball for 20+ seconds trying to break down defenses 24 feet away from the basket how the hell do you expected teams to manufacture decent shots from 18 feet and under while only consuming 10 to 14 seconds on the clock?!? For that you need true pass first fast break capable PG's and true dominant centers, something the NBA ALWAYS HAD IN SPADES until this era.

[GIF REACTION]

There are significantly less possessions in a game today

[GIF REACTION]

in 1975 you had roughly around 125 possessions a game

It is around 105 today (somebody check this)

[Showtime80']

There have been teams that have done what you suggested Straight Ballin mainly the 91 Nuggets and the mid 2000's Suns. The problem they had was that the NBA in those years had PLENTY of teams that could make them pay for that style because the percentages are going to catch up with you sooner or later. The majority of those missed threes result in long rebounds for the other team and when the league had capable pass first PG's they made sure to get a lay up or dunk at the other end and not shoot a silly 3 pointer!

The modern day Warriors have basically carte blanche over the entire league because almost EVERYBODY is trying to play the same way thus it doesn't matter how many bad or quick 3 pointers they take, they know that more often than not they other team is going to bail them out with a stupid 3 pointer the other way!

Try that sh!t against inside and fast break powerhouse teams like the 80's Lakers, Celtics or Sixers and you're going to get ran out of the building by halftime!