This content is supplied by Reputio.
The 3-point rule has been a part of the NBA for a long time. Coming to fruition in the 1979-1980 season, it allowed teams to score three points for a shot made from beyond the 3-point line, adding a whole new layer of strategy and skill that had previously been missing from the spectacle.
This is still the case today. But while the 3-point rule remains the same, it’s important to note that the game of basketball has changed, along with the tactics and strategies used by teams to win. With this in mind, not everyone is happy with the rule anymore, with some going as far as to say it’s ruining the NBA entirely.
Is the 3-Point Shot Ruining the NBA?
There’s no doubt that, over the last few decades, the 3-point shot has become a central focus of modern NBA offenses. Across the betting market, it’s actually come to have its own category, with bettors not only predicting player performances and team totals, but making 3-point shot-related bets that predict how many will occur in a game.
There are some who argue, however, that this also demonstrates an overemphasis on a certain playing style. Over the last few years, the rise of analytics – which emphasises the value of 3-pointers over mid-range shots – has led to a style of play where 3-pointers dominate offenses, leading to less diversity in other attacking strategies. As a result of this, there’s also a decreased emphasis on traditional skills. Players who once thrived in mid-range play, such as Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan, are now far less common, with traditional elements like the mid-range jumper taking a back seat.
There is a global trend of increased focus on the 3-point strategy. Similarly, there’s been a decline in the use of the post-up game, where players would back down defenders to create scoring opportunities near the basket. Instead, the NBA has shifted towards floor spacing and perimeter shooting, diminishing the role of traditional big men and post-up specialists that used to have a huge role in determining match outcomes. Above all of this, however, is the degradation of spectacle. Because of the sheer number of 3-pointers being taken in games, we’re seeing far lower shooting efficiency, with players taking numerous 3-point shots that aren’t in their comfort zones – leading to poor shot selection and lower overall field goal percentages. This, consequently, has made games feel less fluid, and more reliant on whether a team is hot from beyond the arc rather than whether they’re playing smart, team-oriented basketball.
Is it Time to Get Rid of the 3-Point Shot?
With all of this in mind, many critics are stating it’s time to get rid of the 3-point shot – but we wouldn’t go that far. Indeed, if changes are to be made, the goal should be to recalibrate, not remove the 3-point shot, and make sure it’s conducive to a well-rounded, interesting game of basketball. This can be done, quite simply, by moving the line back. When the 3-point rule was introduced several decades ago, the skill level of players was less than it is today, which meant a 3-point shot was only really an option for a handful of elite shooters.
As time has gone on, we have been graced with players like Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson, excellent players who are dab-hands at the 3-point shot, and apart from this, every player is expected to have a reliable 3-point shot in their arsenal. The result, here, is that the line no longer serves as a meaningful filter of difficulty. By moving the line back, the league could restore the original intent of the shot: rewarding exceptional long-range shooting, not just volume. Whether this will happen or not, it’s hard to say. But there’s no doubt increasing the difficulty will be beneficial for NBA players and fanatics alike.
