Unreasonable Ideas To Reduce NBA Three-Pointers

Creative solutions (even if I don't think there is a problem)

[Note on 12/23/24: I originally posted the dusty, vulture-picked bones of this article more than three years ago, when I had just kicked off Basketball Poetry, but it feels timely again in the wake of the weirdly pervasive discourse around basketball aesthetics that pops up every so often.

For the 1% of subscribers who have already read the original piece, don’t worry. I’ve added a bunch more unreasonable ideas and updated some of the references/numbers!]

I don’t believe there is a problem with the number of three-pointers in basketball right now. I love how the three-point line has opened up driving lanes for the most talented athletes in the world (dunk rates are higher than ever!). I like watching three-point shots arc through the air like flying fish, knowing that a splash landing will be more impactful than a shorter-range shot because three, haven’t you heard, is worth more than two.

Basketball is not an amber-trapped mosquito to be admired by future anthropologists. It is a living, changing organism. My favorite brand of basketball is whatever is being played today.

But I recognize and respect that others don’t always agree with that view. If you preferred the run-and-gun style of the 60s, the post play of the 90s, or the hero-ball of the 2000s, that’s great! Even Adam Silver himself said the league is looking at “whether there are ways to improve stylistically the game on the floor,” and while he specifically cautioned that this wasn’t specifically a three-point problem, that’s still the area that gets the most discussion.

I’ve already tried to show that teams today play as differently as they ever have. However, if the league does decide to reduce three-pointers, perhaps it could consider some of the unreasonable ideas below. If Silver makes a change, I hope he does so with all his heart, not by doing something lame and short-sighted like moving the line back a foot.

Let’s set some context. We know that the last twenty-five years have seen a precipitous increase in the number of three-point attempts taken:

The numbers say that the entirety of the three-point increase comes at the expense of midranges. However, the death of the midrange is overstated; it’s simply been the death of the midrange from bad shooters, as detailed in this old Seth Partnow article from The Athletic. The Kevin Durants of the world still have the green light to shoot as many midranges as they want!

So what’s the problem? As three-pointers continue to rise, there’s a risk of homogeneity in offensive approaches where every team looks the same as every other team. This is far less true today than it was, say, six years ago, when it felt like high pick-and-roll was everywhere. How three-pointers are generated is far more diverse than before, and the sheer variety of stars means that teams have to tailor their offense to engines as different as Nikola Jokic and Jalen Brunson, Anthony Edwards and Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Nonetheless, people are constantly worrying about the rise of threes and what it means for the league, so it’s worth discussing possible solutions.

People have suggested many ideas over the years. Things like eliminating the corner three-pointer entirely or moving the three-point line back have been adequately examined. Frankly, I don’t love either of those ideas for different reasons. The corner three helps space the floor effectively, which allows for more dynamic driving lanes, while pushing the line back would quickly result in a new equilibrium that looks a lot like the current one.

In my opinion, the best reasonable idea for improving stylistic diversity is to shrink the paint. It was widened twice to limit the effectiveness of legendary post players George Mikan and Wilt Chamberlain, forcing them to post up further from the basket to avoid the three-second rule, but today’s titans generally do their damage from the perimeter, not the post. Why not shrink the paint again? Not only would it allow for post-ups closer to the basket, resulting in more efficient shots, but it would also allow for more offensive rebounding, as well. The giants could roam once more! (Although this wouldn’t likely create more midrange jumpers.)

In his book Sprawlball, Kirk Goldsberry ran through a laundry list of these and other proposals, including two of my favorite wacky ideas: allowing goaltending on threes and allowing home teams to paint the three-point line wherever they want.

Allowing goaltending on threes would be a fun twist that would make someone like Victor Wembanyama even more valuable. It could create a whole new inverted battlefront for position in the paint, since offensive players would need to box out defenders from blocking shots. A last-second three-point attempt to win the game could be flicked away at the rim, creating a new brand of highlights. The increased difficulty of threes would cause a shift towards “safer” shots in the midrange and post.

Predicting what would happen if teams could paint their own lines is harder. Delightful chaos would ensue. Roster a bunch of bricklayers? Eliminate the line entirely. Employ a gaggle of snipers? Push the line back a few feet. It would open up whole new strategic possibilities. More importantly, it would give each court a sense of uniqueness. Arenas could become like baseball stadiums with their own quirks and legends. Boston could have a line that suddenly careens away from the basket on the left side, simulating Fenway’s Green Monster!

If there were a perfect solution, the league would have found it years ago. I’m sure they’ll eventually land on something small. But we are here for unreasonable ideas, like the two above — drastic changes. I’d like to present a few other thoughts that are exceedingly unlikely ever to be implemented but help illustrate the creativity that the league has at its disposal. After all, even the three-point line itself was considered a gimmick at one point.

Remember, please: There are no bad ideas when brainstorming. Obvious flaws exist with all of these approaches, but that doesn’t mean they can’t spark something interesting!

Eliminate the catch-and-shoot three

I haven’t seen a single other person suggest eliminating the catch-and-shoot three, because it’s a terrible idea.

But is it really?

The league, as a whole, is significantly better at catch-and-shoot threes than off-the-dribble attempts. They’re usually more open, and role players have spent thousands of hours practicing catch-and-shoots so that when stars dribble into the paint, they’re ready to receive the kick-out and put it up toward the hoop as fast as possible.

Imagine if players were forced to take at least one dribble before launching a triple. It would give the defense more time to react, inevitably putting significant downward pressure on the number of threes attempted.

Realistically, this would allow defenses to pack the paint and take their time closing out on shooters, so yeah, it’s a terrible idea. But it would for sure work, and we’re brainstorming here! Nobody gets it right on their first try.

Make midranges worth 2.5 points

What if we actually made midranges worth more? Looking at half-point scores makes my skin crawl, but it would make distance from the hoop more linearly related to points. Suddenly, the most efficient play in basketball might become the suddenly unstoppable Nikola Vucevic push shot, and not, like, a Norman Powell spot-up three!

What I love most about this idea is that it allows every team to play to its strengths. The problem with the current 2.0/3.0 point binary is that the math is so overwhelmingly in favor of taking threes for all but the best midrange masters, so even teams that don’t have great shooters have to force square pegs into round holes.

But if the midrange suddenly becomes worth more, we’d have significantly more variety in offense. A team like the Sacramento Kings has the potential to become a true offensive juggernaut. Besides the brutal aesthetic of having scores like 110.5 to 106.5, this is a flawless solution the league should have implemented yesterday. In an ideal world, this idea would pair with the shrinking of the paint mentioned above to allow for efficient post-play; all three scoring levels could be viable for the first time in ages.

Require above-the-break threes to be banked

I’d bet that 99.9% of three-pointers launched mean to ignore the backboard, give or take the occasional Anthony Edwards bit of mischief:

What if they couldn’t?

A sneaky secret is that banking threes from the shoulders actually isn’t that difficult. It would be harder to do from straight-on, but not impossible — Eric Fawcett recently pointed to a growing trend in the Korean professional leagues to bank free throws.

Larry Bird once banked a moneyball during a three-point contest. I even read about a guy named Rupert Sapwell who purposefully banked his three-pointers in the 90s while playing for the juggernaut Adelaide 36ers in the Australian NBL. I spent an inexcusable amount of time looking for a single highlight of him doing so and failed. However, I did find this clip of him at the link above badly missing a late-game three-pointer that Sapwell sure seemed to be trying to bank, although he followed it up a second later with a glassless swish:

So it’s doable, in theory. And don’t worry, inadvertent swishes would still count for two points.

There is inherent ridiculousness with this idea on a visceral level, but I think it would work pretty well (at least until shooters inevitably master the banked three). And hey, now old-school purists who bemoan the lack of the bank jumper will have something new to watch!

[Several more ideas, plus a few reader-generated thoughts, follow the paywall! Please consider supporting me with a holiday gift to yourself or by buying a digital stocking stuffer for loved ones. It’s a gift that will make you AND me happy!

Aid me in beating The Algorithm Dreadful. Support independent sportswriting (e.g., by helping me pay for diapers!) with a paid subscription. Thank you!]