If the three point rule is removed, who is the NBA's best team?

[nickagneta]

I had an interesting conversation with my friend recently about the three point line and how it changed how basketball is now played. It is definitely a much different game than decades ago. The importance of having the best distance shooters now overrides the importance of big men that can operate and score in a crowded paint area. The most important position is now that of a 2 way wing rather than a dominant center.

So it got me thinking, if the 3 point line and rule were removed just before the season started, who would be this year's best team. Obviously, a three point juggernaut of a team like Utah, would be most affected, but they would be playing teams that also would be affected, so that would mitigate the situation some.

Teams would need to adjust their entire playing philosophy. A +40% three point shooter suddenly has their efficacy completely changed.

Would teams with the best bigs now rule or do teams still rely most on shooting but not from 23 plus feet anymore? Would it precipitate teams to move more towards a fast break play like the early 80's Celtics and Lakers or move more to the clutch and grab style of the 90's like the Heat and Knicks? Or something different.

Personally, I think the 76ers become the league's best team and, sadly, I think the Celtics would be a fairly below average team, in the lottery. Who would be your best team under these circumstances?

[Sophomore]

The other question is whether you’re going to change the rules for defense. When the big men had their glory days zone defense was illegal; now, with a few minor limits, it’s okay. If you cut way down on the value of outside shooting and leave zone defense on the books, then maybe we sign Tacko to a permanent deal and really double down on trying to get Cousins in the buyout market. Go back and watch the NCAA tournament game where Tacko stoned Zion at the hoop a few times...

[PhoSita]

In a league without three pointers, the best teams are the ones that can generate the most looks at the rim + free throw attempts, while defending against the same.


Actually New Orleans would be pretty awesome, I think.  They are top 10 in points in the paint per game and free throws attempted per offensive play, and also top 10 in defending those categories.

Brooklyn also rates really well by those categories.


Actually I think the answer is Brooklyn, because they can get to the rim a lot while also having elite mid-range shooters to punish the opponent for packing the paint.



Speaking generally, I'm glad the three pointer exists.  I don't think the game would be more fun to watch if teams were jamming into the paint every night and we saw smaller guards and wings phased out in favor of big lumbering centers.

That said, I do think things have become too skewed toward outside shooting.  I think it's a big problem that outside shots are worth 50% more than inside shots.  That ratio made sense when the league average on threes was around 30%.  If the average shooter is 40%+ on threes, with stars hitting close to 45-50% consistently, it becomes a three point league.  That's where we are headed, if we aren't there already.

The solution that will never happen is to change the scoring to 3 points inside and 4 points outside. 

The solution that may eventually happen is to move the three point line further back and eliminate corner threes.

[nickagneta]

In a league without three pointers, the best teams are the ones that can generate the most looks at the rim + free throw attempts, while defending against the same.


Actually New Orleans would be pretty awesome, I think.  They are top 10 in points in the paint per game and free throws attempted per offensive play, and also top 10 in defending those categories.

Brooklyn also rates really well by those categories.


Actually I think the answer is Brooklyn, because they can get to the rim a lot while also having elite mid-range shooters to punish the opponent for packing the paint.



Speaking generally, I'm glad the three pointer exists.  I don't think the game would be more fun to watch if teams were jamming into the paint every night and we saw smaller guards and wings phased out in favor of big lumbering centers.

That said, I do think things have become too skewed toward outside shooting.  I think it's a big problem that outside shots are worth 50% more than inside shots.  That ratio made sense when the league average on threes was around 30%.  If the average shooter is 40%+ on threes, with stars hitting close to 45-50% consistently, it becomes a three point league.  That's where we are headed, if we aren't there already.

The solution that will never happen is to change the scoring to 3 points inside and 4 points outside. 

The solution that may eventually happen is to move the three point line further back and eliminate corner threes.

My buddy and I discussed the 3 points/4 points idea. I like it but I am guessing traditionalists wouldn't.

[PhoSita]

In a league without three pointers, the best teams are the ones that can generate the most looks at the rim + free throw attempts, while defending against the same.


Actually New Orleans would be pretty awesome, I think.  They are top 10 in points in the paint per game and free throws attempted per offensive play, and also top 10 in defending those categories.

Brooklyn also rates really well by those categories.


Actually I think the answer is Brooklyn, because they can get to the rim a lot while also having elite mid-range shooters to punish the opponent for packing the paint.



Speaking generally, I'm glad the three pointer exists.  I don't think the game would be more fun to watch if teams were jamming into the paint every night and we saw smaller guards and wings phased out in favor of big lumbering centers.

That said, I do think things have become too skewed toward outside shooting.  I think it's a big problem that outside shots are worth 50% more than inside shots.  That ratio made sense when the league average on threes was around 30%.  If the average shooter is 40%+ on threes, with stars hitting close to 45-50% consistently, it becomes a three point league.  That's where we are headed, if we aren't there already.

The solution that will never happen is to change the scoring to 3 points inside and 4 points outside. 

The solution that may eventually happen is to move the three point line further back and eliminate corner threes.

My buddy and I discussed the 3 points/4 points idea. I like it but I am guessing traditionalists wouldn't.

I just assume that we'll never get any changes that would drastically alter records / the ability to compare across eras.  Not to mention difference between college and NBA.

[Who]

Defense will become more important. Teams with dominant defenders will improve. Teams without them will take a step back. Shot-blockers in particular will see an increase in value (guys like Gobert). Teams with multiple shot-blockers (like Bucks with Giannis / B.Lopez) will also become tougher to play against.

Offensive rebounding will also become more important. So teams with aggressive physical forwards who can attack the glass (Randle, Giannis) will give their teams added offensive advantages. And teams with finesse forwards that struggle with physicality will suffer (like Bertans).

Switching will be less important and less used - since you are not worried about being punished by the 3. Defending your primary position will be more important.

[nickagneta]

Defense will become more important. Teams with dominant defenders will improve. Teams without them will take a step back. Shot-blockers in particular will see an increase in value (guys like Gobert). Teams with multiple shot-blockers (like Bucks with Giannis / B.Lopez) will also become tougher to play against.

Offensive rebounding will also become more important. So teams with aggressive physical forwards who can attack the glass (Randle, Giannis) will give their teams added offensive advantages. And teams with finesse forwards that struggle with physicality will suffer (like Bertans).

Switching will be less important and less used - since you are not worried about being punished by the 3. Defending your primary position will be more important.

Good call on Randle's importance. I think the Knicks might benefit from the rule change a lot.

[Who]

So I started by having a look at who the top teams in Defensive Efficiency are.

Lakers are #1. They'd still be a monster with LeBron & AD. The duo of M.Gasol and Drummond at center would be huge as well. Depth at forward with midrange scoring in Kuzma. Schroeder as a quick PG and some shooters. Caruso as a big defensive PG. They could go bigger with KCP defending PGs while LeBron runs the show on offense and Kuzma defends SGs if they wanted to go even bigger on the perimeter with two shot-blockers behind them.

Philly are #2. Embiid would be incredible on defense without having to worry about defending 3s and he is unstoppable on offense already. Enough outside shooting to keep Embiid free to do his thing. Ben Simmons doing all the little things that makes teams better. They'd be a monster too.

Utah are #3. Gobert's value increases but Donovan Mitchell's value decreases (he'd be much easier to defend) and their team offense without the 3 point shot decreases too. They become a middle of the pack playoff team. Maybe make the 2nd round, maybe lose in the 1st. 

Miami are 6th. They're a team I'd see taking a step back. Guys like Herro and Duncan Robinson are of lower value. Adebayo as a quick mobile big is of less value as an interior defender & does not have enough help on interior defense & rebounding in a more physical league. Need another good big man to help Adebayo in the paint in order to be a title contender.

Bucks take a big step forward. They remind me some of the early 80s 76ers on offense with Giannis as Dr J. They remind me of 10s OKC with Ibaka / Perk on twin-shot blocker defense. Jrue Holiday's' value increases as a big defensive PG with versatile shot making. Middleton decreases some but remains a steady positive force. Brook Lopez' value increases as his post game becomes more useful and his lack of quickness on defense is less exploitable. So Milwaukee take a big step forward.

Okay, I'm going to take a break and then think of some more teams ...

[Who]

The Brooklyn Nets would take a step back. They would go for the #1 favourite in the East to 3rd and well back on both Philly and Milwaukee. Without enough defense, they will be not be as competitive.

Without the threat of the 3 point line, their offense is not as scary. Relying on individual brilliance -- one-on-one skills & shot-making -- of Harden, Kyrie and Durant instead of teamwork makes them easier to game-plan for so opposing teams with strong defenses will be better able to disrupt them. Not a real contender. 2nd round and out type of team.



The Spurs take a huge step back. Their 3 guards, 1 wing and 1 big man lineup would get decimated. One of the worst teams in the league. They are going to get beaten up and their defense is going to go into the toilet.

The Blazers also stand out as a team due for a major setback. Lillard becomes much less of a threat without the 3 (as does Steph Curry). They rely more on the one-on-one skills of small guards who can now be kept out of high value scoring opportunities so their offense takes a huge step back and their defense sucks. So they suck. Non-playoff team.

[Roy H.]

I’d say the Lakers and Sixers.  Neither relies on the three much, relatively.

[fmbl24]

Removed? No thanks. I’d like to see less of an impact, though.


FG = 3 points
3-pt FG = 4 points


I think that would help the product and bring back some low post play.

[nickagneta]

The Brooklyn Nets would take a step back. They would go for the #1 favourite in the East to 3rd and well back on both Philly and Milwaukee. Without enough defense, they will be not be as competitive.

Without the threat of the 3 point line, their offense is not as scary. Relying on individual brilliance -- one-on-one skills & shot-making -- of Harden, Kyrie and Durant instead of teamwork makes them easier to game-plan for so opposing teams with strong defenses will be better able to disrupt them. Not a real contender. 2nd round and out type of team.



The Spurs take a huge step back. Their 3 guards, 1 wing and 1 big man lineup would get decimated. One of the worst teams in the league. They are going to get beaten up and their defense is going to go into the toilet.

The Blazers also stand out as a team due for a major setback. Lillard becomes much less of a threat without the 3 (as does Steph Curry). They rely more on the one-on-one skills of small guards who can now be kept out of high value scoring opportunities so their offense takes a huge step back and their defense sucks. So they suck. Non-playoff team.

TP for all the excellent analysis.

I have a question though, do you think overall pace would change as a strategy to offset the loss of the extra point and do you think it would go up or down?

Teams like the Nets and Lakers, for instance, I think would try to slow the pace due to the age and fragility of their players and make the game a complete half court type game, whereas, teams like Milwaukee and Philly might do well to increase the pace even more and go for a fast break style.

And this being a copycat league, which style do you think would become most prevalent?

Personally, I would prefer the fast break game, but coaches being what they are and loving having the control, I think a slower paced, half court game might dominate team's thinking when it comes to offensive strategy.

One thing I know for sure, this Celtics team as currently constructed best be a fast pace team that hits the offensive boards hard in the half court sets.

[footey]

I recall when we played the Grizzlies that they were one of the leading teams of scoring from the paint. They certainly torched us from there last game.

[bopna]

A tweak in the rule change might help the landscape and help both three point shooting teams and teams that rely on inside scoring...

For example, why dont the league adopt that 3 point shooting will only count for 2 points each of the first 3 qtrs save for the final 2 minutes when each attempt at the 3 point line will account for 3 points.

So any attempts by Curry for example even if its a 35 footer will only count as a 2 if its the first 10 min of each qtr.

This way most teams will try and balance their attack closer to the rim in the first 10 min...then in the final 2 min they can start raining 3s.

However in the 4th qtr all attempts from the 3 point area will now be counted as three points for all 12 min.

I think this will generate some excitement and allow the return of the big men who are extinct because they could not shoot the 3.

[PhoSita]

I recall when we played the Grizzlies that they were one of the leading teams of scoring from the paint. They certainly torched us from there last game.

They are top of the league, in fact.