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

[Celtics4ever]

Sixers, I would think as well

[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.

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.

I'm guessing slower ...

I'm thinking guys like LeBron and CP3 who can control a team's pace, organize an offense and make sure their team gets a good shot in the half-court become the trend-setters for other teams to follow. Both older guys who prefer a slower pace.


I remember when the D'Antoni Suns were in their early years they did a statistical study that showed playing slow helps teams who are less talented. Less possessions = less opportunities to exploit differences in offensive / defensive net efficiency. Playing slow (like Mike Fratello's Grizzlies at the time) gave less talented teams a better chance at stealing a win against faster teams. I'd expect that ideology to come back among lesser teams.

I'd also see more teams deciding that it is easier to win with defense than with offense. So more focus on slowing the game down, forcing the opponent to play against a set halfcourt defense and force low percentage contested long two point jump-shots. So that focus would slow the pace down as well.

The counter to that is to run and score in transition. Easiest scores were transition hoops. It would be so nice to see teams running for layups again!


I'd say the teams that would be best equipped to play at a fast tempo are defensive teams that force turnovers rather than defensive teams that prefer fundamentally sound position defense and forcing contested long jump-shots. So I would think of younger more athletic defensive teams that can jump passing lanes, that can trap and double team aggressively.

The Memphis Grizzlies with their depth and young athletic legs could do that really well. Teams with big guards and quick wings. Knicks (again) another team that could do well here. Maybe the Clippers but they would be more methodical in the halfcourt with Kawhi if they don't score in transition.

Most of the top assist guys are defensive manipulators in the halfcourt rather than fastbreaking PGs. Most are scoring PGs rather than setup men. I wonder how well they adjust and run the break. Or if they run more as scorers since more positions now are expected / able to handle and pass the ball in transition.

[jambr380]

I've always been okay with having corner 3s removed - just have the current 3 point line curve to the out of bounds line. Defenses not having to worry about the corner 3 would really benefit and only the best shooters would be able to take and make 3s.

On a related note, I absolutely hate what pick-up ball has become with 1s and 2s. It's just a bunch of dudes launching 3s all game while the big guys hope to get offensive rebound put-backs.

[Celtics4ever]

Teams will real big men would thrive.

[Moranis]

Pretty much under any rule system, the Lakers, if healthy, are the best team.  They have 2 top 5 talents, play tenacious defense, and have skilled role players that know their roles.  Under any rule system, they are the best team when healthy. 

[Moranis]

Also, I don't think the 3 point shot has really altered the notion that a dominant big man wouldn't still rule the league.  I just think we are in one of the time periods where there just isn't a guy like Shaq.  Someone like Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, etc. would still dominate the league because even with the improvement of the 3, you are still better off giving it those guys in the paint where they hit 70% of the time and get fouled 50% of the time.  That still scores you more points then even someone like Curry reigning 3's all day just from a possession standpoint, especially when you factor in the 30% of the time they miss they still get an offensive rebound some of those times.  The dunk is still the best shot a team can take.

[dannyboy35]

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?

   I love these types of questions. I find it fascinating that people good at math and incredible distance shooting has essentially beat the game. But I’d live a change to bring back some variety and personality to different teams.

[arctic 3.0]

I kind of like this idea.
The 3 is $ for so many players.
Why should it be worth more that a drive through traffic to the hoop ?

[gouki88]

It's definitely an interesting question. Most of the teams with star players who crush it inside (Milwaukee, Philly, LAL) have surrounded them with shooting role players who don't do much else on offence. I wonder what the trade off would be there

[Who]

It's definitely an interesting question. Most of the teams with star players who crush it inside (Milwaukee, Philly, LAL) have surrounded them with shooting role players who don't do much else on offence. I wonder what the trade off would be there

I believe they have more versatility than one might think at first glance.

Lakers -- LeBron obviously gives them a big edge in perimeter creation to go along with AD's inside-outside game. They have Drummond as a post scorer. They have Schroeder as a dribble drive scorer. They Kuzma as a midrange and versatile overall scorer. Marc Gasol as a high post facilitator. That is quite a bit of scoring / offensive value outside of AD & LeBron before you get to more limited players like Wes Matthews, KCP and Caruso. Oh and Montrez Harrell gives them interior scoring as a backup PF.

Bucks -- Beyond Giannis, they have Middleton and Jrue Holiday as versatile scorers. Both have midrange games, post games, can score off the dribble. Then they have Brook Lopez who is one of the most skilled scoring centers in the league with his post game, midrange game and outside shooting. Their team beyond that is not so hot but that is a lot to work with.

Sixers -- I was less high on the Sixers at first but on 2nd thought I may have undersold George Hill and Seth Curry as off ball scoring threats. George Hill was good running off screens early in his career in San Antonio. Seth Curry can do some of that as well. I think those two guys can bring some catch and shoot offense running off of picks with one of them or Ben Simmons controlling the offense from the top of the key (thinking of 00s Pistons with Rip & Chauncey running off of picks while Tayshaun ran the offense). Before them of course you have Tobias Harris who has versatile scoring and isolation capabilities. Ben Simmons is a bit weaker but he can move into the post when Embiid rests and Embiid is the most unstoppable interior force in the league. Those guys are more straight forward but it is George Hill and Seth Curry that I believe have more upside than I originally thought.

[gouki88]

It's definitely an interesting question. Most of the teams with star players who crush it inside (Milwaukee, Philly, LAL) have surrounded them with shooting role players who don't do much else on offence. I wonder what the trade off would be there

I believe they have more versatility than one might think at first glance.

Lakers -- LeBron obviously gives them a big edge in perimeter creation to go along with AD's inside-outside game. They have Drummond as a post scorer. They have Schroeder as a dribble drive scorer. They Kuzma as a midrange and versatile overall scorer. Marc Gasol as a high post facilitator. That is quite a bit of scoring / offensive value outside of AD & LeBron before you get to more limited players like Wes Matthews, KCP and Caruso. Oh and Montrez Harrell gives them interior scoring as a backup PF.

Bucks -- Beyond Giannis, they have Middleton and Jrue Holiday as versatile scorers. Both have midrange games, post games, can score off the dribble. Then they have Brook Lopez who is one of the most skilled scoring centers in the league with his post game, midrange game and outside shooting. Their team beyond that is not so hot but that is a lot to work with.

Sixers -- I was less high on the Sixers at first but on 2nd thought I may have undersold George Hill and Seth Curry as off ball scoring threats. George Hill was good running off screens early in his career in San Antonio. Seth Curry can do some of that as well. I think those two guys can bring some catch and shoot offense running off of picks with one of them or Ben Simmons controlling the offense from the top of the key (thinking of 00s Pistons with Rip & Chauncey running off of picks while Tayshaun ran the offense). Before them of course you have Tobias Harris who has versatile scoring and isolation capabilities. Ben Simmons is a bit weaker but he can move into the post when Embiid rests and Embiid is the most unstoppable interior force in the league. Those guys are more straight forward but it is George Hill and Seth Curry that I believe have more upside than I originally thought.

Good points. I had forgotten a) Drummond signing with LA (didn't take long!), b) how good Brook Lopez was back in Brooklyn and c) that George Hill can score inside the arc, when healthy.

[Who]

It's definitely an interesting question. Most of the teams with star players who crush it inside (Milwaukee, Philly, LAL) have surrounded them with shooting role players who don't do much else on offence. I wonder what the trade off would be there

I believe they have more versatility than one might think at first glance.

Lakers -- LeBron obviously gives them a big edge in perimeter creation to go along with AD's inside-outside game. They have Drummond as a post scorer. They have Schroeder as a dribble drive scorer. They Kuzma as a midrange and versatile overall scorer. Marc Gasol as a high post facilitator. That is quite a bit of scoring / offensive value outside of AD & LeBron before you get to more limited players like Wes Matthews, KCP and Caruso. Oh and Montrez Harrell gives them interior scoring as a backup PF.

Bucks -- Beyond Giannis, they have Middleton and Jrue Holiday as versatile scorers. Both have midrange games, post games, can score off the dribble. Then they have Brook Lopez who is one of the most skilled scoring centers in the league with his post game, midrange game and outside shooting. Their team beyond that is not so hot but that is a lot to work with.

Sixers -- I was less high on the Sixers at first but on 2nd thought I may have undersold George Hill and Seth Curry as off ball scoring threats. George Hill was good running off screens early in his career in San Antonio. Seth Curry can do some of that as well. I think those two guys can bring some catch and shoot offense running off of picks with one of them or Ben Simmons controlling the offense from the top of the key (thinking of 00s Pistons with Rip & Chauncey running off of picks while Tayshaun ran the offense). Before them of course you have Tobias Harris who has versatile scoring and isolation capabilities. Ben Simmons is a bit weaker but he can move into the post when Embiid rests and Embiid is the most unstoppable interior force in the league. Those guys are more straight forward but it is George Hill and Seth Curry that I believe have more upside than I originally thought.

Good points. I had forgotten a) Drummond signing with LA (didn't take long!), b) how good Brook Lopez was back in Brooklyn and c) that George Hill can score inside the arc, when healthy.

It makes you think (or at least it makes me think) how today's game makes players appear more one dimensional / less versatile offensively than they actually are.

That it makes them stand around at the three point line and stops them showing their other skills. That there is more talent there on these teams than we are getting to see because of the way rules now are.

[gouki88]

It's definitely an interesting question. Most of the teams with star players who crush it inside (Milwaukee, Philly, LAL) have surrounded them with shooting role players who don't do much else on offence. I wonder what the trade off would be there

I believe they have more versatility than one might think at first glance.

Lakers -- LeBron obviously gives them a big edge in perimeter creation to go along with AD's inside-outside game. They have Drummond as a post scorer. They have Schroeder as a dribble drive scorer. They Kuzma as a midrange and versatile overall scorer. Marc Gasol as a high post facilitator. That is quite a bit of scoring / offensive value outside of AD & LeBron before you get to more limited players like Wes Matthews, KCP and Caruso. Oh and Montrez Harrell gives them interior scoring as a backup PF.

Bucks -- Beyond Giannis, they have Middleton and Jrue Holiday as versatile scorers. Both have midrange games, post games, can score off the dribble. Then they have Brook Lopez who is one of the most skilled scoring centers in the league with his post game, midrange game and outside shooting. Their team beyond that is not so hot but that is a lot to work with.

Sixers -- I was less high on the Sixers at first but on 2nd thought I may have undersold George Hill and Seth Curry as off ball scoring threats. George Hill was good running off screens early in his career in San Antonio. Seth Curry can do some of that as well. I think those two guys can bring some catch and shoot offense running off of picks with one of them or Ben Simmons controlling the offense from the top of the key (thinking of 00s Pistons with Rip & Chauncey running off of picks while Tayshaun ran the offense). Before them of course you have Tobias Harris who has versatile scoring and isolation capabilities. Ben Simmons is a bit weaker but he can move into the post when Embiid rests and Embiid is the most unstoppable interior force in the league. Those guys are more straight forward but it is George Hill and Seth Curry that I believe have more upside than I originally thought.

Good points. I had forgotten a) Drummond signing with LA (didn't take long!), b) how good Brook Lopez was back in Brooklyn and c) that George Hill can score inside the arc, when healthy.

It makes you think (or at least it makes me think) how today's game makes players appear more one dimensional / less versatile offensively than they actually are.

That it makes them stand around at the three point line and stops them showing their other skills. That there is more talent there on these teams than we are getting to see because of the way rules now are.

It definitely does. It's also got a bit of melancholy attached to it. I miss the versatility of offences of a decade ago. Seeing the mid-range being practiced by like, 5 guys, and relied upon almost only by DeRozan is sad. Seeing post-play wither away for key-or-three offences is sad too. Hmm...

[tazzmaniac]

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.

Not a good idea.  You'd have to increase foul shots awarded to 3 and 4 to keep pace. 

[SHAQATTACK]

Thing is LaKers always get the best center ....no matter what the current fad is .....curry ball, small ball, wing ball,  ...doesn’t matter Lakers always go first for the dominating best bigs . Always ....so they can dominate that style no matter what else happpens .

Lakers would love to go back 30 years to big man ball ,  today they get the best big one way or another every year ,  when one leaves they steal a nobody teams top center and start over .