The 3 point shot first started in basketball during the ABA days when some genius came up with idea that a shot beyond a certain distance should count as 1.5 times more than a normal field goal. Eventually, the NBA adopted this rule in the mid 1980’s and the colleges and high schools followed shortly after. But is this rule a good or bad idea?
Personally, I don’t really care much for the rule and never have. First of all, it is a somewhat difficult shot to make even when wide open. The whole object of any offense is should be to get a good high percentage shot. When an average player probably only makes about 35 percent from beyond the line and I am being generous with that stat, how can that be a good shot? Any shot closer in has a much better chance of going in than some long-range missile. Some teams base their entire offense around making shots beyond the arc which is fine but to have a consistent more effective offense, you need more shots in the paint area.
Another beef I have with the shot is the point value. A guy can make a tough fall away jumper in the lane and only get 2 points while some guy makes a long 22 footer uncontested and get 3 points. Why should certain shots get a 1.5 times more value than other more difficult shots? Every field goal should be worth the same amount.
The 3 point shot has certainly changed the way the game is being played. It is becoming more of a guard orientated game than ever and big men are being forced to play more on the perimeter. But do you want a 6’11” guy jacking up threes during a game when he has a several inch height advantage on players inside? Sadly that is happening in today’s game.
I get all those arguments for the 3 point shot. It does help a team come back quicker from a deficit and helps to a certain degree, spread out the offense and opens up the game. But is it really a good thing for the game and the way it is being played? I have my doubts.