Many basketball experts, from writers to commentators to coaches to players, agree that the three-point shot has impacted other realms of the game to the extent that winners in the modern game are most often the clubs that can shoot the highest percentage of three-point attempts.
The NBA has at various times experimented with changes to the playing courts, but the three-point line has stayed where it is, despite the crop of players for whom the shot is a casual thing, hardly more of a challenge than a free throw. The NBA had a three-year trial during the 1990s where the line was moved in, but that was considered a failed experiment.
Watching players such as Stephen Curry and James Harden make the 25-foot distance to score a three with a simple flick of the wrists supplies ample proof.
When the NCAA first added the three-point line to courts, it was right at the top of the key. It was so easy they moved it back.
San Antonio Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich voiced his opinion back in November when he said, “There’s no basketball anymore, there’s no beauty in it. Now you look at a stat sheet after a game and the first thing you look at is the 3s. If you made 3s and the other team didn’t, you win.”
ESPN sports writer Kirk Goldsberry had some ideas on how to reduce the preponderance of three-point shots.
The most radical and maybe the most interesting is his idea of letting individual NBA clubs make the decision of where the three-point line is drawn on the court, which in a sense would make basketball more like baseball, soccer or AFL, where clubs build their rosters to gain an advantage when holding home ground.
Teams such as Golden State and Houston could move their three-point lines further in order to challenge visitors, while teams with dominant big men could eliminate the three-point line completely, forcing opponents to take on shot blockers, as there would be no incentive to take shots that tallied two points, regardless of the distance from which those shots were taken.