OT - Should the NBA add a 4-pointer?

Submitted by Cold War on

Rod Thorn, NBA president of basketball operations, didn't balk at the idea.

During a sit-down TrueHoop TV interview with our own Henry Abbott, Thorn was asked about the chances that a 4-pointer -- as outlandish as it may seem -- could be brought to the NBA at some point. In a Per Diem column last month, I advocated for the introduction of a 4-point line 28 feet away from the basket.

Turns out, Thorn didn't think the advent of a 4-pointer would be outlandish at all. Rather than reflexively squash the radical idea, as you might expect from a 72-year-old NBA lifer who has worn just about every hat in the league, Thorn seemed genuinely intrigued at the notion and revealed that the 4-pointer has "come up" in league discussions...

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10515372/jamal-crawford-the-nba-top-4-point-shooters-nba

 

MGoBoard

Space Coyote

February 25th, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^

Behind the half court line, but only allow it with less than like 24 seconds to go in the game, or maybe even less than 10 seconds to go in the game. The NBA doesn't need people just jacking up 4-point shots from way down town, it would suck. But rather than the quick 2-pt and foul strategy, a 4-point shot at the end may end games with more game time and less time at the free throw line.

Also, I've always thought a made 3-pt shot and the foul should be "and 2", as in you get 2 free throws. I have no idea why, but when I was a kid and played imaginary basketball by myself, that was a tweek in the rulebook.

Joined: 06/18/2009

MGoPoints: 38962

LordGrantham

February 25th, 2014 at 4:17 PM ^

I think we should add a Quidditch flair.  If you can make a golden softball from the bleachers, you get 50 points and the game ends immediately.

Joined: 01/01/2014

MGoPoints: 15404

JamieH

February 25th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^

I'm not a big Harry Potter fan, but why in Quiddich didn't EVERYONE just chance the damn flying thing that scored you 10 billion points and ended the game?  Scoring goals 1 point at a time was useless because the other team would be ahead 75-0 and then Harry Potter would catch the snitch or whatever it was and then his team just wins.   So why didn't EVERYONE just chase the snitch?

Never understood it.

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

JamieH

February 25th, 2014 at 4:49 PM ^

you wouldn't chase it until it came out would you?  Granted I should have about as much interest in the strategy of imaginary fake sports as I do in cleaning toilets, but why would everyone just drop everything as soon as the snitch appears and just chase that?  Was it supposed to so hard to catch that in general it usually remained uncaught?   In the movies someone ALWAYS seemed to catch it, rendering the rest of the game entirely meaningless.  They might as well have named the game "Catch The Snitch, and oh yeah some people are over there wasting their time doing something else."

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

JamieH

February 25th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^

It just made me realize the author of the books is pretty much clueless about sports, and IMO it makes all her characters seem pretty dumb for going along with it.   I'm not too worried about Quidditch becoming a national passtime anytime soon.

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

gbdub

February 25th, 2014 at 5:56 PM ^

Seems more like a lazy way to make Harry the hero. Which, incidentally, is why I could never really get into the books. Too many rules made up on the spot, then later rejected, for the benefit of the protagonist. It's hard to have a relatable "hero's journey" when the hero gets every advantage at the start. Also, all the adults were unbelievably stupid and Dumbledore should have just used the damn time turner to fix everything.

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26719

JamieH

February 26th, 2014 at 12:17 AM ^

She wanted to come up with a way for Harry to be terrible at sports in general, yet still be the team hero by having one silly skill that no one else seemed to have.  So she invented a sport where all of the actions in the game are essentially meaningless except for the solitary actions of the team nerd. 

It would be like playing football where a 55-yard FG was worth 200 points and immediately ended the game. 

Mind you, I have nothing against nerds--I mean I work in computer programming.  But the whole thing was pretty contrived.

 

 

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

Mr. Yost

February 25th, 2014 at 4:17 PM ^

I know we can joke, but I wouldn't be made if 4 points were given to any shot on the "other" side of halfcourt. 28 feet is ridiculous. Burke would've won, not tied the game (in regulation) vs. KU last year. 28 feet is not even that hard. Halfcourt is impressive because while it's actually not that tough of a shot, no one is going to take it and the only time you CAN take it is before you cross the halfcourt line. Which is why I say no...because that means really the only time you're going to see a 4 pointer is at the end of a quarter, half or game. 3 point leads shouldn't be lost on a fluky hailmary or desperation shot. Also, you'd take away the shot because if you're up 3 and there is a 4 pointer from behind halfcourt...you HAVE to foul. Give up the 2 FTs and keep your lead. So now you're taking away the long heaves to win/tie games because it just becomes a hackfest at the end of the game. SEE! Told you I've thought about it.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

LMV

February 25th, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^

"3pt leads shouldn't be lost on a fluky hailmary or desperation shot."

I think this is the type of idea they would be trying to break. You're only basing this opinion on years of basketball watching, but really it's totally arbitrary. 3pt leads are only important because of the 2pt and 3pt shots. If a 4pt shot were to become part of the game, we would shift our attitudes to protect a 4pt lead. 

Joined: 03/05/2009

MGoPoints: 492

Mr. Yost

February 25th, 2014 at 4:54 PM ^

Because it's easy to protect a 4pt lead. Just foul. Who cares if they get 2 points...which is a lot easier to say even for a bad FT shooting team than it is if you're up 3. You "way of thinking" only works if you say "any foul committed when you're up 4 results in 3 FTs." You're talking about a 1 point difference vs. a 2 point difference. That's HUGE in strategy. Now there isn't any thought about "do you foul and only let them have 2 points or do you play it out and guard the 3?" It would be INSANE not to foul right away. So basically you're up 4 and you're going to foul me so I only get 2 shots, then I'm going to foul you to stop the clock and pray you miss. That sucks. It's not basketball. And it sucks. You've also now taken away all end-of-game halfcourt and hailmary shots for games that are 4 points or fewer. The only time you'd ever see one is if a team is up 5+ and they can live with a 4-pointer from halfcourt...but if you're down 5, are you really going to take a halfcourt or 3/4 court shot? You miss it and it's ballgame. You go get a good look and hit a 3 like we have now and you're still very much in the game. I may not be articulating it the right way, but trust me. It doesn't work. As much as I hate thinking "why does a shot 25' score the same as one 75'" it just doesn't work.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

woomba

February 25th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^

A panel of 5 judges to grade each score and give them the ability to award additional points based on on each component like proper vertical take off and rotations prior to dunking.

Joined: 10/19/2011

MGoPoints: 713