Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Melancer46, post: 3185126, member: 1674"]
Fascinating article for The Athletic subscribers:
[URL unfurl="true"]https://theathletic.com/1360529/2019/11/20/hollinger-the-three-shot-foul-is-a-bad-rule-badly-enforced-with-bad-side-effects-it-needs-to-go/[/URL]

TLDR:

Hollinger proposes that the NBA gives two free throws to shooters that are fouled on a 3 point attempt for the first 46 minutes of the game. The last two minutes of the game, when the rules change in a lot of other areas, shooters can start getting 3 free throws to avoid incentivizing intentional fouls. The reasons for this:

1. A 3 point foul is four times more valuable than a regular 3 point shot, while a 2 point foul is basically worth the same amount as a regular 2 point shot. A 3 point foul's expected points added is actually greater than that of a flagrant foul (where the shooter gets two shots and possession of the ball to potentially score again).

2. The fact that a 3 point foul is so insanely valuable inspires shooters to attempt shots they would never otherwise attempt.

3. The 3 point foul, coupled with the league's emphasis on protecting shooters, has led to shooters risking injury on jumpers more than it ever was back when defenders would sometimes slide under the shooter's feet.

4. Due to where refs are trained to stand, they aren't able to be in position to identify shooters that are sticking their legs out on shots, so refs get the call wrong most of the time to begin with.

5. The 3 point foul incentivizes all teams to play basically the same way, chucking up 3's every possession. Reducing it a 2 point foul would create a higher likelihood of the return of the mid-range jumper for example.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?