POLL: 3-point line

[London]

In FBPB3 we can turn stuff on and off. One of those things is the 3-pt line.

It's something that can be turned back on later but for the early seasons I thought it might be fun to discuss.

It can be different between the two conferences like the DH rule (maybe even split between divisions).

Might be fun to invite that sharpshooting team to your floor. One division ends up all about bruising inside play...

[Dave]

I voted yes, but how would something being conference specific work. Does the program know that the 3pt line is only used in certain arenas?

[Detroit]

I'd really love for 3-pt shooting to be in the game. It would allow for consistent and superior analyzing and comparing of past & current players. If the 3pt shot is on (for some conferences only), how can we properly assess whether a guy can hit the 3 or not when making a trade? If the 3pt shot is off for a couple decades, how can we cross-generationally compare players?

I vote keep 3pt shot in from the start (regardless of the fact that league starts in 60's). An efficient shot that allows for you to get a true perspective of how valuable guards are.

[London]

Apr 2, 2013 18:42:27 GMT -6 Dave said:

I voted yes, but how would something being conference specific work. Does the program know that the 3pt line is only used in certain arenas?

Yes.

[Tyler]

I voted yes. KK brings up a good point in the fact you'd want all the players of the past to be on a level playing field. The 3-point line is necessary IMO.

[craig]

I said yes, it would be one thing if the league was trying to be historical, but it is a fantasty concept, so I don't see the point.

[London]

Comparing eras isn't such a huge deal to me since most players will be playing against each other. We aren't talking about 70 years of leagues were simming (at least not yet).

If we get that far the "3-point line rule" would've either been already long gone (thus giving us multiple incarnations of the same player who haven't had it) or such a smashing success that it defines the league.

[I'm kind of playing devil's advocate in this post but honestly the "era comparing" arguments do very little for me.]

[Jay]

Dejan Bodiroga wasn't much of a 3 point shooter so it doesn't matter to me.

[Detroit]

Apr 3, 2013 7:03:42 GMT -6 London said:

Comparing eras isn't such a huge deal to me since most players will be playing against each other. We aren't talking about 70 years of leagues were simming (at least not yet).

If we get that far the "3-point line rule" would've either been already long gone (thus giving us multiple incarnations of the same player who haven't had it) or such a smashing success that it defines the league.

[I'm kind of playing devil's advocate in this post but honestly the "era comparing" arguments do very little for me.]

I get your point, brah, but what happens when someone writes and article and basically claims one player is greater than another simply because he averages 2ppg more throughout his career, which funnily enough is due to being able to hit ~2 3s per game. 

Think about it in real-life terms:  Kobetards claim Kobe to be the greatest scorer of all time (forreal!  check out insidehoops, realgm, spurstalk, etc. to see their fanaticism on full display) because 'he can hit every shot' and dismiss Jordan>Kobe in terms of scoring because 'Jordan couldn't hit the 3'. 

If we decide to make 3pt shot historially relevant, meaning it follows the same timeline as real-life (implemented years after initial league creation), then let's turn off the 3pt shot for good.  No point of tweaking the sets of rules because at some point, they'll screw a potential dynasty (such as one consisting of purely dominant inside scorers) who'll have to tweak on the fly. 

As for the conference/division rule settings, lol...talk about unfair advantage to a conference/some divisions.  Come playoff time, how do we determine whether the 3pt line will be in effect in Finals?  Better team record -- which could be influenced by one conference having a downfall and the team being like the modern Heat with zero competition -- possibly screwing the superior team simply because they had a tougher conference? 

Imagine this scenario:  American division conference winner has a potential dynasty on his/her hands.  Stacked with great talent at all positions.  Solid inside play, defenders, and 3pt shooters with a great guard (Nash-like).  Obviously, they should be the heavy favorites.  However, they only went 58-24 due to such a tremendous conference beating each other down.  Eurasian conference winner went 66-16 because the whole conference sucked and he/she took advantage during the down year.  Team consists of purely inside scorers (great inside player, non-shooting wings and guards) who scored 50-60% of points inside paint.  Well, since they had the better record (and they conference had no 3pt shot), all of a sudden every advantage American winner had goes out the window.

No thanks.

P.S.  I'm OK with either option, I suppose, but I would *prefer* to have a 3pt shot throughout.  Makes the TS% and eFG% much more life-like.

[Bayi]

That was a really long argument in favor of something that nearly everyone wants.

I feel like voting against the 3-point line just to be a troll. But I won't, because chicks dig the long ball or something.

[London]

Apr 3, 2013 10:30:43 GMT -6 Detroit said:

Apr 3, 2013 7:03:42 GMT -6 London said:

Comparing eras isn't such a huge deal to me since most players will be playing against each other. We aren't talking about 70 years of leagues were simming (at least not yet).

If we get that far the "3-point line rule" would've either been already long gone (thus giving us multiple incarnations of the same player who haven't had it) or such a smashing success that it defines the league.

[I'm kind of playing devil's advocate in this post but honestly the "era comparing" arguments do very little for me.]

I get your point, brah, but what happens when someone writes and article and basically claims one player is greater than another simply because he averages 2ppg more throughout his career, which funnily enough is due to being able to hit ~2 3s per game. 

Think about it in real-life terms:  Kobetards claim Kobe to be the greatest scorer of all time (forreal!  check out insidehoops, realgm, spurstalk, etc. to see their fanaticism on full display) because 'he can hit every shot' and dismiss Jordan>Kobe in terms of scoring because 'Jordan couldn't hit the 3'. 

If we decide to make 3pt shot historially relevant, meaning it follows the same timeline as real-life (implemented years after initial league creation), then let's turn off the 3pt shot for good.  No point of tweaking the sets of rules because at some point, they'll screw a potential dynasty (such as one consisting of purely dominant inside scorers) who'll have to tweak on the fly. 

As for the conference/division rule settings, lol...talk about unfair advantage to a conference/some divisions.  Come playoff time, how do we determine whether the 3pt line will be in effect in Finals?  Better team record -- which could be influenced by one conference having a downfall and the team being like the modern Heat with zero competition -- possibly screwing the superior team simply because they had a tougher conference? 

Imagine this scenario:  American division conference winner has a potential dynasty on his/her hands.  Stacked with great talent at all positions.  Solid inside play, defenders, and 3pt shooters with a great guard (Nash-like).  Obviously, they should be the heavy favorites.  However, they only went 58-24 due to such a tremendous conference beating each other down.  Eurasian conference winner went 66-16 because the whole conference sucked and he/she took advantage during the down year.  Team consists of purely inside scorers (great inside player, non-shooting wings and guards) who scored 50-60% of points inside paint.  Well, since they had the better record (and they conference had no 3pt shot), all of a sudden every advantage American winner had goes out the window.

No thanks.

P.S.  I'm OK with either option, I suppose, but I would *prefer* to have a 3pt shot throughout.  Makes the TS% and eFG% much more life-like.

First, too long - skimmed it.

Second, I don't care about "who was the better player" arguments that MIGHT come down to 3pt%. If it's that tight just make a better argument or just agree that both guys were good.

Third, I don't care about your hypothetical scenario of a super conference - welcome to ABCA. There are often junior conferences (like the Americas in Legends) that send some undeserving team to the finals while the other team had to fight through a real tough play-off run. It happens and it's not because there was/wasn't a 3pt line.

Fourth, the game automatically set the rule as Home/Away. Home team gets the rules. If you won more games you get more games played your way - just like MLB did before they ruined it with the ASG deciding home field. It's not about having it on or off for an ENTIRE series.

If you have championship aspirations you're going to need to be prepared. Just because you don't have a 3pt line doesn't mean you shouldn't plan to try and space the floor or, you know, prepare for the fact that you'll play ~15-20% of your games in another conference's building.

Anyway - I voted against it so I don't know why I care.

I guess I just don't find these arguments compelling.

[Derek]

I love the idea of a MLB like league here but I think I am the only American GM who does!

[San Antonio]

I voted yes, but it doesn't matter to me either way.

[Dave]

The more I think about it, the more it sounds like it could be an interesting concept.

[craig]

It would have some interesting effects on the league. I could see it changing the way the trade market would be, maybe more of a stress on post players. Plus, there would probably be less outside based teams. Saying that, I'd rather keep the status quo.

[Berlin]

I voted no mainly to be a contrarian, but also because I think it is an interesting concept to start. The NBA didn't pick up the 3 pointer till the 79-80 season, and FIBA didn't pick it up until 84. Why not start without it and introduce it later?

[john rockwell]

I voted yes and I think that it should be a part of the game.

[Chipper]

I've had bad experiences with leagues starting off without the 3 point line and then being turned on later. Screws with ratings in like TC and such. I understand it's a new game and all, but still, the stigma is there.

[Drew]

I'm definitely for the 3-point line for both leagues. If we don't have it, then that should be a league wide thing.

[Tel Aviv]

Yea I think the rule should be the same for both conferences. I wouldnt be against starting off without the 3pt line and introducing it later as thats what happened in real life. But saying that I think leaving it in would be the better way to go.