The DeAnd'Rankings: Season 2, Volume VI

What a time for the NBA. All-Star selections, All-Star snubs, All-Star games amid a pandemic - high drama for a league that is as much about off-court drama as it is about on-court product. But let's take a moment and consider this week's rant topic: The 3-pointer.

The 3-pointer has been something of a hot-button issue over the last 5-8 years in the NBA. Has it ruined the game? Are teams taking too many of them? Are all teams basically playing the same style? Should they add a 4-point line? Is there any place for variety in the NBA or are we soon going to see 70% of shots taken from beyond the arc?

Some of these are fair questions, some are stupid. The "problem" surrounding the 3-pointer is that it's worth more points and thus it's more valuable, therefore teams are going to take more of them. That's it. There is literally nothing else to it. So how do we solve this "problem?" Adding a 4-point line is not gonna do it, because then the math shifts even further away from ever taking a 2-point field goal. It's all a math problem: since the value difference of a 3-pointer over a 2 is 50%, teams only need to make 1/3 of their 3-pointers to see the same value as 50% of their 2-pointers. The 33% seems easier, so teams take more of those. That's it. Adding a 4-point line would simply mean that teams would only have to shoot 25% beyond that line to get the same value as 50% from 2-pointers. Moving the 3-point line back is also not a great option because it simply leaves more dead space that offenses will avoid - there's no sense taking a 24' shot worth 2 points unless you're certain you can hit 50% of them. 

The answer, as it turns out, is really simple: If you want to lessen the difference between a 2 and 3-point shot, then the numbers have to change. Adding a 4-point line is wrong, unless we simply convert the current 3-point line to 4, and turn 2s into 3s. 

Yes, that sounds radical, but there are surprisingly few kinks to work out here. Here are the main points.

1) What about scoring records?

It's a relatively easy adjustment because we can simply convert the number of field goals a player made by adding 1 point to every field goal made, and voila! New scoring marks. For record-keeping purposes, we would certainly have the original number and the adjusted number.

2) What about free throws?

Free throws would be a tricky wrinkle, but I kind of like the idea of keeping them at 2 and 3 shots rather than upping them to 3 and 4, though that's purely my preference for not slowing down the game further. Referreeing is a mess either way, so that's the larger issue in this case.

3) Would this help anything?

Yes. By shrinking the value difference between the shot types, the court-math changes. Instead of needing to only shoot 33.3% from outside the arc to beat 50% from inside the arc, now a team needs to shoot 37.5% from outside the arc (making 50% of 100 inside-the-arc shots becomes 150 points, and at 4 points per shot, making 37.5% is 150 points). Now you're looking at a game where the sharp-shooters are the ones taking the long shots and the inside-the-arc game opens back up. A guy who shoots 45% on long-twos (currently) has a much higher value than he does in today's NBA, and it allows teams to totally change their play style - effectively bringing variety back to the league.

4) Are you sure you're not an idiot?

No. Of course not. But that has nothing to do with this. 

5) Any other benefits?

Massively increased scoring, for one? The league wants to see highlights, right? If a game is 178-165, that's more interesting, right? Guys are gonna score 75 points from time to time. While that's obviously not the same as when it was 2s and 3s (or just 2s), it's fun to think about from a "wow, did you see that?" standpoint, and that's what the league wants and needs.

So there you go. That's my take. I've been beating this drum for years, and I still stand by it as the only way to "fix" the "problem" of 3-pointers. Also, I don't think 3s are a problem, so there's that.

Moving on.

THE DEAND'RANKINGS: SEASON 2, VOLUME VI

4) De'Andre Hunter

He's injured. It's a bummer.

3) DeAndre' Bembry

The Committee quietly speculated that Bembry could be moving up this list due to his sudden large increase in minutes, but the production hasn't come. He's a solid defender, often having to defend the opponent's 1st or 2nd best wing player, which is hugely important, but DeAndre' averaged 24 minutes per night over a 10 game stretch and managed double digit scoring just once. He put up 6 points, 3 rebounds, and less than 1 steal+block over that stretch. He's improving, for sure, but he's not there yet.

2) DeAndre Jordan

Boy, this was a lot closer than the Committee expected. Granted DJ is playing alongside 2 of the best offensive players in the league, so his offensive impact will dip, he's still getting things done: Back to back 4 block games, multiple double-digit rebound games, and Brooklyn won 9 games in a row before Saturday night. For a guy who everyone knew was totally washed coming into this season, DeAndre Jordan has sure not looked all that washed.

1) Deandre Ayton

Again, it was tight here in volume VI. For as good as Brooklyn has been, Phoenix is right there with them, having won 10 of their last 12. And while Ayton is something like a tertiary option offensively, he's still playing a major role in the Suns' success. He's averaged 16 and 9 over Phoenix's last six games, adding almost 2 blocks per contest as well. It's been quite a transformation for the #1 pick from a few years back, but he's really accepting his role and the Suns are really good. 

2020-2021 SEASON STANDINGS

4. DeAndre' Bembry - 9 points
3. De'Andre Hunter - 12 points
2. DeAndre Jordan - 16 points
1. Deandre Ayton - 22 points