Bouncy Thoughts: Are Deep Threes Good or Bad?

The deeper the better?

We all know the best deep three pointer currently dominating the NBA. Stephen Curry's been renowned for his exceptional quick release way beyond the arc.

But for those who play and view basketball the technical and old school way, how would deep threes appeal to their perspective.

It would be bad. In fact it is terrible.

Taking a three point shot has a nature of a low percentage success given its proximity to the rim. Of course the further the target the harder it is to hit. But nowadays, more and more players are taking threes even longer than usual. Maybe another two to three feet from the three point arc that it's almost the half court distance. Why is it bad? Of course making that shot would have an even lower percentage than the typical three point shot. The goal of the technical minds is to find and make the easiest shot available, which obviously is not in agreement on the deep three point.

Deep three point shooters do not need team plays. In fact, the job to hit that shot is an individual effort. An isolation play may not even be necessary. All the shooter needs to do is to create space and take the shot at the most extended range.

If it is terrible, why is it the trend?

Remember, it's a bad decision to take an extra long trey relative to typical basketball but sometimes teams have to think out of the box to outwit the opponent. And we cannot deny that some players who can easily make such tough shots exists. It is bad if it would be a forced shot but it would be a killer weapon if the shot can be made as natural as possible.

Stephen Curry in the NBA and the mighty mouse Jimmy Alapag are the concrete evidences that taking these jaw dropping shots are possible.

It's not as though all players have the same range.

Well, who knows someday the basketball rules would adjust through extending the three point arc further in order to challenge those shooters with an extreme degree of accuracy.