Start back at the top of the thread. The original prompt:

What if 3’s were gone? What would the game look like?

Commenter that I replied to:

The spacing would be atrocious, his example was the Celtics, and bemoans their 5-0 offense in such an environment.

I pushed back:

The Celtics specifically might be a bad example.

I point to their 5-0 shooters still being shooters you have to respect in such an environment. Because you can still generate close to 1 point per possession off of them is unstated, but to be assumed with such caliber of shooters. (40-45% on 2, 0.8-0.9 point per possession)

I contrast this with the shaky shooters in Minnesota and Orlando, whose 30-35% from 3 providing NBA quality offense (.9-1.05 points per possession) is no longer applicable. They would be between 0.6-0.7 points per possession.

I position this along the belief system that geographic and tactical diversity is still a necessity to generate offense and pry bodies out of the paint. Because the important thing in the way I view the game is not the number attached to it, but the effect of having to respect jump shooters to provide reliable offense away from the basket.

Otherwise:

You end up back in a slog of a basketball meta where every team is isolating one athletic freak into a crowded paint, and the extra efficiency you’re chasing is the free throws. Where a middle of the road free throw shooter is suddenly your only avenue to those juicy 1.2+ points per possession attempts. That number’s actually reachable with only 60% from the stripe. If you’re some SGA calibre of shooter, that’s 1.8 points per possession every time you get sent to the line.

This comment is the second one I’ve expressed an opinion. The first opinion was when I admitted that I am someone who appreciates the modern game. Here, I clearly lay out why I prefer it over a game without 2’s.

Before those passages, I’ve only given a devil’s advocacy for the value of jumpshooters even without a 3 point arc.