More Related Content
What's hot (6)
Viewers also liked (18)
Similar to Three Pointers- Flaw to the Game? (14)
Three Pointers- Flaw to the Game?
- 1. Three Pointers: Flaw to the Game? Is it time for another change? A look at the proliferationof three point shooting and how it may be hurting, not helping, the NBA. By Jared Bergknoff Is it time for another change? The evolution of the National Basketball Association (NBA) has incorporated changes that, for the betterment of the game and its entertainment value, made the sport what it is today. However, after years of embracing those changes is something like the three-point line still necessary? Of the adjustments made, the creation of the 24-second shot-clock allowed for the game to constantly move avoiding the results similar to the November 22, 1950 contest between the Fort Wayne Pistons and the Minnesota Lakers whose final score was a whopping 19-18. Having no shot clock in that era, teams would simply strategize that once they had a lead, not shooting was the best way to win. The opposing team wouldn¡¯t be able to possess the ball and the game would eventual end. The shot clock removed this strategy and in turn created a fast pace run- and-gun sport. After the shot-clock was introduced, basketball-reference.com lists that team scoring averages rose from 80 points per game (PPG) in 1950 to a consistent 110 PPG and above throughout the entirety of the 1960s. From 1957 to 1970, NBA teams also averaged 100 field goals attempts (FGA) per game. Clearly this adjustment caused a scoring influx and allowed the game to take a large leap into what is enjoyed today. In the 1967-1968 season, George Mikan, commissioner of the competing American Basketball Association (ABA), introduced the three-pointer in the hopes that ¡°smaller players could compete while helping to space the floor against defenses¡±. Additionally, the league used the popularity of the three-point shot, as well as the slam dunk, to draw marketing attention to their league and create more of a spectacle during the all-star game. Unfortunately, financial troubles stuck the ABA and an eventual merger transpired in 1976 as the ABA could no longer compete with the television contracts and revenues enjoyed by the NBA. Finally, in the 1979- 1980 season, after years of success in the ABA and at the collegiate level, the NBA adopted the three-point line. Upon it¡¯s inception, NBA teams shot an average of 2.8 three-pointers per game, making an average of 0.8, as they continued their strategies of shooting the ball close to the basket. The percentages were low, 28% made, and teams didn¡¯t want to risk points by taking the less effective long distance shot. Even with its placement in the game, scoring averages stayed well over 100 PPG for the next 15 years. In the 1995-96 season, a surge of the three-point shot ran rampant as teams were now averaging 16 attempts, making 5.8 a 36.7% completion percentage. The three-point shot emerged as a viable play to the game as its consistency had risen to be as commonplace as the free throw, slam dunk, and alley-oop. However, the NBA saw a dip in scoring and for the first year since 1957, NBA teams did not average 100 points scored per game. Over the next 20 years, including this current season, there have been only 5 seasons to which the NBA as a whole have eclipsed 100 PPG. With the proliferation of the three-point shot, 75%
- 2. of NBA seasons have seen scoring totals lower than that of seasons without the three-point shot. Is the three-point shot still necessary? The concept by which it was created was to offer smaller players the opportunity to score and be valued without the need for them to penetrate the lane and take hard hits from larger players. However, what happens when larger players become just as successful at shooting the longer- ranged shot or better yet what happens when the three-point shot becomes consistently made that it no longer embodies the spectacle that it once was? Of the top shooters this year in percentage of made three-pointers, there are several notable big-men that make over 40% of their shots. All-stars Kevin Durant, 6 feet 11 inches tall, and Dirk Nowitzki, 7 feet tall, are among those big-men that are shooting well above the league averages. Durant makes 43.7% of his shots from beyond the arc and Nowitzki makes 43.5%. Even lesser known players like Phoenix¡¯s Mirza Teletovic, 6 feet 9 inches, makes 44.3% of his three-pointers, while Orlando¡¯s Channing Frye, 6 feet 11 inches, makes 43.1% of his. The skill behind the three-point shot is no longer reserved for that of the smaller players and, in turn, has actually slowed the game and caused less scoring on the average. However, there is one player currently that has made the three-pointer so commonplace that it is a spectacle to watch. Stephen Curry has become the NBA¡¯s premier shooter and has done so with a smile and flair. He, along with the Golden State Warriors, has concluded that scoring based on shooting high percentage shots has been the easiest way to consistently defeat each team they have faced this year. But contrary to popular belief, high percentage shots aren¡¯t always those taken right under the basket. For Stephen Curry, the three-pointer is a high percentage shot as he currently makes 47.2%. And although he¡¯s currently the fourth highest in percentage of made three-point shots, he¡¯s well on his way to enter the record books once more. In the 2015 season he broke his own record of made three-pointers, shooting 646 shots and setting the single season record making 286. Baring an injury and hoping he plays all 82 games, he is currently on pace to shoot 902 three-pointers and potentially making 472 of those shots. In fact, his percentage at making three-pointers is so incredible only 35 of the leagues 360 active players have a total field goal percentage, the percent of all shots taken, higher than his three-point shooting ability. His effectiveness isn¡¯t just that of a spot-up shooter either. As a point guard, he facilitates the ball and involves other players in plays. The Golden State Warriors pass and rotate the ball efficiently allowing their players to get open; however, it¡¯s Stephen Curry¡¯s ability to dribble around players, drive the lane, and pop-out beyond the three- point line that allows him to confound his defenders as he sets-up and shoots his high-arcing shot that splashes down with the sounds of a roaring crowd behind him. Fellow teammates, Klay Thompson and Andre Iguodala also shoot high percentage three-pointers, Iguodala at 44.1% and Thompson at 42%, that allow the Warriors to truly decimate opposing teams. Stephen Curry¡¯s pure speed allows him to get set in any position and with a shot release time of 0.3 seconds, as mentioned through Sports Science¡¯s report, he is able to release the ball before a defending player can react to block his shot. With his speed he also shoots the ball nearly one foot higher, 16 feet at the apex of its arc, than the average player which allows his shot to find the net more often as its trajectory affords him a better chance of success. With all this success of big-men and pure shooters, is it truly necessary that this shot of mere distance be worth one more point than that of any other?
- 3. Additionally, the three-point shot isn¡¯t equivalent throughout its distance across the entirety of the court. With a minimum distance required in the corners of the court, the standard 23 foot 9 inch three-pointer is actually only 22 feet. Without the benefit of an angle against the backboard, its difficulty has been thought of as its only reason to exist but it doesn¡¯t comply with the minimum distance requirements. The three-pointer is a contradiction, yet its just accepted as a part of the game. There was a time when a foul was always a one-and-one situation, requiring players to make the first shot before being able to take a second. Yet that rule changed to allow shooting fouls to get two automatic shots which helped to create the Hack-a- Shaq play now utilized against players with poor foul shooting ability. In doing so, the league has made adjustments to intentional fouls as the Hack-a-Shaq caused an extreme hold-up in the flow of the game and caused a downturn in the NBAs entertainment value. As changes to the rules can be made to benefit the game, perhaps it¡¯s time to reevaluate the three-point shot as well. What¡¯s so wrong with returning to a game where all shots are worth two points? As stated earlier, the 24-second shot clock was created to increase the rate of play. But the notion of 24 seconds seems arbitrary as a random number. As the game has 48 minutes, 2880 seconds, the shot clock was a way to ensure that the game had at least 100 possessions between both teams. However, since the three-pointer was brought to the NBA the league hasn¡¯t averaged 100 possessions per game since the 1988-1989 season. Some may argue that defenses have gotten better. However, there is only one aspect that this can be agreed upon. At the height of the NBA scoring in the 1980s, when offensive rebounds were calculated, teams averaged nearly 33% of controlling offensive rebounds per game. In this current season, teams average a meager 23.8% of potential offensive rebounds. Could this be because longer shots have a longer rebound radius and the three-pointer prevents teams from continuing possessions? Rebounds aren¡¯t the sole indication that defenses across the league are better. In 1984, NBA teams scored 110 PPG, each game had 101.4 possessions per game, teams had an offensive rebounding percentage of 33%, and each team took a diminutive 2.8 three-point shots, but most interesting is that the turnover rate was 15.0% of possessions. That said, 15% of all possessions ended in a turnover. With today¡¯s increased focus on defense, the current turnover rate is 13.8% (down 8% from 1984). So even though more rebounds go to defenses, more offensive possessions are resulting in shots being taken. However, as stated before shots taken doesn¡¯t always result in points scored as indicated by the lower average score per game. The NBA, and basketball in general, was to be a high scoring, fast-paced sport that kept the entertainment value constantly moving through heavy amounts of adrenaline. As the 2015- 2016 season presses on, we can compare the current results to that of 1984 and see that basketball just isn¡¯t keeping to the hype and results previously enjoyed. As of December 7, 2015, NBA teams score exactly 100 PPG (down 9%), each game has 96.4 possessions per game (down 5%), team offensive rebounding percentage is 23.8% (down 28%), teams take 23.8 three-point shots (up 750%), and teams turn the ball over 13.8% of the time (down 8%). What these stats prove is that all aspects of the game are on a continual downward trend except that of three-point shooting attempts. The aberration of Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and the success of the Golden State Warriors allows fans of the San Francisco Bay area to revel in the spectacle that are ¡°The Splash Brother¡±, but it only proves that to increase competition, maintain the excitement of the slam dunk, and allow bigger players to remain an important part of the game, the NBA needs to reevaluate the three-point shot to either remove it or completely overhaul its effect on the
- 4. downward, lower-scoring, spiral that the sport has taken. If the league chooses not to act, the three-point shot could take over as the primary method of attempted scoring as fans idly watch wondering what ever happened to defending the post and miss the feeling of rising to their feet through the power of the slam dunk.