
The rise of dunking and the three-point shot - samsolomon
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/yin-yang-basketball/
======
pcprincipal
Anyone watch the game last night? The Cavs attempted 45 three pointers
([http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400954513](http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400954513)).
For reference, the most 3s ever attempted in an NBA game is 61
([http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/let-it-fly-rockets-set-
nba...](http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/let-it-fly-rockets-set-nba-record-
for-made-attempted-3-pointers/)). Both were set this season. We are living in
an absolutely insane time for basketball. Expect both records will be eclipsed
next year.

~~~
clairity
yes, it was an amazing game! the cavs finally showed up. the warriors are so
good (at 3's and dunks and everything else) that it took that level of super-
human effort by the cavs to win. they had over 80 points by half and 100
halfway through the 3rd quarter. the warriors had an average game (for them),
scoring 116 (!).

~~~
orthoganol
To be clear, this is what happens when your commissioner lets one of the
league's top 3 superstars join an already 73 win historic team, even after
that superstar took the 73 win team to 7 games in the conference finals right
before. It's the most "piled on" team in NBA history, not even by a little.

Last year had 2 of the best series I've ever seen in the NBA (the WCF and the
finals), this year there's nothing particularly exciting watching the Warriors
play, it was all inevitable, and it just feels a little dirty.

It also feels even more dirty that the commissioner pretends like there is
parity in the league, and even the officiating last night where they re-
assigned technical fouls to prevent having to throw out a Golden State star
(never, ever seen something like that, and as Jeff Van Gundy said right in the
broadcast, "This is an absolutely terrible look for the NBA").

Just voicing another sentiment.

~~~
clairity
i hear you. the playoffs weren't very exciting this year. but on the other
hand, look at how the cavs (finally) rose to the challenge last night, and in
the process raised the bar for every other team. these are the best people on
earth at throwing orange balls through orange rings and they're only getting
better! =)

~~~
orthoganol
> the playoffs weren't very exciting this year.

You do understand why, right?

Your solution is "The other teams will improve!" and you're citing the Cav's
improbable record setting game as evidence?

Sorry, but it takes a certain willful ignorance, or looking the other way, to
defend the state of the NBA.

~~~
baddox
Or maybe you just enjoy seeing historic excellence at an athletic event. It's
not clear to me what heinous crime the Warriors or the league have committed
by allowing a team to exist that is really good. I'm not a big sports fan, but
I thought the point was to be as good as you can at that sport. It would be
one thing if there were behind the scenes inequalities unrelated to the
athletic event itself, like one team spending way more money that everyone
else, but as far as I can tell that's not the case here.

~~~
_jtrig
Go watch the Olympic Men's basketball team or the All-Star Game if you want
"historic excellence"..

Having a team like this in the regular season is a joke and only serves the
most base basketball fans.

~~~
baddox
I definitely don't understand that. I would consider Olympic Men's basketball
more of a joke, since everyone knows that professional basketball in the USA
is far and away a bigger deal than in other countries. It's completely stacked
from a financial perspective, whereas (AFAIK) that's not the case with the
Warriors.

~~~
_jtrig
So teams can only be stacked financially and not talent-wise?

------
aidenn0
It's only in the past 10 years or so that teams have _really_ started
utilizing the 3. Arguably the most sought-after NBA player these days is the
3-and-D (i.e. a player that can shoot accurate 3-poitners and also play
defense).

Previous to that, the main school of thought was that driving to the basket
was better, as there was a much higher chance of a favorable outcome (draw a
foul, or make a basket). The school of thought now is that the expected value
of attempting a 3 is higher (even though the odds of scoring are lower).

~~~
supercanuck
its not even that. Its that teams score the 2 point shot, average around
80-110 points a game. a team comprised of 3 point shooters can max out at
120-130. The spread is much larger. So even though you have a more consistent
team hitting 2's that could win games, they won't beat a 3 point shooting team
unless they shoot cold.

~~~
aidenn0
This is my point; a 60% chance of making a 2 is equal in value to a 40% chance
of making a 3, averaged over the 80+ shots you will take in a game. The top
teams in the NBA are closer to 40% from beyond the arc then they are to 60%
within it.

------
LiweiZ
It's more of a show biz now. Its own ability of having one master player for a
certain type can both benefit and cause damage to its business. Because master
players of a certain type is not easy to find and once there comes one, the
expectation for the same type would be pushed higher after the player left. Or
customers would leave. So if there is a master player now, do business around
him/her. After that, change the game and expect another master player in
another type. More fans pay to see their hero in his/her prime.

~~~
aaron-lebo
It's not that new. There was a team in the 1980s called Showtime with some
very masterful players. Free agency rules in the 90s actually made it easier
for dominant players to switch teams. See Shaq.

What has happened is that players are basically bred from youth basketball
leagues and they're healthier for longer, so you've got a number of skilled
and freak athletes that can swing games. But those athletes have voluntarily
chosen to form these superteams which are also a reflection of youth
basketball culture.

~~~
LiweiZ
The master player in one type I was talking about is someone like MJ. He
pushed the expectation so high in both quantity (from data's point of view)
and quality (all those master level moves only rooted from unreal
fundamentals). There is basically zero chance to have someone better than him
in the short and mid run. And the league had to change how the game is played
to create space to expect another master player in another type. In this
process, before the true master player emerges and matures, there is also some
time for the fans to speculate who will be the master in each generation of
players till that final one arrives. In short, better versions of a certain
type of heroes keep coming and attracting more fans and pushing the
expectation higher. It somewhat resets the product and let the new dynamics
evolve so that it keeps the cashflow flow in strongly and can last for quite
some time.

Of course, just my observation.

edit: added the product and dynamics analogy and corrected grammar.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Good points. My dad is a Bulls fan. I remember watching MJ but don't remember
appreciating just how dominant he was.

It seems like today we've got a number of players who while not as well-
rounded are dominant in the same ways. You've obviously got Lebron, Curry is a
better shooter, Westbrook is a triple double machine, KD has size + offense,
etc. The ceiling for skill seems very high now.

I wonder if we're gonna see some insanely athletic 7 footer which brings the
game back towards the basket any time soon.

------
ourmandave
The three-point shot is nice, but they need to introduce the 4-point-shot
that's made from behind the 1/2 court line.

Or the 5-point shot that goes in after bouncing off an opposing player.

Also, more replay reviews to catch flagrant floppers.

~~~
saurik
I originally thought of this as one could imagine "let's add a 64-point shot:
for off the floor, off the scoreboard, off the bankboard... no rim", but then
I found the remake and there was something more relevant and possibly
interesting at play.

\----------

McDonald's Commercial, Original, 1993: Michael Jordan & Larry Bird

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oACRt-
Qp-s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oACRt-Qp-s)

"No dunking!" – Larry Bird @ 0m14s

The premise of the commercial is "nothing but net".

\----------

McDonald's Commercial, Remake, 2010: LeBron James & Dwight Howard

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmrTDZy3f2M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmrTDZy3f2M)

"No jump shots." – Dwight Howard @ 0m22s

The entire commercial became "nothing but dunking".

------
cubano
Besides computers, basketball was the other pillar of my young life. At 12yo I
was 6'3" and was playing basketball approx 7 hours a day at the local
recreation center mostly to get away from my verbally abusive parents.

By 14yo, I was playing, as a freshmen in high school, on the varsity team with
the second highest scoring and rebounding averages on the team. My basketball
career ended suddenly with a ACL knee injury the first practice of my senior
year.

My quite tenuous claim-to-fame is I once scored, in high school, 32 points
against 6'11" Will Perdue, whom eventually won a world title with the Chicago
Bulls.[0]

Modern basketball analytics have discovered that there are only 2 good
shots...a 3-pointer and a dunk. If you do the math, the added extra point for
a "three" and the very high-percentage outcome of 2 points for a dunk make
them the ideal scoring mechanisms.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Perdue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Perdue)

------
douche
The biggest problem with the NBA these days is that so few players come into
the league with solid fundamentals and skills. The rookie age limit that has
spawned the whole era of one-and-done college players who bail after March for
the draft is in some ways worse than when high schoolers could get drafted.
Most of those guys are poorly served by the current system. Either they are
ready at 18 (like LeBron or Kevin Garnet were), or they really need two or
three or four years in a good college system to hone their game, get
experience, and work in the weight room. Just look at how sad rookie of the
year awards have been in the last few years.

------
whack
> _" And now the game is more inclusive than it ever has been."_

This is a laughable claim. The average NBA player is at the 99.9th percentile
in height. You can count using your fingers the number of NBA players who are
5'9 or shorter. Such extreme height disparities do not exist in other popular
sports such as soccer. Perhaps the 3-pointer rule helped in some way, but it's
ridiculous to pretend that professional basketball today is "inclusive".

~~~
sunstone
The reason for this is of course defence. A short person can elevate quickly
to block a shot but then they have to wait while gravity brings them back
down. In the mean time they're helpless.

------
valuearb
The NBA needs a longer, wider court. Players aren't just bigger than they were
30-50 years ago, they are also longer. Bigger courts would provide more open
space for passing and fast breaks.

~~~
dogruck
I wouldn't be surprised to see them add a 4 point shot.

------
slindz
tldr; dunking became a thing, the three point shot eventually balanced it out.

Color me disappointed.

~~~
barking
All the way through that article I was waiting for the point of it and then it
ended. What it's doing on the front page mystifies me.

~~~
LiweiZ
I skimmed through it three times to try to understand what it tries to say and
find the answer for the title. But I still feel lost. I was thinking my
English reading was too poor (not my native language).

