On Saturday Night, we got our latest exhibit of what has
become an accepted fact: Steph Curry has solved shooting. He is, by orders of
magnitude at this point, the best shooter in the history of the NBA. No one has
come close to shooting 3’s at his volume, and few that can even compare can
shoot at his efficiency rate. The scatter plot of the best shooters basically
looks like this:
Note, this is not the actual chart, but it would look
somewhat similar. Curry has a very good percentage, but does that across an
in-human amount of shots. The people that have a higher percentage probably
shoot threes generally when they are open, off a pass, and from near the arc.
Curry does this too, but also shoots ridiculous shots from 30+ feet, off the dribble,
and while being closely guarded. If anyone else shoots this, they will a) most
likely miss, and b) get chided for shooting a terrible, low percentage shot.
With Curry there are no low-percentage shots.
Of course, Curry solving shooting has had some amazing
effects for the game. The Warriors have, similarly, solved modern offense. They
are an unbeatable machine. The league as a whole is shooting more threes, but
that means they are doing what I described above: creating offense for threes,
employing better ball movement, and eschewing long two’s to step a few feet
back. The league increasing its utilization of threes is the real reason why
the NBA should explore moving the line. Not because of Curry.
Sports should never change because one player is so much
better at one thing than anyone else. Not that it hasn’t happened. Golf changed
because Tiger Woods was just better and longer than anyone in 2000-01 – courses
got bigger and tougher. There are more apt examples too:
- The NHL putting in place the trapezoid to restrict the goalie’s ability to handle the puck was pretty much directly instituted as a rule because of Martin Brodeur’s ability to handle the puck and become essentially a half extra defenseman
This happened many years ago. There were a few other goalies
cited (Marty Turco was another big one), but it really was aimed at Brodeur.
The issue with the current situation is while the trapezoid took away from the
value of Marty Brodeur – though ever so slightly, he was basically just as good
after – it was a small percentage of plays and didn’t provide that much value.
What Curry has mastered better than anyone ever is the single most valuable
play in an NBA game.
The NBA is at an interesting time, and if hating on Curry
gets people to peel the onion back on the overall issues with threes more, than
I am fine with it. Just know that most of the suggestions, like moving the line
back, will make Curry MORE valuable, as he is one of the few people who can
consistently hit from 25-28 feet as well. Loads of players can come close to
matching Curry’s effectiveness just beyond the line, but as we step further
back Curry becomes even more of an outlier.
I don’t know what the solution is really. I have heard a
couple things tossed around that I like:
- Get rid of the corner three by making the arc a real arc and removing the corner three all together
- Let NBA teams pick the distance at their home arena, assuming some basic ground rules are in play, like a set range of distances, and a normal arc or curve – no random squiggly line
Personally, I like suggestion #2 the most. I like when teams
can personalize their stadium to create an inherent advantage. Obviously,
baseball is the best at this as the stadiums are by design unique – and quirks
and weather conditions play an active role in roster construction. In soccer
there are a few different pitch size options. Hockey rinks can play around with
temperatures and humidity to create a faster or slower surface. In basketball
there is no real customization, and it would definitely be interesting to see
how each team addresses the question of where to place the line.
Even #1 has its merits. The corner three, checking in at
just 22 feet, is ridiculous. It is barely longer than a normal 2-point shot, it
is the easiest for players to hit. There is no way it should be worth 50% more
than a normal 2-pointer. I am in favor of making the arc a real parabola and
essentially having it meet the sideline around level with the lower blocks, and
for all intents and purposes making the corner three just a 2-point shot.
What this will really do is make the game more variable and
differentiate teams further. Right now, basically every team is trying to
recreate the Warriors – be able to go small and have 4-5 shooters on the court
at any time (and conversely, 4-5 people who can guard opposing shooters). It
makes sense, too, because of the mathematics of the game. Basically, a team has
to hit ~35% from three to make it the same as shooting 50% from two. This is not
a high bar anymore, which has forced all teams to basically try to do that. The
game is exciting, no doubt, but lost in the three-and-D madness has been the
depreciation of the post-game, the dunk and the physicality that was actually
fun back in the day.
There is a happy medium somewhere, and it realistically has to
come by altering the court. Players are not going to get any worse at shooting
threes, if anything they will just continue to get better to the point that
someone, someday, is going to match Stephen Curry’s exploits. The NBA has to do
something before the league becomes essentially a glorified
three-point-contest. If it is a small but loud negative reaction to Curry’s
dominance that forces change, then so be it.
Let’s just know that when the NBA
takes the easy way out and just pushes the line back to 25 feet, Curry will
still be awesome, will still lead the league in threes, the Warriors may still
be the best team. But at least teams could then fight them on their own terms
instead of having to play the way the Warriors do, but just without the best
ever at doing it.
