Hαѕ thє NBA’ѕ Thrєє-Pօiռt Rєvօlutiօռ Gօռє Tօօ Fαr?
Over the past decade, the NBA has undergone a dramatic transformation, with three-point shooting taking center stage. This shift, initiated by the Golden State Warriors’ success with shooters like Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson, is now the dominant approach across the league. Teams such as the Boston Celtics have embraced this strategy to the extreme, with nearly half of their shots coming from beyond the arc. While this style has proven effective for winning games, it’s sparking debate about whether it’s ruining the variety and appeal of the game.
At first, the Warriors’ three-point-heavy strategy was exciting and revolutionary. Their 2015 title run proved that a jump-shooting team could win at the highest level, something previously thought impossible. Now, nearly every NBA team has adopted this model, focusing on generating three-point shots over other offensive approaches. The Celtics exemplify this shift, leading the league in three-pointers made and attempted, with nearly 47% of their shots last season coming from deep.
The NBA’s obsession with the three-point shot has raised concerns about the league’s lack of stylistic diversity. Ten years ago, teams featured a range of play styles: some relied on dominant post players, others on isolation plays or fast-paced transition games. The Warriors, with their unique movement-heavy offense and sharpshooters, stood out. Now, nearly every team plays a similar game, relying on pick-and-rolls, drive-and-kick schemes, and three-point shots, making the league less varied and, to some fans, less entertaining.
This trend has also impacted the league’s TV product. Unlike the NFL, where each team’s offensive strategy often feels unique, NBA games today can seem repetitive. The common strategy of drive-and-kick and read-and-react plays, often ending in a three-point attempt, has reduced the unique identity of teams. Even the most ardent fans, or “basketball junkies,” can find it monotonous to watch every team play in a nearly identical style.
From a purely competitive standpoint, three-point shooting offers teams an undeniable advantage. Teams like the Celtics leverage high-volume three-point attempts to create a “math problem” for their opponents, as long-distance shots yield higher points per attempt. Teams simply can’t ignore this advantage if they want to win. As a result, teams across the league are adjusting to match this approach, even if it means sacrificing offensive diversity.
So, how can the league address this issue? One radical solution would be to lower the point value of three-pointers, making them worth, say, two and a half points instead of three. However, such a significant rule change might be hard to implement and could face pushback. Additionally, the NBA grapples with other challenges, such as load management, where star players sit out regular-season games for rest, prioritizing playoff performance.
For now, the three-point revolution shows no signs of slowing, and unless a major rule change is introduced, the NBA’s high-volume three-point era is likely here to stay. The question remains: can the NBA strike a balance between strategy and entertainment without sacrificing the competitive edge teams seek?
