Here at Lurv headquarters, we don’t beat around the bush. We say upfront, that the three-point shot should be removed from the game of basketball.
We know the arguments against what you just heard, such as: “The trey makes the game more exciting!” and “You’re just oldheads, angry about progress!” Try to hurt our feelings all you want, but we submit that you would enjoy basketball in a more pure way, if the three pointer was removed.
You already know Steph Curry is the face of the three-point shot in the NBA. You like when he spots up from thirty feet, don’t you? Do shots that count for an extra point make things more exciting? Not necessarily. By that logic, the league should include an MTV Rock n’ Jock-style five-pointer circle.
The long ball era created an upcoming generation of shot-chucking showboaters. Just like Michael Jordan influencing a bunch of isolation basketball heroes, Curry changes the philosophy of the game. The long shot gimmick is now the goal and focus. This legislates the classic big man off the hardwood, and it makes basketball softer, because these long ball experts must be protected from physical consequences in order to work their craft.
There is a fine line between competitive entertainment and stylized production. The NBA’s glorification of threes led us into the latter. So, now we tell a bunch of lies about how polished today’s basketball players are.
Current players are surely more skilled, at least at certain things, only because they learned from previous generations. No doubt, Michael Jordan and others would have developed a killer three-pointer, if the shot and modern analytics existed. Can you imagine Kareem with a consistent three?
And anyway, you never hear people (other than the Big O) say this: You can only display all that great skill if no one is allowed to touch you up.
Click here