25 Years of Bad Shots

Before reading this post, please note that I'll be spending tomorrow at Candlestick Park for the NFC Championship game between the Giants and the 49ers.  Follow me on Twitter (@mlbwhiz) for periodic updates and musings from the game.

I spent much of the afternoon today watching college basketball, and throughout the day ESPN has been celebrating the 25th anniversary of the three-point shot in NCAA hoops.  The network has featured a countdown of the top college three-point shooters of all time as voted by the fans (by now you probably know how I feel about fan voting . . .), and commentators from every game have been talking about how the three-ball has added nothing but excitement and drama to the sport.  As I listen to all of the hoopla surrounding the three, I have to wonder if I'm the only one out there who disagrees.  Not only do I not think the three-pointer adds much good to the game of basketball, I'd prefer the sport if we got rid of it altogether.

At this point, you probably just think I'm one of those smug basketball purists who talks about how much better the game was in "the good ole' days" and laments the loss of the mid-range jump shot.  And, to an extent, you're correct - I do think the three-pointer has trivialized the portion of the game played in between the paint and the three-point line, and simplifies the sport into a series of dunk attempts and three-pointers.  And who can blame players for playing this way and coaches for taking advantage of the now-25-year-old rules?  The fact is a good three-point shooter cans 40% of his attempts, for an expected value of 1.2 points per shot attempt.  Other than dunks, few players can average close to 60% on two-pointers (the percentage required to get the expected points per shot to equal out).*  Throw in the fact that missed threes often result in long rebounds that the offense can more easily grab and turn into an added possession, and it's no wonder that the three-ball has become so popular over the last quarter decade.

So yes, the three pointer is too easy to make (on a relative basis) and, as a result, the shot is frequently attempted; some teams revolve almost their entire offense around it, and even the beloved (or, depending on who you ask, hated) Princeton Offense features far more threes than backdoor cuts in recent years.  Perhaps more significantly, though, the shot causes the last two minutes of a college basketball game to look nothing like the first 38.  People often blame the foul rules for the fact that the end of a hoops game features a drawn out series of free throws, but I blame the three pointer for this quirk.  The three makes a comeback of almost any size a realistic possibility, and as a result teams will begin fouling regardless of their deficit with the hope that they can shoot their way back into the game.  Instead of being rewarded for building a ten point lead with just over a minute to play, winning teams need to worry about the possibility of getting fouled, missing a few free throws and having a series of treys by the opposition knot the score.

To me, it doesn't make sense that for the first 38 minutes of a game the sport of college basketball revolves primarily around two-point shots, but during the last couple of minutes it all comes down to ones (free throws) and threes.  Unlike baseball, the game is not played the same way from start to finish, and more complete teams can lose games to inferior clubs who go on a shooting spree at the end of a relatively close game.  To me, I'd rather see games won or lost for an entire 40 minutes, not just during the final two.  Getting rid of the three-pointer would strengthen the emphasis on basketball fundamentals (Passing!  Moving without the ball!  Boxing out!  Posting up!) and help eliminate the sluggish two minutes that conclude virtually every NCAA basketball game. 

*Note: I know I'm ignoring the probability of getting fouled, which is admittedly higher for a two-point shot versus the three.  That being said, I still think my point is valid.