Did the three-point shot destroy the NBA?

THERE was a recent controversial game between the Washington Wizards and the Denver Nuggets. The Wizards were up by two, missed a shot and the Nuggets took the loose ball with six seconds left. They got on a 3-1 break pushed by Jamal Murray. Bradley Beal was the only defender, Michael Porter Jr. (MPJ) and Facundo Campazzo were ahead of him.

MPJ and Campazzo, instead of cutting towards the rim, positioned themselves at the corner three and the right side three-point line. Beal caught up with Murray, and in a “Sophie’s Choice” moment (read: a dilemma where both choices are bad) Murray chose to pass to Campazzo, who was now partly contested (positioning at the three-point line allowed the defense to catch up). Campazzo missed, the Nuggets take the L, and now we have a case study on how the three-point shot destroyed the NBA.

The coach’s reaction

Nuggets head coach Mike Malone noted in the post-game interview that he did not call a timeout because “we could not get a better look than a 3-on-1 fastbreak.” That’s correct. Michael Porter Jr. was leading the break, and he scored the last field goal on a spectacular dunk (that brought them within 2 points, 112-110). He could have had the game-tying spectacular dunk (or at least a layup), but instead, he ran to the corner, placing Murray into a dilemma.

Much of the blame was placed on MPJ, an uber-talented player that was the subject of trade rumors since many believed he was worthy of being the first option on other teams. Murray could not execute the pass since Beal was at the center. Murray drew Beal but could not throw the entry because MPJ was not in the lane, he was already at the corner. The play was described as a massive “brainfart,” and I could imagine the scene in the dugout.

Steph Curry to blame?

The three-point shot as the primary weapon is credited to Steph Curry. It gave many teams hope. Prior to that, the premium was on athleticism, and LeBron James was the prototype player. A very select few can be freak athletes like LeBron, but most NBA players can take the time and practice the three-point shot.

The outside game caught on because it gave teams a chance to strategize against physical deficits. It’s not a new strategy, the Koreans and European teams have made it into an artform. Curry turned the NBA world in its axis with it, and even Kevin Durant, one of the few players who could match LeBron in terms of individual talent, was recruited into it.

Curry made the pull-up three in the midst of a fastbreak a legitimate NBA option. What if Steph took the shot — or Steph was leading the break and instead of cutting, he went to the three-point line? Would he be as criticized as MPJ?

‘Three is better than two’

The three-point shot was rare in the 80s and 90s. Reggie Miller’s barrage of threes in the Spike Lee game, or Michael Jordan’s rain of threes in the Finals Game 1 versus Portland were immortalized games, but similar streaks happen now with regularity by different players.

In the context of the Nuggets’ play, the probability of the layup/dunk is higher than a three. Going for the tie instead of gambling on the win or loss would have been prudent. Three is not better than two.

Make or Miss League

Did the three-point shot destroy basketball? No, but NBA teams and players being too dependent on the trending strategy and analytics does. There is no reason to eliminate the low-post player in light of the threepoint revolution, as some teams are starting to realize.

If Campazzo made that three-point shot, there would not be reckoning on the decisions of MPJ or Murray. There would have been a celebration of a huge risk taken but it paid off. The Nuggets would be geniuses.

But it missed. The Nuggets lost a game against a team they should have beat. Here we are, debating layup vs contested three. Basketball is simple, but basketball media coverage is not.