Jam, you've known me long enough on here that you should know I fully understand the analytics behind this evolution. 3 point shot is worth 50% than a 2 and isn't 50% harder to make, so it has a net expected value over all shots on the court aside from point blank layups. And again, the way the Spurs created those looks was markedly different from the way the Rockets and Warriors "create" them.
Because it illustrates that NBA basketball is a broken sport. It's a pretty bad design flaw when the shot that is worth 50% more isn't 50% more difficult to make than shots closer to the basket.
What other major sport is "glitched" like that? all the other sports with basketball's essential design (i.e. goal sports) revolve around the creating of a high-percentage shot close to the goal, and to do that, it usually involves a total team effort of passing and coordinating or a highly skilled player being able to break down the defense and generate that high percentage shot himself. Now you'll say "Well, Curry is creating those high percentage/value shots from 3 because of his skill." Fair enough, but shooting a 3 has "less moving parts" so to speak than dribble-drive penetration or low post play. The more one-dimensional action is getting rewarded over the more multidimensional action. There's also little-to-no-defense for Curry and Moreyball. At least with low-post play or dribble-drive penetration, teams could double/triple team or collapse and force the offense into a decision of, "Do I kick out or continue?" You really can't do much when Curry has the ball at the 3 point line. Go under the screen, open 3. Go over, he's probably still hitting the contested 3 at the same rate (or will simply walk a layup in due to the spacing or side pass to another open shooter). 3 or nothing basketball is robbing the sport of a lot of offensive and defensive nuance.
A 3 pointer should be an "event," like a 40 yard pass or a long slapshot, it shouldn't be the primary or even secondary offensive option. And I've always been a believer that when athletes catch up to a design element of a sport and are able to exploit it, a change should be made to better balance the game. Basketball has done this throughout its history. When Mikan dominated the inside to an absurd degree, they widened the lane. When defenses supposedly became too dominant (I don't think they were) in the 00s/mid-00s, they ins uted rule changes to facilitate more open perimeter play and make the sport more "fast paced." Nothing will change, though. The NBA found its formula that appeals to the broad majority of fans and is more salable on social media (easier to share a vine or gif of a Curry stepback 30 footer than it is to share a postup play. One is instant gratification, the other isn't).
I get you might be irritated with criticism and the constant "
Today's NBA," and it comes off as whining, but this is a basketball forum, right? Criticism of where the league is headed is still discussion about the sport.