The Tic-Tac-Toeization of the NBA

How can basketball be saved?

The NBA All-Star Weekend has evolved into a sort of African-American Academy Awards with various fun events to justify all the partying. But the actual All-Star Game itself has gotten absurd due to the three-point revolution. Last year, the Eastern Conference defeated the Western Conference 211-186.

The NBA still makes plenty of money, but many fans and some players are increasingly finding the modern computer-analyzed game of basketball boring. You see, a number of years ago, a team of MIT data nerds crunched millions of numbers and came up with a revolutionary conclusion: a basket made from three-point range (23’9” diminishing to 22’0” inches in the corners) was worth 50% more than a basket from two-point range!

Armed with this revolutionary insight, only a few decades after the NBA adopted the three-point line, players finally started to shoot a lot more three-pointers and a lot fewer long two-point jump shots. Scoring went up and the best three-point shooter, Steph Curry, won four NBA titles.

This change was fun for awhile, the way that new offenses in football are fun until the defenses finally figure them out. But lately, this strategy of only shooting short 2s or long 3s looks less like a fun fad doomed to be replaced by some other innovation, and instead more like the ultimate forever solution to the game of basketball. From ESPN:

"I think as a league now, we look so deep into analytics, and you hear people saying out loud, we want a 3 or a layup. Don't be shooting too many midrange jumpers," Milwaukee guard Damian Lillard said Saturday. "You hear that, and I think it just kind of takes away the originality of the game, I would say. It's meant to be played at three levels. It's meant to be played a certain way.

"But it's a copycat league that we play in, and you can't have everybody playing one way, a successful way and you playing a different way. You've got to get in line with what's working to win, and right now that's what it is."

I’m reminded of how when I was eleven I took a summer school course in fun math, the most memorable part being a segment revealing the secret of how to never lose again at tic-tac-toe.

But that turned out to be not so fun.

How can the NBA keep basketball from becoming as boring as tic-tac-toe?

Paywall here.

Unfortunately, I can’t remember the secret to tic-tac-toe because, while it was fun at first to crush all my friends in tic-tac-toe, the game quickly lost its interest and I haven’t played tic-tac-toe in 50 years.

Granted, basketball is more interesting that tic-tac-toe because you actually have to execute your strategy. But when all teams play the same strategy, something is wrong with the rules.

I watched a lot of college basketball during the John Wooden era when UCLA won the NCAA title ten times in twelve years. My vague impression from 50+ years ago is that the Bruins’ typical mid-range jumper came from 17 feet while their opponents’ jumpers averaged 19 feet. Or something like that. The point is that UCLA, with Wooden’s better coaching and Sam Gilbert’s better athletes, managed to worm their way about 12% closer to the basket when shooting, which proved immensely important.

That kind of subtlety isn’t as important anymore when the strategy is to drive the basket but if stymied then kick it out to somebody open 24 feet from the basket.

The obvious solution to professional basketball players finally getting good at shooting from the three-point line would appear to be to lengthen the arc.

College basketball has twice increased the three-point line over the last 39 years.

But you don’t want to do it all at once and instantly end the careers of good NBA athletes who trained relentlessly to shoot from the current distances. Instead, increase the arc four inches per year for, say, the next 12 years, putting the 3-point line in the 2036-27 season at 27’9”. That gives current players time to adjust. Some won’t be able to, but they’ll still make lots of money in the meantime.

In the corners, augment the line from 22’ to 23’ over the next three seasons, which leaves two feet between the sideline and the arc. At that point, then begin getting rid of the corner three-pointer, one of the more boring plays in the NBA, by eliminating the shortening along the sidelines.

Adding four inches per season to the three-point arc doesn’t require you to guess right now what the optimal distance will turn out to be. You can stop after six seasons at 25’9” or after 18 seasons at 29’9”.

The point is that you have a problem, so do something.