Steph Curry, 'Moreyball' and the NBA's 3-point revolution
46:13 Share

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. Fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a U.S.-based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

Support for this podcast comes from Is Business Broken? A podcast from BU Questrom School of Business. What is short-termism? Is it a buzzword or something that really impacts businesses and the economy? Stick around until the end of this podcast for a preview of a recent episode. WBUR Podcasts, Boston.

It's game one of the 2025 NBA Eastern Conference Finals. The score is 98 to 113. The Indiana Pacers are down 15 points against the New York Knicks with just under five minutes to play. Now, the Knicks have a 99.3% chance to win the game, according to ESPN. That's when the Pacers' Aaron Neesmith takes off.

Neesmith hits the three. With Brunson, another three by Neesmith. That's the great equalizer in our game. Neesmith three, caught! Got it! Neesmith three, caught! Another one from outside. Neesmith again, three, got it! He's a flamethrower!

Neesmith, it's a three. It's a two-point game. It's a two-point game with 22 seconds to go. Over just five minutes, Aaron Neesmith sank six threes to help cut the Knicks' lead. After a few fouls to stop the clock and a few missed free throws by the Knicks, Indiana had possession, down two points with just 7.3 seconds left on the clock. Indiana with it.

Halliburton. He'll take it. He'll backpedal a three for the rim. And down! He's got it! The shot by Pacers star Tyrese Halliburton bounces off the rim, leaves sight of the camera, then swishes in. Now, the shot was actually a two-pointer because Halliburton's foot tiptoed the three-point line, but the Pacers took the game in overtime. ♪

This is On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. The three-point boom has been one of the biggest changes in the NBA over the last decade. NBA teams averaged 37.6 three-point attempts per game this past regular season. That's a jump from 22.4 threes per game in 2015.

The three-point shot can be a dangerous weapon when they go your way, like it did for the Pacers. But what happens when you miss? Well, just ask the Boston Celtics.

This season, the Celtics became the first team in league history to attempt more threes than two-point shots. But during the playoffs, the defending champs fell, at least in part, because of their favorite shot. The Celtics took 40 threes. They only made 10. They're now 25 for 100 in these two games. That's pardon the interruption, host Tony Kornheiser. After the Celtics' Game 2 loss against the Knicks, they ended up losing that second-round series.

So the question about whether NBA teams are taking too many threes isn't new. But as the league breaks new benchmarks for missed threes and the sheer volume of attempts, there have been new murmurs around the league. It's a bigger conversation. It's not just the All-Star game. It's our game in general. Our game is...

There's a lot of 3s being shot. The discussion around the three-point shooting right now, and I've heard, you know, your commentary and others on it, and it's something we're looking at closely. But I think it is important that it's a deliberate process. Well, that's NBA Commissioner Adam Silver on The Big Podcast with Shaq this January. And you also heard, of course, superstar LeBron James from last December. So how did we get here? And is the NBA having a three-point problem, as some fans say it is?

So today we're going to take a look at how the three-point revolution changed the NBA. And joining us now is Kirk Goldsberry. He's an NBA analyst at The Ringer and teaches sports analytics at the University of Austin, Texas. He's author of several books on basketball analytics with stunning visuals, Hoop Atlas, and Sprawl Ball. And he joins us today from Station KUT in Austin, Texas. Kirk Goldsberry, welcome to On Point.

It's great to be here. Thanks for having me. Okay, so for the uninitiated, tell us a little bit more about this three-point revolution. I'll admit my attention was drawn to it when the Celtics absolutely tanked. So how have they actually trended over the last decade?

Yeah, you mentioned it in the open. It's been an explosion in three-point shooting for a variety of reasons. No matter where you start the measurement, three-point shots have become exponentially more popular now than they were 20 years ago, 30 years ago, wherever you start that. Now, the NBA added the three-point line in 1979, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson's rookie year. In fact,

Larry Bird's teammate Chris Ford made the first three-point shot in NBA history as Larry made his debut. And back then, they only shot two or three three-point shots in an entire game. And this year, as you mentioned in the Open, an average team is shooting over 37. An average NBA game then has 75 three-point tries in 48 minutes. And in many cases, we're seeing more threes than twos. And I always joke, well, why don't we call it the two-point line in that case?

We'll get to that later because I am wondering about it. But the sports history is really fascinating on this. Why did the NBA first add the three-point line? What was the need back then? Well, the ABA added it first. In fact, the ABL, the same guy who started the Harlem Globetrotters, Abe Saperstein, is credited, I think, with adding the three-point line in this upstart league that just was trying to have gimmicks to get attention. So the ABA added it, and when the NBA merged with the ABA—

It had become a popular element of this rival league, and it sort of forced the NBA's hand to add it in 1979. And undeniably, it's been a triumph for basketball. And I want to assert that right off the bat. It has opened up the game. It has made the sport better. It has made the sport more fun. It has enabled perimeter skill to sort of rival interior skill in a way that's diversified the action. But undeniably here in the middle of the 2020s,

There are fair questions about whether we're seeing too many threes in the NBA itself. I hear what you're saying about it opening up the sport, right? Because there's so many more options and the creativity with plays can just skyrocket. But there's also kind of a simple math here, right? I mean, three is one and a half times the amount of the number two. But you are famed for your like analytic prowess when it comes to basketball, right?

Are the volume of threes that we're seeing simply driven by that basic math also? Yeah. So I first started mapping shots like at the beginning of the 2010s. And when you look at the landscape of the basketball court, pretty much outside of four feet away from the hoop, the NBA percentage of shots that go in the basket, whether you're talking about a four-foot shot, a six-foot shot, or a 26-foot shot, it's somewhere between 30% and 40%.

And some of those shots outside of four feet are worth three points and some are worth two. And so when you do quick arithmetic, you arrive at a conclusion. Why would I ever take a 40% two-point opportunity when I can have a 35% three-point opportunity? That basic economic revelation

And an explosion in long-range shooting skill, I might add, has fueled coaches like the great Mike D'Antoni to leverage the power. Hey, if we're taking jump shots, guys, let's take the smart ones. Let's take the ones that are worth a lot more points per shot than the ones that aren't.

I'm going to say you're sitting right across the table from him, aren't you? Coach D'Antoni, we're going to get to you in a second. But let me let me let Kirk continue to to to roll out his his deep analytical knowledge here. Also, you get higher scoring games. And I'm just wondering, from the fan perspective, like, does that make it more exciting? Yeah.

Yeah, and we opened the show with the audio of the great comeback that the Pacers had against the Knicks. The Pacers have had many great comebacks. And again, I just want to say there's nobody, I think, who's questioning whether we should have a three-point line in pro basketball in the mid of the 2020s. We should.

I think the greater question, Magna, is where it should be and why. What are we trying to beget with the architecture? I don't think anybody's mad that the three-point line has replaced the paint as sort of the dominant tactical landmark on the chessboard of basketball. I don't think anybody's mad about that. I think fans are reacting to games where we're seeing 50 missed threes. I think we're reacting to...

the tendency of many offenses around the league to not even penetrate the three-point arc at all on a possession multiple times in a row and just heave up another three. What can we do to adjust that line to beget an even better version of the product? So I land here. The three-point line made the game better, but if we make the three-point line even better, we can make

pro basketball look even better and more exciting. Okay, so before we talk about what better would look like for those of us who aren't familiar with the chessboard of the basketball court, remind us exactly where is the three-point line in NBA play because it's, what, different in international and Olympic play?

Yeah, great question. So the NBA three-point line, generally speaking, is exactly 23.75 feet away from the center of the basketball hoop with two 14-foot exceptions to that. The corner three, the straight part of the three-point line that everybody can picture in their heads, those shots are 22 feet away from the basket. So the corner three, which now amounts to the most common shot away from the rim in the league...

That short corner three is 22 feet. But generally speaking, most above the break threes, as they're called, are 24 or longer feet away from the basket. So it's obviously it's not a perfect semicircle. And is the top of the three point line. Oh, my gosh. I'm so sorry. I should know this, actually. But is it is it right at the top of the key or further away from it?

The arc itself is – the top of the arc is 23.75 feet away from – but increasingly, what we're seeing is players that Mike D'Antoni coached and others –

Not being afraid to be four feet behind that are and so the average three-point shot above the break is getting deeper and deeper and deeper And coach D'Antoni's teams in Houston pioneered that that depth So another thing to add is like people are shooting one of the reasons we're seeing more and more threes These guys are shooting from 27 28 feet for those who who know Caitlin Clark. She's bringing this to the women's game Yeah, we're not putting our toes on the line anymore. I

The 23.75 is the shortest one, but we're seeing a lot of 26, 27, 28, even 30-foot three-point shots today. Wow. That's a long way away from the hoop. But for these guys, it's obviously, you know, it takes a lot of work, but they make it look effortless. So where would you put it?

You know, I don't think it's up for me to decide, but I am fueled by the idea that every other major basketball league on the planet, including the WNBA, college basketball, FIBA, the international leagues, have all moved their line back in the last 25 years. The only one that hasn't touched the line is the one with the best shooters in the world. So I

I'd ask the leaders of the NBA, why have all these other leagues done this? And why has the NBA been so reticent to adjust their line? Well, when we come back, we are going to hear from the great Mike D'Antoni about how he changed the game regarding his approach to three-point shots. And I'm going to try and dig in with both of you more about whether the NBA should consider making some more changes. So we'll be right back. This is On Point. On Point.

Support for On Point comes from Indeed. You just realized that your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy, just use Indeed. There's no need to wait. You can speed up your hiring with Indeed.

and On Point listeners will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash On Point. Just go to Indeed.com slash On Point right now and support the show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash On Point. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring? Indeed is all you need.

Support for this podcast comes from Is Business Broken? A podcast from BU Questrom School of Business. A recent episode explores the potential dangers of short-termism when companies chase quick wins and lose sight of long-term goals. I think it's a huge problem because I think it's a behavioral issue, not a systemic issue. And when I see these kinds of systemic ideas of changing capitalism, it scares me.

Follow Is Business Broken wherever you get your podcasts and stick around until the end of this podcast for a sneak preview. As you know, I'm based in Boston here, and so my attention was drawn to this issue belatedly by the sound of tears and weeping and gnashing teeth all across Boston, across the Charles River at the Celtics' devastating loss, and also the matching sound of hate and cackle from New York. Yes.

When the Celts very graciously, I should put, just in support of my hometown team, bowed out of the series. But I asked our producer, John Chang, like, okay, is this a thing? Is this worth looking at? And he's a...

He's a brilliant producer. And he's like, well, you know, this issue has been going on in the NBA for a long time. But he turned this into like a chef's kiss kind of hour when he's told me there's a real story to be told about the development of this strategy and the deeper history of basketball. So that's what we're going to do for the rest of this hour. And one of the best places to start telling that story is with the Phoenix Suns in 2004. I'd like to.

I'd like to thank everyone for coming today. This is a terrific turnout and I think that when the floodgates of free agency opened up on July 1, we had one specific goal and one specific purpose and

That purpose is sitting right next to me. So, back in 2004, Brian Colangelo was the Suns' general manager. And that purpose, sitting right next to him, was all-star point guard Steve Nash. Nash was a veteran known for his playmaking and efficient shooting. And after finishing second to last in the Western Conference the prior season, the Suns were in dire need of a change. So...

Suns head coach Mike D'Antoni relied on the talents of his new star to revamp the offense. I haven't lost the handle. Suns run, Stoudemire, Nash, memory, there he is. I'd like to see Al crossing the paint, but look how quickly they come back. With 16 turnovers in the game, Nash into Stoudemire, in

With Nash, the Suns pushed the pace, prioritizing speed over size. They also went from taking fewer than 15 threes a game to a league-leading 24.7 threes per game. Led by MVP Steve Nash and Coach of the Year Mike D'Antoni, the Suns recorded a league-best 62 wins.

Now, that offense is now known as the seven seconds or less offense, and it became the framework for the modern NBA offense we see today. Here's former son Amare Stoudemire talking about its influence. I think it was more so of us being positionless. You know, Sean was a natural small forward, but he played this power forward. Yeah.

You know, sometimes guard at the centers. You know, I'm a natural power forward, maybe small forward depending on my agility and quickness, but I play power forward and center back and forth. So we were able to somewhat transcend the game by not really having a position, but yet being able to be versatile within the game. Since then, there's also been the influence of Stephen Curry with Golden State.

And Mike D'Antoni would eventually join the Houston Rockets, where general manager Daryl Morey's data-driven approach helped bring about Moreyball. But we're going to get to that in a moment because, as we've been saying, Mike D'Antoni is also with us today. He's two-time NBA coach of the year, also recognized as a member of the 50 greatest EuroLeague contributors in 2008 for his playing career in Italy. And he's with us as well from KUT in Austin. Coach D'Antoni, welcome to On Points.

Thanks, Magna. Thanks for having me. Okay. So let me ask you about the story. Take us back a little bit here. What was happening around that early 2000 times that made you really think that offense needed to be reshaped? Well, you know, it started, excuse me, earlier in my career. And I thought in Europe, when I was coaching in Europe, that's the best way to play and was working.

Obviously, then you come to the NBA, you have better players to do what I always thought that needed to be done. But again, a big driving force was Shaquille O'Neal was the center in Los Angeles, which is in our division. And, you know, we always said among ourselves, you can't out Shaq Shaq. You know, you can't just trot somebody out there and think you're going to get the best of Shaq. So we had to figure out a way to...

Beat him and that was to speed the game up take more threes and spread them out and then they'll give us a chance to win and

That's so interesting. I had no idea that Shaq was that influential in shaping the way other teams played. He is actually the cause of the three-point shot. So now we have someone to point the finger to. Exactly. So can you bring in your personal influence as a player or experience as a player as well? How did that inform how you wanted to really speed up the offense?

Well, you know, real quick, when I was a point guard at Marshall University, we played kind of with a center that was 6'5", a shooting forward that was like 6'10". So we kind of were positionists anyway. And that was we overachieved that year. And from there, it kind of stuck with me. And then as I played, I played traditionally under other coaches. But I always had a sense that, you know what, if we could spread them out,

play more positionless, it would be better. And then players got better. Players kept evolving. And they're the ones that pushed the dynamic ahead because now you need to play that way. It's the smartest way to play. Yeah. Well, Kirk Goldsberry, do you want to just jump in here and tell us sort of your view of the Shaq effect? Go ahead.

Well, Shaq is as old as the sport. I mean, the game itself before the three-point line was simply dominated by which team had the best athlete in the middle of the floor, whether that was George Mikan or Will Chamberlain or Bill Russell. Shaq was just a logical continuation of that and, frankly, one of the more dominant versions in the early 2000s when Mike is trying to figure out a way to compete in the Western Conference. Shaq was by far the most dominant force there.

In the NBA. And so the idea that jump shooting could win NBA championships was a crazy thought in the early 2000s. You can't go out there and just shoot jumpers and take out a Shaq type presence. Right.

So the NBA ran through the middle. And I think what's happened here in the 2020s is it's running from the suburbs now. And because of offenses that have been designed by Mike and the Indiana Pacers really epitomize this, playing fast, playing wide open, spreading the four with shooters. The Pacers center is not Shaq. He's Miles Turner, who went to the University of Texas, where I'm sitting right now. And he shoots the three ball very well. If you would have told

NBA coaches in 2001 or two that their center could be firing 40 percent from three from 25 feet away. They would have told you that's crazy. So, Coach D'Antoni, I mentioned this phrase, the seven seconds or less offense. Describe to me in detail what that actually is. I mean, it's like as soon as you get possession, you just you want to you want to complete a play within seven seconds.

Well, that would be ideal. There's no really clock that we have, but every practice and every thought was how can we go faster? And that's getting the ball in quick, getting all guys to believe in what we're doing to run the floor, spread them out and beat Shaq down the floor, beat any big down the floor.

And as players got used to it, and also a side effect of the other team having to play at that pace that they never practiced and they never did it, would have tired legs by the end of the game. And we were used to it, so we thought we had an advantage there also. But everything, coaches...

sit around trying to devise systems that gives you a competitive chance to win. And that spurs all the innovation or everything. And it is a copycat league because some coaches don't have original ideas. They have to copy. I've heard that's the sincerest form of flattery, sir. Well, you just try to figure out how can your team play the best that they can play.

Did you have to—so any revolution, right, or any, like, completely out-of-the-box idea requires buy-in from the folks you're asking to do it? Tell me, did you get that buy-in, or did you have to sort of work for it? No, you had to work for it. I got lucky because, one, we got Steve Nash, obviously, and we started off the season 31 and—I think 31 and 4, right?

And I was asking Amari and Sean Marion and everybody to play a different position, do different things. If it would have started off bad, then sure, they would have griped and they wouldn't have bought in. But because we were winning and destroying people, then it was an easier sell to the players. But then you have media that is always a little bit late to come to the party.

And they were killing us back and forth. But it was a constant wave of communication to be able to tell the players what we're doing is the right way to go.

The media was killing you by being critical of this? Oh, yes. Well, like now. Okay. If you listen to a lot of the talk shows, X players, they play a certain way and they have certain ideas, which is not wrong, but that's how they think the game. And you're constantly battling...

trying to get players, you know, coaches talk to players 10 to 15 or a half an hour a day or whatever. And where they go home and their barber talks to them for that half hour or their family, their ex-uncle who played basketball, they all know better. And so it's, you have to really convince the players, this is the way to go.

Is there an NBA equivalent of Monday morning quarterbacking? Yeah, I would definitely think so. Sounds like what you're describing. But, Kirk, tell me a little bit more about, you know, Coach D'Antoni was talking about the NBA being a copycat league, but it's different.

kind of makes perfect sense if all of a sudden there's this brand new offense coming in. It's smoking everyone. It's running players down because, you know, conditioning also suddenly becomes a different kind of issue. Why wouldn't coaches copy it? There's no reason. I think that's true in every game. If you find a good chess strategy or chess opening, that becomes sort of canonical. But I think when I think about Mike and the revolution in the NBA, I

It was sort of misconstrued as small ball for a long time when reality was skill ball. There was the idea that threes were going to become fours and power forwards were going to be centers and the biggest guys on the floor were going to get thrown out of the league. But one of the things we've seen, I think, Magna, more recently is the revelation that it's actually just we can't have unskilled guys. Whether you're talking about the 2010 Heat where...

where Shane Battier and Chris Bosh were playing in the front court, or you're talking about Nikola Jokic here in the 2020s, all five guys on the playing surface have to be skilled. They have to dribble, pass, and shoot. And that's one of the things that Mike's son's teams and his Rockets teams really brought to the forefront is there used to be these guys, almost like bar bouncers, like the typical five men in the NBA, the center position players.

There was occasional shacks, but most of these guys couldn't shoot. They couldn't dribble.

They couldn't pass. Those guys are gone. Those are the guys who have been the casualties. And that's why I say it's skill ball. Almost everybody who plays in the games you're going to watch in the NBA finals can dribble, pass, and shoot no matter what position they're listed at. Oh, that's interesting. Okay. So, gentlemen, we did actually ask on-point listeners who are basketball fans what they thought about the three-point revolution. And here are a couple of answers that we got.

The NBA is taking too many three-point shots, and it is making the game worse.

I'm not taking away any skill that it takes to make a three-point shot. However, it has taken priority over defense. During the past NBA season, I have come to appreciate how the three-point shot has changed the game dramatically. There is no lead that is safe and no deficit that is insurmountable.

So that second voice there was Joe in Worcester, Massachusetts, and the first one, Dee Lou in Atlanta, Georgia. Coach D'Antoni, respond to what Dee is saying. I mean, she says it's like, well, the offense has taken priority over—or a three-point-based offense has taken priority over defense. What do you think? Well, no, it never takes priority over defense. Defense, every coach knows you have to have a good defense to win. But—

All offenses are designed to attack the weakest part of your defense. So a lot of teams, like we played the Milwaukee Bucks and they had a center that hung around the rim or Rudy Gobert who likes to stay back.

And normally, so you're not, your offense is going to be designed to take a lot of threes because they've clogged up the middle. They won't let you get to the rim, which is always the first priority of any good offense is to make layups. So you have to change up your philosophy or your point of attack.

What I disagree with, I don't think it's made the game bad. It makes it exciting. You know, there's a lot of, you know, Steph Curry is Steph Curry because of the three-point shot. That would be a crime not to have him in the league. Or, you know, no lead is safe, which is a good thing. Or there's no repeat champions in the last five or ten years because...

It opens the game up and gives everybody a chance to be that dominant team. Coach D'Antoni, I'm sitting here in Boston, so the idea of not having dynasties anymore is like sacrilege, sir. You better get used to it. But Coach D'Antoni mentioned Steph Curry, and we should actually talk about him in more detail at Golden State, of course. What's his impact on...

you know, on the rise or the continued rise of the use of three-point shots.

I mean, it's massive. I think it's hard to overstate his influence, whether you're talking about the NBA, the WNBA, college basketball, youth basketball. If you go to a playground in Boston or in Austin or wherever you happen to be right now, Meghna, you're going to see kids shooting threes. We used to want to be like Mike when I was a kid. I think a lot of the young players want to be like Steph or be like Caitlin on the playgrounds today. And again, I don't want to

over exaggerate, but it changes what playground basketball looks like. I think that's the greatest tell of an influencer is, is they changed the base of the pyramid, not the top of the pyramid. And Stefan's definitely challenged pro basketball at the highest level too. But, but I think his influence is special because it's really changed how basketball is being played around the world at every level. Opening. Look,

He changed the definition of what a bad shot was in the sport. Like some of the shots he takes, Mike would have bench players for 20 years ago. Describe what you mean.

dribbling up the court, not getting a pass off and just shooting from 30 feet. That would have been crazy. Every college coach in the country would have benched a player for doing that. Some of them still do. But because of Stefan, more of these young guys, more of these 19-year-olds, more of these 22-year-olds on both the men's and women's side, I might add, Sabrina Ionescu and Caitlin Clark, most famously, are doing that too. And he's changed the look and feel of the sport by helping us

re-understand like where a good shot is and what it looks like. And I think that's totally profound. Well, yeah, go ahead, Coach. What Steph did and the Warriors and Steve Kerr, they validated that you can win with a heavy three-point shooting.

And before there was always that question where you can't win the championship, you can't do this with that kind of shooting. And now they validated. That's where the floodgates opened up and the rest of the coaches went after it because of Steph's ability to be able to make shots. Yeah, you know, and my producer, John Chang, also makes me sound a lot smarter than I am because he pointed out to me that Golden State also had a terrific defense.

And the combination is what led to their dynasty run. Always. Well, hang on for a second, gentlemen, because when we come back, I want to look forward into maybe what we're going to see next in the NBA. And maybe should we be taking seriously the grumblings and the rumblings about making rules changes around three-point shots. So all that when we come back. This is On Point. On Point.

Craftsman days are here at Lowe's with big savings on the tools you need. Save $100 on the Craftsman V26 Tool Power Tool Combo Kit, now at $199. No matter what the project is, Craftsman's high-quality, high-performance products empower you to build on. Stop by your nearest Lowe's store and check out the full line of Craftsman tools today. Valid through 618 while supplies last. Selection varies by location.

PMS, pregnancy, menopause. Being a woman is a lot. Oli supports you and yours with expert solutions for every age and life stage. They just launched two new products exclusively at Walmart. Period Hero combats flow, mood swings, and more during PMS. And Balance Perimeno to support hormonal balance, mood, and metabolism during perimenopause. Grab yours at Oli.com. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Coach D'Antoni, hearing you talk about Shaquille O'Neal makes this little clip that I have make so much more sense. So this is NBA Commissioner Adam Silver talking to Hall of Famer Kevin Garnett on the All the Smoke podcast last January. There was a point, I believe, you know, probably in around the late 90s when the game became too physical. Hmm.

And I think we lost some of the... For our viewers, you mean? Yeah, and I think for our fans, from the aesthetic enjoyment of the game, where it de-emphasized the particular skill a player had and maybe weighted too heavily physicality, where a big, strong player could come in and prevent...

a incredibly skilled player from doing those kinds of things. Kirk, let me ask you, were there also rules changes that went along with, you know, the offense revolution that Coach D'Antoni helped bring about?

Yeah, I think before Steve Nash won the MVP with Mike, there were hand-checking allowances on the perimeter where perimeter defenders could simply put their hand on the hip of an offensive guard and really slow down their progress. And when that rule was changed, I want to say 2004 after the Pistons absolutely suffocated Kobe Bryant with their legendary defense in those finals,

It changed how guards and wings could attack the center of the floor. And I believe that Mike's point guard, Steve Nash, will go down in history as the first person to really exploit that rule change and find new ways to create offensive efficiency with attacking point guard play, which is now, I think, the bread and butter of most and

NBA offense is a pick and roll and a guard attacking the middle of the floor. Okay, so let's go back in time a little bit and listen to the one and only Michael Jordan. It's a comment that he made back in 1992 that's sort of recently-ish resurfaced.

In Game 1, Michael Jordan put on a three-point shooting exhibition and a stunning performance, but taking too many threes can hurt his overall performance, according to Michael. My three-point shooting is something that I don't want to excel at because it takes away from all phases of my game. My game is a fake drive to the hole, penetrate, dish off, dunk, whatever.

And when you have that mentality, as I found out in the first game of making threes, you don't go to the hole as much. You go to the three-point line and you start sitting there waiting for someone to find you. And that's not my mentality. And I don't want to create that because it takes away from my other parts of my game.

Michael Jordan in 1992. Coach D'Antoni, obviously none of that is true now. We talked about the myriad of skills which every player on the court has to have these days. But again, when you first introduced this idea of a faster, sharper offense that did take more threes, did some of your players worry that that would, as Jordan said, take away from other parts of their game?

I don't think they're worried about it. I'm worried about it. It's something that, and I understand what Michael was saying, and it's a mistake. Like anything, if you exaggerate something good too much, then it becomes a negative. So I get it, but at the same time, you don't eliminate the three, or you don't take it, or you don't think about it. But every coach is looking for good shots, and good shots depending on your skill level, depending on who you are, and you try to stick in with that.

You know, I have to say, initially, when, again, my attention was brought to this, I was kind of like, oh, is this making the game more boring? But I'm coming around to...

To the point of view both of you are offering here, because it's really a different experience watching than what it used to be with, you know, a really big guy in the middle under the basket just like blocking anything from happening. But there are still some people who wonder about the aesthetics of the game. So here is, again, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver on the big podcast with Shaq.

not just the three-point shooting issue, but there's a certain homogeneity in the game that it looks that teams are copying each other's styles. I think that's less interesting for fans. I mean, Kirk, is it less interesting?

I agree. And this is where we verge off the road of analytically just sort of characterizing the massive transformation of the sport to my personal beliefs. And not everybody's going to agree, but I think basketball is at its best when there's diverse ways to thrive. And that's why we have these five organically sort of

evolved positions in the sport and different ways to play offense. And I agree with Adam, too, was in the 80s and 90s, dump it down to the big fella, it got a little stale. And we needed a change. And some of Mike's offenses in Phoenix and Houston and some of the other places in Miami and in San Antonio, where we started to see just...

ball movement and player movement and it was a huge breath of fresh air so i want to be very clear the three-point line this pace and space has brought a lot of life into pro basketball but where should that three-point line be and why should it be there i think is the question of the day and the last thing i'd say is you know major league baseball we've been copying baseball in the sport for a long time and they had their own aesthetic crisis analytics driven crisis uh

earlier in this decade. And Theo Epstein deserves a lot of credit for looking at this issue analytically and making some small tweaks to the Major League Baseball rule base that have greatly improved the flow of that game and brought some of the diversity on the playing surface back to that game. So I

I share the commissioner's idea that the sport is at its best when it's diverse offensive plays, different kinds of superstars, different kinds of offenses competing against each other. And I do think that's a fair criticism of what we're seeing right now, Magna. Coach D'Antoni, I'd love to hear you on this. Well, I agree with Kirk. The thing is, you know, players dictate the type of team you have or the style of play.

And they will change. Over years, they evolve. And we're now seeing, like last night, watching Oklahoma City play.

SGA and some of the things he was doing mid-range, he was unbelievable. And obviously a coach will encourage that more mid-range shots, especially if it can shoot it like him. So now players will watch him. He's MVP and they will model the game after him. And there'll be more of that type of basketball as they did with Nash, as they did with Curry. And, you know, who knows where the next,

trend will be, but it's always going to lead to efficiency and the best way to win. And if you're a great two-point shooter,

floaters, mid-range. And if you become great at that, guess what? Then you'll shoot that. And they'll be encouraged. So I think people need to relax a little bit. The game will evolve. I still think it's very exciting. The playoffs have been great. Comebacks are great. And, you know, I don't think a lot of times be careful what you tinker with, but

Because you'll get something that's not expected. Yeah. You know, Kirk mentioned analytics. We've said this word a lot, analytics, analytics. And for people who aren't even baseball fans, everyone's still heard of the idea of Moneyball, right, in baseball. And Billy Bean having brought analytics to baseball. So, Mike D'Antoni, what I'd love to hear is your story and your thoughts on what's called in basketball moneyball.

Maury ball, right? Because when you went to Houston, it was Daryl Maury who you teamed up with, who was really influential to analytics in basketball. Can you tell me a little bit like that, what your conversations were like with him?

Well, we kind of, we were thinking on the same plane. So that always works when your general manager, the owner and coach and star players think the same way, then it's easier to sell and it's much easier to get things done. Daryl was really good at being able to put the analytic part into the game. And actually what it did for me, it gave me more confidence as a coach. When I go talk to a player before Daryl,

We really talked about analytics. It was more my gut, what I was thinking, and I had to convince a player that he needs to change his game to this. Now with analytics, you have a tool that comes into play and I can show him. Well, it's just not what I think. It's what the numbers are telling us. And so the conversations are much easier. It gives me confidence as a coach to be able to use that tool to make decisions that I think is right.

But now with the numbers telling me, yes, it is right, go for it. Then instead of shooting 24 threes, which we did at Phoenix, we can go up to 40 or 50 with Houston because that's the way to go. And, you know, there'll be an exaggeration. Some teams exaggerate. Some teams only hock up threes because it might be the only way they could win.

But I think for the most part, teams are super efficient now and basketball is better. So, Coach, let me just see a follow-up there because you said that you had this sort of intuitive sense, but the data backed up that intuition. I actually really appreciate hearing that because I think, again, from a fan's perspective, maybe not all fans, but some fans' perspective, it's like when things become too data-driven, right?

does it take some of that organic passion and almost unconscious understanding of the game sort of out of the experience? Oh, definitely. You know, analytics will always be a great tool to use, but it will not be the tell-all. It's not everything. And a coach has to use his judgment on players, make up individuals, have their personalities, and adjust things.

Kirk, can I rely on you to help us learn a bit more about Daryl Morey, sort of who he is and why he's so influential in analytics and basketball?

Yeah, I mean, Daryl is sort of a leader of the analytics movement in pro basketball. I think one thing that's really interesting about Daryl's background is he worked with Bill James. Bill James famously started Sabermetrics in baseball, which really sparked the Moneyball revolution. In fact, Bill James was a character in Moneyball. But Bill James and Daryl have a very sort of analytical way of looking at how can we arbitrage

efficiency. And Moneyball really isn't a book about analytics. It's a book about how we can use financial thinking and financial reasoning to arbitrage efficiency on the playing surface and with our personnel to change how we evaluate baseball players. And he brought it to basketball. And shot selection is the thing that that team is always going to be remembered for, that Mike coached.

more threes than twos that kind of stuff but Daryl really used that with personnel as well to identify the players that could play efficiently in that kind of system as a general manager uh and he's still doing that in Philadelphia today but yeah he's really for me the face of what Moneyball brought uh to Pro right okay so this idea of arbitrage finding arbitrage in the game of baseball or

basketball. It's really interesting to me because, of course, how large that margin is really matters. So we spoke with Justin Ehrlich and Shane Sanders. They're professors of sports analytics at Syracuse University. And Professor Sanders told us there's actually been a slight shift in the value of the three-point shot.

NBA teams were taking more and more threes since the advent of player tracking in 2013-14, and they were right to do so. There was a pretty strong three-point premium.

And this got them very far all the way up to about 2018-19. That's the first year that Justin and I find there is actually a three-point dis-premium. Dis-premium. Okay, but how do you prove that? Well, Professor Ehrlich says with data you can literally calculate, obviously, the number of points scored based on each shot attempt and also consider how many points you score from the subsequent free throws if you get fouled.

So a three-point shot is worth 1.09 points on average, and a two-point is worth 1.17. For every three-point attempt, you're losing 0.08 points. So they've only been focusing on the threes this whole time, leaving these valuable twos left alone. And so the most valuable shot is actually under the rim, but we're seeing even a decrease there of shots being made under the rim. Kirk, what do you think?

Yeah, I respectfully disagree with those professors at Syracuse. And I would say what they're seeing there is an artifact of something else, which is the absolute sort of diminishing mid-range shooting. Those 40% two-point opportunities that Michael Jordan is remembered for. Kobe Bryant is remembered for. The fadeaway jump shot off the low block. The league has...

very rapidly moved away from two-point jump shooting and as that's happened Magnum what we've seen is the efficiency of two-point shooting relatively appears At that level to be more efficient, but that's because everybody knows and Mike's been coaching this Dunks and layups are the best shot on the board that has not changed and

But, yes, the second best shot in the league is the corner three, and you're not going to convince me otherwise. A 40 percent opportunity from the three-point line is a great shot. That's why they represent one in nine shots in the NBA are from those corners. So I think what they're seeing there, respectfully, I disagree, is just an artifact of the loss of the two-point jumper. Yeah, okay.

Having grown up in the era of the Bulls dynasty, a beautiful dunk will always make my heart soar. But so we've got about a minute left. I'm so sorry. This conversation has gone up very, very quickly. But Coach D'Antoni, Kirk had mentioned at the very top of the show, like, OK, well, maybe the NBA should be open to some –

Rules changes based on how good teams, the Celtics aside, are at three-point shooting right now. What about the area of the three-point line that's actually closer, those side shots? I mean, should those be banned? Is there some way to move the line there? What do you think?

Well, again, you can't move the line back from the corners because you have seats there. And most arenas are not able to do that. That would cost a lot of money. And NBA owners will lose seat money, which they will not do. So you would have to have only an arc up on top and eliminate totally the corner shot. Don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. Could be experimented with.

The G League is perfect for that. That's one of the reasons that they try new rules in the G League to see if it affects the game in a positive way. So yes, we could tinker with it a little bit, move it back. I don't think that'll bother most players because they're so good at what they do. But the game will evolve and we'll see where it goes.

Well, Mike D'Antoni is a legendary and two-time NBA coach of the year. Coach D'Antoni, it's been such a thrill to talk with you. Thank you so much. Thanks, Megan. Nice talking to you. And Kirk Goldsberry, NBA analyst at the Ranger, former vice president of strategic research for the San Antonio Spurs, author of Hoop Atlas and Sprawl Ball. What a pleasure it's been to talk with you, Kirk. Thank you so much.

My pleasure. Thanks for having me, Meghna. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. This is On Point.

Support for this podcast comes from Is Business Broken? A podcast from BU Questrom School of Business. How should companies balance short-term pressures with long-term interests? In the relentless pursuit of profits in the present, are we sacrificing the future? These are questions posed at a recent panel hosted by BU Questrom School of Business. The full conversation is available on the Is Business Broken podcast. Listen on for a preview.

Just in your mind, what is short-termism? If there's a picture in the dictionary, what's the picture? I'll start with one ugly one. When I was still doing activism as global head of activism and defense, so banker defending corporations, I worked with Toshiba in Japan. And those guys had five different activists, each one of which had a very different idea of what they should do right now, like short-term.

Very different perspectives. And unfortunately, under pressure from the shareholders, the company had to go through two different rounds of breaking itself up, selling itself and going for shareholder votes. I mean, that company was effectively broken because the leadership had to yield under the pressure of shareholders who couldn't even agree on what's needed in the short term. So to me, that is when this behavioral problem, you're under pressure and you can't think long term, becomes a real problem.

real disaster. Tony, you didn't have a board like that. I mean, the obvious ones, I mean, you look at there's quarterly earnings. We all know that you have businesses that will do everything they can to make a quarterly earning, right? And then we'll get into analysts and what causes that. I'm not even going to go there. But there's also, there's a lot of pressure on businesses to, if you've got a portfolio of businesses, sell off an element of that portfolio. And as a manager, you say, wait, this is a really good business. Might be down this year, might be, but it's a great business.

Another one is R&D spending. You can cut your R&D spend if you want to, and you can make your numbers for a year or two, but we all know where that's going to lead a company. And you can see those decisions every day, and you can see businesses that don't make that sacrifice. And I think in the long term, they win.

Andy, I'm going to turn to you. Maybe you want to give an example of people complaining about short-termism that you think isn't. I don't really believe it exists. I mean, you know, again, I don't really even understand what it is. But what I hear is we take some stories and then we impose on them this idea that had they behaved differently, thought about the long term, they would have behaved differently. That's not really science.

Find the full episode by searching for Is Business Broken wherever you get your podcasts and learn more about the Mehrotra Institute for Business, Markets and Society at ibms.bu.edu.