The Long Ball

In an article I recently read, Michael Jordan makes an observation about basketball in the modern era that caught my attention. Despite his own proficiency, Jordan suggested that the three-point shot has had a negative effect on the game.

People my age can remember basketball before the three-point shot was created. When all shots counted as two points, most shots were taken closer to the basket. The logic was simple—the closer the shooter was to the hoop, the greater the probability that the shot would go in. A shot from long range was rare, usually taken in desperation.

Jordan suggests that the more exciting aspects of basketball, driving through players to get to the basket and passing off to players cutting to the basket, have gradually been replaced by the three-point shooter, who stands off on a wing or nearly at half-court, waiting somewhat passively for the ball to be passed to him or her before shooting.

If my memory is correct, the three-point shot was created to balance the ability of taller players to dunk the ball with ease. The dunk isn’t really a shot at all; it’s a drop or a slam. No doubt, the three-point shot gave the shorter players a greater role in game, but Jordan implies that the three-point shot didn’t balance the situation. Instead, the three-point shot imbalanced the game in the opposite direction. Players like Steph Curry and Caitlin Clark make the three-point shot look easy, and for them maybe it is.

Of course, people my age can remember basketball before the twenty-four-second rule was added. If you are younger and can’t imagine basketball before this change, google Bob Cousy and watch films of opposing players desperately trying to keep up with Cousy as he dribbled for minutes at a time.

The three-point shot and the twenty-four-second clock were added to make the game more appealing to fans. Michael Jordan, certainly one qualified to comment, makes us question if bowing to the appetite of fans is always good for a sport.

Jordan’s reflections on basketball remind me of how much baseball has also changed over my lifetime. When my sister, an avid baseball fan, lived in St. Louis, I would drive over two or three times a season to watch Mark McGwire hit. I admit that seeing McGwire at the plate, especially when he homered, was something awesome to behold. The ball seemed to rise off his bat and even pick up speed as it headed for the bleachers or the upper-deck.

In many ways, however, the home run isn’t the most exciting play in baseball. Yes, the player hits the ball a long way, but the hitter can jog around the bases without breaking a sweat. Sometimes, the outfielders don’t even move on a home run; they just turn and watch the ball leave the park. The home run is really one of the most passive moments in baseball.

The rarer and more exciting achievement in baseball is the triple. On a potential triple, the ball stays in the park, and the race is between the speed of the hitter and the speed and arms of the outfielders.

Every season, a baseball player will hit two, maybe even three or four home runs in a game. I can’t remember ever watching a game where a player hit even two triples. Put another way, baseball

fanatics might know how many homers the Reds or the Cubs hit last season, but only the true die-hard will know how many triples those clubs hit.

Is there a point to these ruminations? If there is a point, it is that we have to protect the sports we love from changing solely to fit the desire of fans. After all, if there is a three-point line on a basketball court, in the future there could be a four-point or even five-point line.

Our love of sports is better served by educating fans to appreciate not what is the most spectacular visually, but what is the rarest and most difficult.