- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,418
- Reaction Score
- 7,725
Well maybe, we just don't truly know right?Banning the dunk didn't make Bird a better player in the paint. Being a basketball savant, a 15 inch vertical, and the foot speed of a 3 legged turtle all but eliminated his need to dunk a lot.
I think the growth in importance of the 3-point shot had a bigger impact on the development of great post players. Once upon a time, if you were taller than 6'9" you were going to play in the paint, either willing or by force. If Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, or Dirk had been born 15 - 25 years earlier some coach would have tied them to the block until the forgot about shooting. The growth of the 3-pointer and everyone wanting to shoot them hurt post development. If you shoot 10/20 in the paint you get 20 points. If you shoot 8/20 from Three you get 24 points. Less physical toll and more points while being less efficient. Why wouldn't you develop a long range shot instead of a good drop-step?
We have essentially one player in the history of basketball for whom the banning of the dunk coincided with his development and it just happened to produce one of the 5 greatest players ever so it sounds compelling. But we'd really have to look at every big man that played in college from 1968-76 versus those that did immediately preceding and after and then their corresponding NBA careers. Did field goal percentage go up or down? Did these guys have longer careers b/c they knew how to play aerial and ground-bound games?
Millinium is absolutely right though that the 3-point shot encouraged more/better outside shooting and less post play. I would bet that BEFORE the 3 pointer EVERY basketball player spent much less time shooting from 19'+ versus the time spent practicing other shots. Now its probably 50%* (3's) - 50% (all other shots) on average for high school and college players practicing on their own and even higher for 3-pt specialists.
*#s recently spiked with Steph Curry's popularity & success

Last edited: