1

Daniel Ioffreda

ENGL 137H

Professor Babcock

November 10, 2016

Legislation Changed the Game

Game 6 of the 2013 NBA finals. The Miami Heat was matched up against the San

Antonio Spurs, who led the series by one game. A loss in this match would crush the dreams

of Heat players to be three time NBA Champions. By the end of the fourth quarter, the score

was 95-92; the Spurs were ahead with twenty seconds on the clock. The Heat pushed the ball

down the court, and LeBron James decided to immediately pull up from three-point range.

The shot clanked off of the iron and eventually ended up in the hands of teammate Ray Allen.

With five seconds remaining, Ray put up a final three-point shot that touched nothing but the

silky nylon net. The Heat went on to win that game in overtime and later claim Game 7 to be

crowned the World Champions.

Without the opportunity to score a three-point shot in the final seconds of Game 6, the

outcome of this NBA Finals series would most likely have been completely different. There

was a time in the history of basketball when this type of shot was unheard of, but since the

inception of the three-point line, the game has changed immensely. A number of paradigm

shifts in the sport have been facilitated by formal rule changes. I would argue that legislative

actions, specifically the creation of the shot clock and three-point line, have substantially

changed the game of basketball. A dissatisfaction in the style of play as well as a need to

develop a more exciting game have led to much of the transformation pertaining to strategy

and culture.
 2

The evolution of basketball is incredible, and there have been a myriad of forces working

to shape the game into what it is today. Now to understand the progress made within the

sport, one must also have a brief understanding of its early beginnings. Basketball was

invented in the year of 1891 by Canadian-American and physical education professor Dr.

James Naismith. The game was played with two peach baskets and a soccer ball at the time it

was created (James Naismith). Fast forward approximately six decades to 1949, the year

when the Basketball Association of America (BAA) and the National Basketball League

(NBL) merged to become the National Basketball Association (NBA) (*Nat Holman*).

The NBA is now well-respected and viewed as the most popular professional league. It has

certainly endured its fair share of refinement over the years, however, starting with one of the

most significant alterations, the creation of the 24-second shot clock.

The creation of the 24-second shot clock, an act of legislation, was in response to a

sluggish and unentertaining style of play prevalent in the NBA during its early stages around

the 1950s; it likely saved the sport of basketball from ruin. The shot clock was defined as a

period of time in which the team in possession of the ball had to put up a shot that made

contact with the rim. Failure to do so resulted in a turnover of the ball. The culture and

strategy of this pastime before the implementation of the shot clock was radically different

than post-introduction of the rule. How the culture and strategy were defined actually

propelled the league towards change. Basketball was a much lower-scoring and slower game

before the 24-second shot clock. Since there was no rule forcing a team to incite some type of

offensive action, the play was patient, measured, and slow. Once a team gained a relatively

large marginal lead, there was no incentive to continue any type of offensive aggressiveness.

The strategy of any intelligent organization would be to maintain possession of the ball and
 3

waste the time away. This style of play, as most would agree, was very unexciting and

unentertaining to anyone watching or even participating in the game. Competitions were also

longer during this era because teams trailing were coerced into fouling the team in the lead.

This tactic was the only way to get the ball back and continue an offensive attack when

matched up against skilled ball-handlers. For example, gifted point guard, Bob Cousy

would, if their team had a lead in the fourth quarter, simply kill time by dribbling in the

backcourt until they were fouled (Paikert). Who would enjoy watching a game such as this?

Apparently, it was not uncommon for a team to keep possession of the ball for five whole

minutes before even attempting a shot (Paikert). Another trend seen at this time in the game

was constant posting-up by big men to gain a lead. There was no time limit forcing any sort

of urgency, so teams strategized to consistently feed the larger players until an optimal shot

opportunity arose. In general, the NBA was stale, dull, and in need of revitalization,

especially as an emerging professional league trying to make an impression. People wanted

something faster-paced, and the NBA was certainly looking for a way to spark more interest.

Danny Biasone, the 75-year-old owner of the Syracuse Nationals, saved the game of

basketball when he proposed the 24-second shot clock rule on April 22, 1954 at the annual

meeting for NBA team owners in New York (Paikert). Danny was not some wealthy dignitary

coming in to stir things up. He was really a modest man who wanted to see this sport make a

change in the right direction. Little did he know that his suggestion would transform

basketball as it was known to the world. According to Alex Sachare, former editor for the

National Basketball Association, In 1954-55, its first season, NBA teams averaged 93.1

points, an increase of 13.6 points over the previous season. The shot clock clearly started to

have a large impact on basketball almost immediately after its implementation. The effects
 4

are obvious in other strategic and cultural facets of the game too. Strategically, teams started

to incorporate transition offense as a way to quickly score after a defensive outing. There was

much more ball movement and crisp passing. The tempo was increased, and finally there was

a sense of urgency on the court. There were much more shots being taken. Culturally, fans

were able to enjoy a much more exciting game with higher scores and faster paces of play.

Legislation was the catalyst for these new trends, while the desire for a fresh, dynamic game

was the driving force.

The addition of the three-point line worked in a similar fashion to mold the sport of

basketball into its current form; there was dissatisfaction in some aspects of the play style

and a yearning for innovation. As a whole, the style of play and culture surrounding the game

before the three-point shot was much different than what is seen in basketball today. To

consider more specifically the NBA, this distinct period of play lasted from the establishment

of the league in 1949 until the inception of the three-point line in the 1979-1980 season.

During these early stages of the NBA, big-men dominated the sport. Since every shot was

worth the same point value, the most efficient attempts were the ones taken closest to the

basket. In the article, The line that changed the game, Lee Feinswog explained the

difference in play styles before and after the rule change as, When a team is on offense,

most of the time all five players are in motion and never are there two or even three of them

simply standing around 20 feet away from the basket waiting for a kick out. When he

mentions the players in motion, he is referring to basketball before the three-point line. The

game was rooted in aggressiveness and post-play, so offensive players would need to move

and free up space for the inside game. Mid-range shots were much more prevalent compared

to today, a time where this shot attempt is increasingly being phased out as a team strategy.
 5

The ideology of this early game of basketball was very traditional. Some people loved

basketball as it was, a physical sport centered around strategic planning to get shot attempts

close to the hoop. When talk of a three-point shot started to emerge, many people were

uninterested. As we know today, a shift did occur, and this adjustment was met with great

opposition and support alike.

In 1961, the American Basketball League (ABL) was the first professional league to

adopt the three-point rule. It was introduced as a way to compete with the NBA, but the

league failed within a year (Stern). This type of creativity was experimented with again in the

Eastern Professional Basketball League, but like the ABL, the league failed after just one

year. The idea was having trouble gaining traction among players, coaches, and fans. It was

not until after the American Basketball Association (ABA) was created in 1967 with the

three-point line in place that the NBA started to seriously consider the concept. The ABA was

cofounded by the former NBA star George Mikan and defined by its fan-friendly nature

and willingness to question the rules of the game (Wood). The ABA was even regarded as a

slight competitor to the NBA, inclining the National Basketball Association to further

examine the option of implementing this legislation. The ABA was able to hold its ground as

a relatively prominent league for years, up until it was acquired by the NBA in 1976 (Stern).

During this merger, the three-point line rule was actually not assimilated into the NBA. The

leagues impression of this revolutionary shot was still not optimistic. Due to a number of

potential external influences, the NBA finally decided to adopt the three-point rule during the

1979-1980 season. One reason for the choice to accept the rule was to revitalize the National

Basketball Association and spark more of an interest in the sport. Just as it was important in

the creation of the shot clock, the need to keep viewers engaged in and entertained by the
 6

sport was instrumental in the eventual adoption of the three-point shot. Another likely factor

that contributed to the NBAs decision to appropriate the three-point rule was the bad

publicity surrounding the league during the time after the merger. There was an apparent

widespread issue with illegal drug use in the league, and as a result, generalizations were

assigned to the NBA as a whole. With a tarnished reputation and potentially detrimental

situation on their hands, the league decided to implement the three-point shot to draw

attention away from the bad press (Stern). As one can see, there were many moving parts in

this decision-making process, but finally settling on an option was the least of the leagues

worries. Directly after the announcement by Commissioner Larry OBrien about this new

legislative change, the NBA was forced to deal with the transition of the rule into the sport

and the very real opposition to it at the time.

Coaches, players, and even some fans were skeptical as to how the three-point line would

work in the NBA. The shot was famously labeled as gimmicky, an adjective many

traditionalists would use to describe the rule. The article How the N.B.A. 3-Point Shot Went

From Gimmick to Game Changer, by Victor Mather explains the various outcries against the

three-pointer. It states that Red Auerbach, President of the Boston Celtics, was quoted as

saying, We dont need it. I say you leave our game alone. Mr. Auerbach is referring to the

three-point shot in his quote, and these sentiments of anger and anxiety were almost

ubiquitous around the league. The same article quotes Phoenix Suns Coach John MacLeod as

saying, It may change our game at the end of the quarters, but Im not going to set up plays

for guys to bomb from 23 feet. I think thats very boring basketball. Now these negative

feelings on the three-point line were reflected in the success of the shot during its first

season. In 1979-1980 season, the average number of threes per game was 6 (Stern). To put
 7

this into perspective, during the 2012-2013 season, the average number of three-pointers

taken per game was over 40 (Stern). In the early 1980s, the shot continued to be

underutilized and disregarded in the strategic plans of coaches. The rule was on the brink of

ruin, when Hall-of-Famer Larry Bird decided to prove the naysayers wrong. He started to

capitalize on this unfamiliar and extremely uncommon part of the game. During the 1984-

1985 season, Bird shot an unheard of 43 percent from three (Stern). He showed the rest of

the league and the public that this type of range was possible. The use of the three-pointer

started to gain popularity in the late 80s, and players became more accurate from this

distance. Three-point experts like Danny Ainge of the Celtics and 5-foot-10 Michael Adams

of the Denver Nuggets helped to pave the way for the three-pointer during this time period as

well (Mather). The stigma that had so long been associated with the three-point shot was

starting to diminish. Again, the implications relating to the culture and strategy of the game

were huge.

The opportunity to shoot a deadly shot from range caused coaches to question and

manipulate their strategies. Especially as shooters were starting to get comfortable beyond

the arc, coaches were forced to adapt to this new style of offense. Defenders now needed to

cover areas on the floor that were previously left completely unguarded. The effects on the

floor spacing were quite clear. The shot opened up the court and allowed for more space for

big-men to work in the post, so not only did the new rule foster a style of play for smaller

players, it benefitted the inside game too. Rick Pitino is considered possibly the most

impactful coach in the progression of the three-point shot. He integrated this shot into his

strategy as a key component while coach of the Providence College basketball team. Three-

point attempts for the Friars were much higher than any other college basketball team at the
 8

time. Billy Donovan, player for Pitino during the 1980s and current coach of the Oklahoma

City Thunder, remembers the team being told to shoot 35 three-pointers a game (Haberstroh).

Donovan is quoted as saying, You had guys who were coaching 25 and 30 years who were

used to a certain way, and they had to reevaluate things philosophically" (Haberstroh). Pitino

was certainly one not to rely on traditional styles of play.

All of these factors played a role in progressing the three-point line to its current state

today, and the game we see is radically changed. Teams smaller in size were given an

equalizer after the inception of the three-point shot, and we continue to see shorter athletes do

exceptionally well in the league. Players who literally specialize in the shot have emerged as

stars. Some famous names that come to mind are Ray Allen and Stephen Curry. The NBA

now in general is defined by a three-happy, small ball fad, dominated by teams like the

Golden State Warriors. Culturally, fans now enjoy a higher-scoring and faced-paced game.

The sport is much more exciting now and extremely hard to imagine without the three-point

shot.

Throughout history, basketball has adapted to keep up with the changing times. Rule

modifications within the sport have really led to much of the transformation we witness

today. Although many legislative changes have been met with great opposition at the time of

their inception, they were all motivated by some type of metamorphosis in societys values.

More specifically, the addition of the shot clock and three-point line in basketball were

implemented as a way to create a more exciting and dynamic game for viewers. These rules

sparked a complete paradigm shift in how the sport of basketball was played and viewed.

One can be sure that rules will continue to change in basketball, inevitably igniting more

shifts in the culture and strategy of the sport.

 9

Works Cited

Feinswog, Lee. The Line That Changed the Game. NCAA.com, 23 Jan. 2012,

www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2012-01-23/line-changed-game.

Haberstroh, Tom. How the NBA Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. ESPN.com, 3

June 2015, www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/id/12993098/nba-35-year-war-3

-pointer.

James Naismith. Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Encyclopedia Britannica,

www.britannica.com/biography/james-naismith.

Mather, Victor. How the N.B.A. 3-Point Shot Went From Gimmick to Game Changer. The

New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2016,

www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/sports/basketball/how-the-nba-3-point-shot-went-from-

gimmick-to-game-changer.html?_r=0.

*Nat Holman* The Man, His Legacy, and CCNY. *Nat Holman* The Man, His Legacy,

and CCNY, CCNY Libraries, digital-

archives.ccny.cuny.edu/exhibits/holman/timeline.html.

Paikert, Charles. The Clock Starts Ticking. The New York Times, 22 Apr. 1954,

www.nytimes.com/packages/html/sports/year_in_sports/04.22.html.
 10

Sachare, Alex. 24-Second Clock Revived the Game. NBA Encyclopedia Playoff Edition,

www.nba.com/history/24secondclock.html.

Shoals, Bethlehem. The NBA Has a 3-Pointer Problem-But Don't Blame Steph Curry. GQ, 25

Mar. 2016, www.gq.com/story/the-nba-has-a-3-pointer-problembut-dont-blame-steph-

curry.

Stern, Macklin. From the ABA to the Present Day: The Evolution of The 3-Pointer. The Sports

Post, 11 July 2013, thesportspost.com/from-the-aba-to-the-present-day-the-evolution-of-

the-3-pointer/#axzz4onnec1nl.

Wood, Ryan. The History of the 3-Pointer. USA Basketball, 15 June 2015,

www.usab.com/youth/news/2011/06/the-history-of-the-3-pointer.aspx.