History of the Three Point Shot

Thought you might like this synoptic history of the three-point shot.

Howard Hobson, the guy who led Oregon to its only basketball championship back in 1939, then went on to Columbia to get a Master's in Education at Teachers College. (Different era, that.) Hobson was a basketball nut, and while at Columbia wrote a thesis which he turned into the 1949 book, "Scientific Basketball." Hobson had a lot of ideas about basketball, one being, "the long field goal is the most spectacular play in basketball." He felt that shot was worth three points. Not only that, a three-point shot would diminish the importance of the taller players who could drop the ball in near the basket.

This all led to the first-ever game to deploy the three-point shot, Columbia v. Fordham on Feb 7,1945. In that game, Columbia made eleven trey's, Fordham nine. They asked the fans to vote on whether they liked it or not, and the tally came in at 148 in favor, 105 against. But the Press was against, one writer fearing the three-point shot would disrupt teamwork, and so it disappeared until the short-lived American Basketball League used it for the 1961-62 season, and the longer-lived American Basketball Association started using it in 1967. It didn't make it to the NBA until 1979, and the NCAA went to it in 1986.

Thanks to Shawn Fury in Columbia Magazine.

Thank you and ...keep shooting.

Interesting but the women's team at South Carolina won the national championship by playing old fashioned basketball and not shooting 3s. They only attempted 3 shots because of the clock winding down. They showed speed, aggression and ball handling, in the paint and under the basket. The 3pt shot is for teams that need to do that because of talent and coaching. Few can make it consistently over a season.

GrizLA said:

Interesting but the women's team at South Carolina won the national championship by playing old fashioned basketball and not shooting 3s. They only attempted 3 shots because of the clock winding down. They showed speed, aggression and ball handling, in the paint and under the basket. The 3pt shot is for teams that need to do that because of talent and coaching. Few can make it consistently over a season.

Click to expand...

The only way you can get away with "old-fashioned" basketball is if your opponent is not hitting three's either. But if they are...go sit in the corner with Charles Barkley and all the other old big-ass dinosaurs whining about today's "jump shooters." Game's changed. It's not their game anymore.

citay said:

Thought you might like this synoptic history of the three-point shot.

Howard Hobson, the guy who led Oregon to its only basketball championship back in 1939, then went on to Columbia to get a Master's in Education at Teachers College. (Different era, that.) Hobson was a basketball nut, and while at Columbia wrote a thesis which he turned into the 1949 book, "Scientific Basketball." Hobson had a lot of ideas about basketball, one being, "the long field goal is the most spectacular play in basketball." He felt that shot was worth three points. Not only that, a three-point shot would diminish the importance of the taller players who could drop the ball in near the basket.

This all led to the first-ever game to deploy the three-point shot, Columbia v. Fordham on Feb 7,1945. In that game, Columbia made eleven trey's, Fordham nine. They asked the fans to vote on whether they liked it or not, and the tally came in at 148 in favor, 105 against. But the Press was against, one writer fearing the three-point shot would disrupt teamwork, and so it disappeared until the short-lived American Basketball League used it for the 1961-62 season, and the longer-lived American Basketball Association started using it in 1967. It didn't make it to the NBA until 1979, and the NCAA went to it in 1986.

Thanks to Shawn Fury in Columbia Magazine.

Click to expand...

Cool find Citay, thanks.

citay said:

GrizLA said:

Interesting but the women's team at South Carolina won the national championship by playing old fashioned basketball and not shooting 3s. They only attempted 3 shots because of the clock winding down. They showed speed, aggression and ball handling, in the paint and under the basket. The 3pt shot is for teams that need to do that because of talent and coaching. Few can make it consistently over a season.

Click to expand...

The only way you can get away with "old-fashioned" basketball is if your opponent is not hitting three's either. But if they are...go sit in the corner with Charles Barkley and all the other old big-ass dinosaurs whining about today's "jump shooters." Game's changed. It's not their game anymore.

Click to expand...

The idea behind the 3-point shot is certainly legit ... a longer shot should be rewarded. So I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with how it was implemented at the college level ... and somewhat with the pro implementation. Mainly, I think the NCAA makes it too easy.

The top fifty or so teams in the NCAA make about 40% of their treys. Even a mid-level team makes about 35%. In terms of points per shooting possession -- using 2 points as the baseline, those numbers become 60% and 53%. In contrast, for normal field goals, the top teams make maybe 48%, while the mid-levels run at around 44%. So most teams are clearly better off, in the long run, running their offense to set up the 3-point shot.

That, in lots of people's opinions (not just "old" curmudgeons) makes the game less interesting and exciting because many offensive options are just not worth spending the time (judged from a statistical, points-per-possession basis). I think the NCAA should at least try the pro or the international depth for the line. Then we could see if the risk-reward between the 2- and 3-point shot might balance out better.
FWIW: The top forty trey-shooters in the NBA average 40-45% on those shots (equivalent to 60-67%). The top forty 2-point shooters run 50-66%. So the stats still favor shooting the trey, but not nearly as much as at the NCAA level.

Also, given the rationale for the 3-pointer (i.e. reward a longer, more difficult shot), basketball should do away with truncated side zones that parallel the sidelines. Why should a corner shot that's almost two feet shorter count at much as one from outside the full arc? (It's not that much by international rules, but the principle is the same.)

citay said:

GrizLA said:

Interesting but the women's team at South Carolina won the national championship by playing old fashioned basketball and not shooting 3s. They only attempted 3 shots because of the clock winding down. They showed speed, aggression and ball handling, in the paint and under the basket. The 3pt shot is for teams that need to do that because of talent and coaching. Few can make it consistently over a season.

Click to expand...

The only way you can get away with "old-fashioned" basketball is if your opponent is not hitting three's either. But if they are...go sit in the corner with Charles Barkley and all the other old big-ass dinosaurs whining about today's "jump shooters." Game's changed. It's not their game anymore.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the South Carolina women who managed to do that...you can see them in the parade in Columbia with their trophy...and not, Notre Dame, Connecticut, Mississippi State, UCLA, Stanford..all big with the 3 pt shot. Barkley should have played football because that is how he played under the basket before refs took over.

GrizLA said:

... Barkley should have played football because that is how he played under the basket before refs took over.

Click to expand...

Hey, don't you be picking on "Sir Charles." Alternately, the "round mound of rebound" was a force anywhere near the basket. Of course, as you suggest, he'd last about six minutes (six minutes, six fouls ... get it!? :lol: ).

But I love to hear Barkley commentate. He just let's it all hang out when he opens his mouth. Pretty refreshing, considering the weasel-crap most of the talking heads put out. And sometimes (but only sometimes ), I actually agree with what he has to say.