I don't usually blog about sports, but this has been on my mind and I need to get it off my chest. There's a lot of generational comparisons of the NBA. Who was better? Would Stephen Curry be as good a player back then? I think he would have been.
What no one is talking about is the game itself. What is the object of the game? The object of the game is to put the ball in the basket, and to stop your opponent from putting the ball in the basket. Whoever gets the most points wins. The easiest and best shots are slam dunks and lay ups. The hardest and worst shot you can take is a three point shot. It's such a bad shot that you're awarded an extra point if you make it. Simple, right? There's a logic to it.
When I was growing up, when we walked to and from school uphill both ways, basketball players abided by these simple principles. Sure, players took three point shots, but it was understood that it was a bad shot. Nowadays, players are chucking three point shots as if they were good shots, and that can drive a thinking man crazy. It's hard to watch. Even the best three point shooters in the league miss half of the time.
When I played on the playground, if someone was chucking threes over and over and missing, we'd either tell them to stop shooting threes or not pass the ball to him. Sometimes I'd look a player right in the eye and pass it to someone else.
The object of the game is to win. The best shot in basketball is a slam dunk or a layup, the worst shot in the game is a three point shot. That will never change unless there's a four point shot. And let's hope that never happens or we'll have change the name from basketball to bouncy ball.
