[rossdavidh]

One possibility is that there are more players who can make 3-point shots at a high enough percentage to make this true. Also, it depends on how good the defense is vs. 2-point shots; if that gets tighter, then the 3-point shot becomes more valuable.

Which also suggests how things may continue to evolve; the best defense vs. 3-point shots probably compromises your defense vs. 2-point shots, and eventually some team will "realize" that they can do better with _fewer_ 3-point shots.

Further complication comes from rebounds; the player taking the 3-point shot is less likely to be able to get the rebound if he misses, relative to a player trying to dunk it. So, the math is not trivial, and it depends on what the other team is expecting/guarding against, which might make it a non-linear system (i.e. constantly evolving over time).

There was a time when chess theory said that there was one perfect, optimal opening, and anything else was a mistake. It was sort of true, until everyone took it as a given, and then doing another opening meant your opponent wasn't as likely to be prepared for it.

[prawn]

A tall player who can't make threes, is more limited in the modern NBA and more limiting for roster construction. As a result, a lot more practice would be allocated to shooting from range. Look at someone like Brook Lopez (7-foot centre) who attempted 31 threes total in his first 8 seasons. Then started attempting 250-500 threes/season after that (peaked at 512 attempts).

Developing players who are elite prospects are also now less likely to be pigeon-holed during development into: you're tall as a 12 year old, so just focus on drills for centres. So yes, there would absolutely be growth in the number of capable shooters.

On your point about realisation, teams already optimise to favour threes and high-percentage twos. They try to stretch defence to each extreme, but you need to excel and threaten at both things at any given point because teams will adjust constantly during the game.

[necovek]

While most of what you say correlates, there are other gotchas: moving around a 3pt line leaves a lot more space for defenders to cover, and the real innovation is introducing multiple staggered blocks to open up a 3pt shooter (as a development of pick-and-pop). And moving around an even farther imaginary line at like 40ft from basket and making ~35% of those shots.

So it really is impossible to cover a more than 33% shooter all around the court, and that equates to a better than 50% 2pt shooter.