John Hollinger is the first big, respected basketball name I’ve seen take a counterpunch at the puzzling (and omnipresent) narrative that the NBA is in some kind of death spiral.

Declining TV ratings. Endless fourth quarters thanks to timeouts, replays and clock stoppages. One-sided blowouts. A new December tournament format struggling to compete with the NFL colossus.

I’m talking, of course, about college football. Back in my day, there was real variety — Oklahoma won a national title running the wishbone! — but now everyone plays the same way. It’s all about passing, and whoever throws it better wins. No wonder ratings are down.

(*Sound of record scratching*)

I’ve been a pretty avid NBA fan for a long time, now. That includes some stretches where the basketball was… not very good. The immediate post-Jordan years, watching my 2002-era Celtics grind out brutal 81-78 playoff victories against the likes of the Al Harrington Pacers and the Jason Kidd Nets, the non-beautiful version of the Spurs (the Bruce Bowen era), and so forth. For the life of me, I just can’t understand how any quasi-serious fan of the game could take this three point panic seriously, given the various ups and downs the league has been through over the years.

As with a lot of things, a big part of the problem is just a failure to accurately assess the situation. There are a lot more three pointers being taken now than even just a few years ago. That’s an objective fact. But I definitely get the sense from people who are concerned about this trend that they either assume or believe from limited amount of game footage and YouTube clips that “three pointer” means basically pulling it up and chucking from far away, as some sort of alternative to traditional offense where you try to find an open shot.

If that were actually the case, I’d agree that there really was a problem. In fact, that really is my least favorite kind of basketball, but it’s not limited to three pointers. It’s iso-ball, a style best (and most efficiently) represented by peak-James Harden and recent-vintage Luka Doncic dribbling around with four guys spread around the court and looking to make something happen (and often succeeding). There are a lot of threes in that style, especially of the step-back variety. Just as importantly, there are a lot of foul shots, which are way more boring than threes. Worst of all, there’s a tremendous amount of everyone else standing around.

But that’s not the only way to shoot threes, and it’s not powering the increase in threes we’re seeing today. Instead, as Hollinger points out, a bunch of high usage players have started shooting 24 foot threes instead of 20 foot twos, with similar success rates but a lot more points. Hollinger also notes that spreads the floor for other things, to wit:

This is an important distinction when people talk about “too many 3s”: Shots at the basket are the same, and dunks — the most exciting play in the game — are the same 4.7 per team per game that they’ve been for the past two seasons. That may seem counterintuitive, but more 3s equal more spacing, which in turn equals more runway for dunks.

Look at the Celtics. When they lean on “dribble dribble shoot”, it occasionally works, but most of the time the offense grows stagnant and they’re beatable. But when they play basketball — as they usually do — their ability to hit threes turns into something almost indescribable.

You can see the way the aggressive use of three pointers befuddles even hardworking, hustling defenses, but it certainly isn’t somebody scared of contact resorting to “dribble dribble shoot”.

And while there are definitely loud, “too many threes” critics who are also pretty sophisticated basketball fans, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t notice a correlation between much of the “too many threes” crew and the equally angry “the league is too soft” crew. But Hollinger addresses this as well — after an initial gasp at the sudden physicality added to the game in the middle of the season last year, everyone seems to have forgotten about that and simply moved on to complaining about threes again.

I feel like I’ve seen my fair share of awesome games this season, both in-person and on TV, and that’s pretty much been the case ever since the league decided at last season’s All-Star break that it was going to chill on calling so many fouls when players drive to the basket. The result has been some of the most watchable, entertaining and stoppage-free basketball of the last quarter century.

That, to me, is the story: that the league enacted a fairly sudden change to make its product massively better. An underwhelming postseason likely prevented many people from noticing, especially the generalists who parachute into the NBA in April.

I actually think there’s a relationship here, but it’s not what the overlapping part of the too-soft/too-many-threes Venn diagram wants to hear. I think the two trends are actually related — the more physicality you allow near the basket, the more it makes sense to shoot threes. Allowing defenders to grab and pull underneath the basket makes driving to the basket or playing in the post more difficult, and less efficient. It might hurt three point shooting a little bit, by simply allowing defenses to focus more on threes, knowing they are more likely to get away with simply clobbering anyone who gets by them, but it impedes the things people claim to want to see even more. At some point, I’m not sure what some of these casual fans even want, or if they’d recognize it if they got it. If you want to see Shaq post up and run people over, I mean… we’ve got Giannis, right? He’s a different player than Shaq, but he’s incredibly well-known, one of the leading scorers in the league, and he absolutely lives in the paint!

(I know this clip is old, but nothing’s changed here — if anything he’s even better at this now.)

Would it somehow be better if somebody like Nikola Jokic couldn’t shoot threes? Wouldn’t not being a threat from all around the court just make him a less interesting passer (Arvydas Sabonis was amazing, for instance, but Jokic is just a better, more broadly effective offensive player)? And can you seriously make the case that modern guards and wings are somehow less broadly skilled than prior generations, or unable to do anything besides cower behind the line and heave up prayers?

This just seems like yet another one of these “I know it when I see it” complaints about the NBA that the league seems inherently susceptible to. I’m not interested in hockey, and I tend to get bored when I watch it, but I don’t have some laundry list of things I think the NHL is doing wrong, nor do I think the NHL has “lost their way” and needs to return to some glorious prior age. I have lots of thoughts on pass interference and offensive holding occurring on every play, but until ex-players actually started killing themselves and leaving behind suicide notes begging their families to have their brains examined for traumatic damage, I didn’t think the NFL was in some existential crisis.

But everyone has a hot take on basketball. It’s hard for me to believe that for many people, there isn’t some unspoken, subconscious connection between how undeniably minority powered the league is (the biggest stars and best players are generally black americans, europeans, or increasingly, black europeans) and how endlessly critical and pearl-clutching we always seem to be about the direction the game is going, no matter what that direction is. For years, grumpy old white Dads would complain that no one could shoot. Today, those same grumpy Dads see the proliferation of exceptional long-distance shot making not as a return to graceful, skill-driven basketball, but as something that needs to be stopped by any means necessary.