I have to bring hand-check up here again as a routine for this type of conversation. Now offensive players with the ball have more chances to face the basket and launching the shot just a more efficient option. Even the best guards in NBA were forced to protect the ball with their back outside 3-point line. GP was very fast and had top tier quickness (there are plenty of his clips on youtube). His back faced the basket a lot. If a player had to turn around first to face the basket, 3-pointers are less the best options.

Just try to provide another opinion on this. And I know there are endless conversations regarding this under many youtube clips.

It's all about what are allowed for the defenders to best contain the offensive space and what offensive players' best option is in this case.

it's not that driving is no longer valued, but that the elite players are so capable of driving and scoring that the dunk and 3 strategies work. watch any team incapable of penetrating a defense and they just won't have the room to score easily inside or far out.

but yah, 3-and-D is like the mantra of the warriors. curry got a whole lot better penetrating on the dribble this season and durant has always been a scoring machine going to the basket. that's on top of both being able to shoot and play good D. and they have 3-4 more who fit the 3-and-D mold.

its not even that. Its that teams score the 2 point shot, average around 80-110 points a game. a team comprised of 3 point shooters can max out at 120-130. The spread is much larger. So even though you have a more consistent team hitting 2's that could win games, they won't beat a 3 point shooting team unless they shoot cold.

This is my point; a 60% chance of making a 2 is equal in value to a 40% chance of making a 3, averaged over the 80+ shots you will take in a game. The top teams in the NBA are closer to 40% from beyond the arc then they are to 60% within it.