Thats a fair argument. And I agree with the statement "they have solved the sport". But its not whats wrong with the NBA.

With greater insight (data/analytics) any competitive venture changes. The explosion in data & analysis means new efficient methods of winning are replacing traditional wisdom & accepted culture generations in the making.

Its not just NBA. All sports & other games are going through same process (MLB, Poker, Chess, war game simulations, etc.). Some competitions are less complex than others & deteriorate faster under the new analysis.

In my opinion, its on the leagues to be more reactive & proactive in protecting the spirit of their sports with rule-adjustments to incentivize the gameplay & style fans desire & agree on.

NBA was largely hacked by exploiting the inefficiencies of shot selection. Simultaneously League Office adjusted rules to incentivize more scoring (stricter foul & defensive rules) AND a revolution in shot mechanics made 3pt percentage skyrocket. 

The result is a gameplay that turns many fans off despite impressive skill. Players (with devolving diversity in roles & skillsets, positionless, size differences, roles e.g. PG/SG/SF/PF/C) space around arc & launch casual-looking open 3's.

The solution (imo) is to adjust the value of shots. 3 points were arbitrarily assigned for a long distance shot bc they were rare & difficult, meaning it didnt matter much if they were worth 3 or 4 or 5 points. Now that they can be made much more commonly, the point value is no longer appropriate. The NBA should re-examine what all FG's & FT's are worth and adjust for statistically appropriate values according to difficulty AND for the style outcomes the NBA wants to provide for its fans.

Players also seek fouls to exploit 1pt foul shots (another point-value inefficiency). Frequent fouling & interruption to flow of game is not entertaining, especially when offensive players seek it by creating it unnaturally.

I dont blame strategists nor players for exploiting inefficiencies. I blame the leagues for not adapting rules to preserve the spirit of the sport that fans/players have come to love. The rules should not be so rigid that they accept any strategy that produces results. The leagues need to create & preserve the gameplay they want by manipulating rules for desired strategist conformity.

Final thought: in US military war gaming, leaders throughout the military would assemble to compete in simulations of hypothetical military problems. One year a computer with new analytical software was allowed to compete as an experiment. The computer won the competition but the Generals & Admirals were outraged.

The computer had assessed the problem & allocated its resources for the best possible chances of victory. Its solution was to sacrifice an extreme & unacceptable amount of casualties in exchange for certain victory. The Generals/Admirals were constrained by their ethics/empathy for their men & were unwilling to even consider this strategy despite its indisputed effectiveness.

My point is: increased data/analysis techniques will lead to new, previously unconsidered strategies, many of which are unappealing for various reasons. The solution is not to keep the rules rigidly fixed & reward any strategy that proves effective. The solution is to keep the spirit of the game rigid and be adaptable with manipulating rules to corral problem-solvers into entertaining strategies being the most effective winners.

Sorry for long post. I think about this a lot. These are my conclusions so far but I believe there are many ways to improve on current NBA issues. I do believe they have quite a few serious problems but they are not alone in it. Most sports/games will face similar problems soon if they havent begun experiencing them already.