This happens at times in all sports. The NFL is a prime example. QBs were lighting up big, heavy defenses with deep passes. Then teams ran two high safeties to prevent this. This year, offenses adjusted again to run more against the smaller linebackers and nickel/dime packages.
With the quantification of sport, it has becoming increasingly common for people who only look at the statistics to assume that some global strategic minima has been achieved. In reality, in every competitive invasion-based game strategies adapt.
The adaption varies by sport - without going into the weeds, basketball is less random than other invasion sports so there has been typically been a higher premia on player talent so you see high levels of strategic adaption to individual players...by contrast, you don't see this in soccer to the same degree, apart from the top one or two players - but it happens all the same. For some reason, the assumption is that without quantification none of this stuff would be obvious...but if you look at the history of almost every invasion sport there have been strategic adaptions over years/decades/centuries because this stuff is obvious to people playing it.
To be clear, this doesn't happen in non-invasion sports. There is no strategic adaption so you see interesting things like the ability to compare statistical records over long periods (to a certain degree, over very long periods the rules often change and there can be adaption due to generally increasing physical capacity of athletes).
In other words, there is always someone who wants to spoil the fun. The beauty of invasion games is that there is no global minima (and there is a profound lack of joy in non-invasion sports when someone has a higher level than the competition, and just annihilates everyone every match).
