High-arcing threes are not high-percentage shots

What in the high hell are you talking about?

If a player with solid form has a naturally high arc on his jump shot, then it is what it is. Maybe you should try shooting a jumper while making sure that you jump straight up and minimize the "chicken-wing" on your shooting arm (proper form), and tell me how much arc is on your shot. Hint: It will be a lot.

 

The greater the arc, the better.... but conversely, the greater arc, the longer your making the shot and the harder it is to aim.
i.e. an 18-footer with tremendous arc is a longer (distance ball travels in the high) shot than a 3-pointer with regular arc

It's like economics' law of diminishing returns. You have to find the ideal balance between arc (quantity) while still being able to aim (yield).

 

As others have pointed out, there are already many scientific studies about this subject.

But your comparison is just wrong. Shooting an arrow at a pancake (presumably on a table lower than your head) and shooting a ball through a basket much higher than your head are two completely different task. Same with throwing a baseball into a manhole.

The main thing is, your examples have the goal lower than your hands, while shooting a long jumper in basketball has the goal higher than your hands. The only valid comparison is dunking. Sure, if your hands are above the rim, than you shouldn't shoot with an arc. You should just throw it straight throw.... Tell that to Asik :grin:

 

It's interesting that 45 degrees is also the most efficient angle to throw any object. Not just shoot a basketball shot.

I wonder if it is the most accurate because it requires the least amount of energy to get the ball to the basket. Every other angle requires more force to reach the basket.

 

There is a reason the art of shooting arrows from bows is called archery.

 

Well, I would think 45 degrees is the most efficient in terms of trading off forward velocity vs downward velocity vs the ball's physical profile. I mean ideally you not only want as much of the ball as possible to be available to pass the edges of the rim to ensure the largest possible window, but you also want the ball to be moving as slowly as possible when it enters the rim (soft bounce). 45 degrees is assuming that you're starting at the same vertical height as your target.

In the case of basketball you would have to adjust the angle higher in order to compensate for the differential in starting and end point. And if you were shooting an "all purpose" shot that was also meant to be difficult to block instead of trying to adjust to blocked vs unblocked shots, then you might add a few degrees as well (Ray Allen's 48 degrees vs Lin's 50 degrees).

In physics terms, 45 degrees is the least amount of force you can apply to any trajectory over distance while still maintaining maximum travel distance if you look at basic y and z vectors over a set distance. Any angle less than 45 degrees means a higher application of force than necessary in terms of traveling forward. While any angle over 45 degrees means a higher application of force than necessary in terms of vertical movement.

Does the efficient use of energy make it more accurate? I wouldn't be surprised if it did. The more force you need to apply to a task, the more difficult it is to control fine motor skill function due to the disproportionate load distribution of major muscle groups (bulk force) vs minor muscle groups (fine motor control) required to impart increased force.

It's like trying to take a pen and poke a very small target on the wall. The slower you move, the easier it is to be accurate. The faster you jab the pen, the harder and harder it becomes to remain accurate until eventually you're missing the target entirely.

Anyway, I'm no expert on biomechanics or kinesiology so I'll leave that to those are who are more versed in such topics than I. :grin:

 

great we have a bunch parabola experts.

 

I'm glad some people brought a little science to the table if that's what the discussion was supposed to be about, because the OP was more just an opinion.

What I want to know is, what angle would be best if someone was 15 feet tall?

 

Depends on their release point, IE how long their arms are... so it depends. :grin:

 

That's what it's for. It's a training tool to work on your shooting. The net is the proper height for how much arc you should be putting on your shot. The net is wide so that it catches the misses and funnels the ball down into the machine and it will fire the ball back at you.

I just didn't like it because it felt like the net was too high and close to the rim. So I felt like I had to put a ton of arc on the ball to get it over the net. But you didn't have to put as much as you think. It's almost like an optical illusion. And it's distracting.

 

I'm looking at their website, and under "testimonials" it lists teams that use "The Gun"... it says the Houston Rockets have 2 of them.

How much they use it, I don't know.

 

Dirk is High Arcing specialist and he shoots just fine.

 

There was a video of a midnight practice with Parsons earlier this season and he was using one. I believe it was a private workout, during the offseason however. It's been awhile.

 

Did you say the rim can fit two balls?

Spoiler

 

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/sxpu6cFF2B0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxpu6cFF2B0

 

Stopped reading here. It's actually NOTHING like that.

 

Unless you're shooting complete rain makers (i.e. messing around in practice), the angle/"hardness" the ball hits the rim doesn't matter... softness comes from rotation. Look at Dirk, his shots have plenty arc (above 45%) yet he gets good rolls. Why? Good spin.

Lol

 

Too many people who arent good at basketball are trying to put their input on basketball.

If you think a flatter shot has a better chance to go in, then come play one on one with me, or have a shooting drill with me and see that your logic will not prevail.

 

I think we'll take your word for it. It's clear you've spent some time on the court. Probably during English class in high school.

I do agree with your first statement, though. Seems more people are basing their assumptions on theory, rather than application.