Hoops in France, and dispelling myths.

You cannot compare FG% between PGs and playmakers. You look in every era, and you will find that FG% are different between set up men and playmakers. That's like saying, why couldn't Larry Bird ever shoot better than John Stockton. Do you honestly believe Stockton was a better pure shooter than Larry Bird?

Oh, so now you are comparing TMac and Kobe to arguably the two best players who ever lived.

 

I'll tell you this...when I watch Carlos. I think to myself...damn! He as the same smooth actions that the old Mike Bibby (senior) had or even a bit of Archibald or Stockton. He's just "learned." It's hard to put my finger on it. The moves he does, whether it be his hesitations, cross-over timing, ambidextrous, shot form, foot work....it all just comes together as a complete package. It's awesome. I mean, he's never going to have the same physical ability as McGrady or Kobe. But that's that not the issue here...

It's not just one thing. I love watching the guy play beacuse he's under control most of the time. I have no clue why he's as good as he is. I guess it was a combiation of a lot of things; his up bringing, ego, work ethic, pride, coach, training, dedication, mind, personal decision? Who knows? He just has it.

I'm even keeping my eye on Shaun Livingston. He might have it too.

 

I'm not talking about PG vs playmakers. I'm talking about our current "stars" no matter what postion they play. Stockton, Jordan, Isiah, Bird, McHale, Drelxer, King, they just had a breath of knowledge that expanded beyound just "scoring" for the sake of scoring. Evey move had a purpose. Whether is was setting up their teammates, faking a shot, driving for a pass, rebouding for a pass and easy score...you name it. They did it all. And that's why they WERE our top players. *They* set the standard.

They could do it all, even if they didn't (they actually could direct their skills in many ways; on/off; in a controlled manner; not just scoring).

And yes. Kobe and McGrady should be our new standard. I say, "should."

 

is there any real point to arguing with DavidS? he's got such a bad case of "kids these days" syndrome it's incurable and he simply sees what he wants to see. every skill he likes was because of hours of honing and practice, every skill he doesn't (like athleticism or one on one skills that are the basis of most offenses) are just natural talent and gifts from God and guys like tmac and kobe just show up to the games and dominate.


tmac and kobe can't possibly practice shooting like bibby and peja b/c the latter have better outside shots. they just coast by b/c of natural talent and because they "rely" on athleticism. does bibby rely on his shot to make him a good player? of course not, he earned that all the way. he had to, kobe and tmac coasted by but bibby really worked hard, put in the extra hours to become complete. he must have, he shoots better. it's obvious that if everyone practiced evenly, everyone would shoot the exact same percentage. no one is better or worse than anyone, no one is simply born with innate skills, it's just all about "playing the right way" and practicing those skills (especially pretty skills like shooting, defense is a little too ugly for DavidS' taste so that skill doesn't count, neither does rebounding, also kinda ugly). anyone w/o a complete offensive game but who's defensive prowess makes up for it simply gets by on defense with athleticism and refuses to work on their offensive game like bibby. if only they were all like bibby. nowadays everyone just watches "and1" and "sportscenter highlights" (you pretty much instantly lose credibility when you play that card) and that's why they aren't as "complete." tmac and kobe versus isiah, magic, and bird? pffttt. "no way!!!" they are as complete. of course they are, but DavidS will just refuse to acknowledge it. players of the 80's incomplete on the defensive side? nah. only 90's players are incomplete. 80's players studied the game the right way and knew how to play every facet of it. nevermind their offensive skill sets wouldn't seem so great with the defense of today. since it looked good against weak defense and since guys today have a much tougher road to hoe, they must suck more. so like i said, don't argue with DavidS.


and PSJ, gimme a call when shaq, kg, vince, kobe, tmac, ray, bibby, or jermaine enter the next olympic game. it's a damn shame larry brown keeps benching their poor american skill sets that are getting dominated by the world. it's a shame he keeps them benched when they're ready to come into the game. oh wait...

 

That's total crap! Are you saying that the best players of the 80's would not be able to average above 45 FG%? Even 47%? I'm talking about the best.

So, Bird's FG% would be lower than say, McGrady's? Or, Jordan's would be lower than Kobe's? You don't think that they could average around 47%? Jordan, 49%? No? Yes? Maybe? I'm waiting for your answer.

Defenses of today, would have more negative effect on less versatile and knowledgeable players, than those thay had more versatility and knowledge.

I mean, hell. Even Heyp was giving the players of the 80's more credit than you!

And francis 4 prez, if you want to debate me. Address me personally. Stopping pussyfooting around by talking to me in 2nd person.

 

Did you say/think these things about Arroyo when he averaged 12 points and 5 assists or whatever it was this season with Utah?

Or did you say it when he put on a virtuoso performance against the US on Sunday?

That's another thing that people don't consider when they watch the US Nat'l team get whooped by an underdog and pronounce how much better the other players are and how the US game is dying. Those are the biggest games of their seasons, while for us, emotionally, it's just another game.

Carlos Arroyo becomes a national hero back in PR because of Sunday. Would the same thing be true of Iverson had the US beat PR? Hell no, I doubt anyone back in Hampton, VA gives a damn -- but you can bet Fajardo, PR was going nuts on Sunday.

It showed too, the US looked emotionally flat. PR was up the whole time. You can even look at the last few games the US has won for confimation of this. LOok at today's game: sellout crowd against the home team, raucous greek crowd -- but they stepped up their defense and muscled it out. Same with the last two games in Turkey -- you inject the hostile Turkish crowd into it, give the US that extra twinge of emotional motivation, and there D picks up and they win.


Also, btw, I think we can eliminate many of those reasons why he's "different"from the equation: upbringing, coaching, training; His is either analogous or identical to that of his US counterparts.

 

I can't believe you are saying that a man with 3 rings is scoring just for the sake of scoring.

But you did. You absolutely 100% compared the FG% of PGs to Kobe and TMac. You did, man.

I also showed you that our pure shooters of this era are hitting lower than the 80s and 70s. Don't even try to tell me Glen Rice, Nowitski, Peja, Reggie Miller and Allan Houston are not as good as shooters as the guys in the 70s and 80s. But, their FG% are significantly lower. That is because of defensive differences between the eras.

Kiki Vandeweghe scored just for the sake of scoring, and at a very high FG% (much higher than Bird), but he didn't win squat. Same with Alex English. Same with George Gervin. Same with McAdoo. Hell, Rudy shot a higher clip than Bird. Those guys shot much higher FG% than Rice, Reggie, Dirk, Houston and Pega.

So tell me why Dirk, Peja, Reggie, Houston can't shoot nearly the same FG% as Kiki, English, McAdoo and Gervin? I guess FG% difference doen't count with the pure shooters, but it counts when comparing Kobe and TMac to Cassell and Bibby.

I can also show you that our PGs of this era are shooting significantly lower than the 70s and probably 80s.

 

I'm talking about his play w/the Jazz and future in the NBA. I mean, this is the problem. Do you have to have a 29ppg player to impress you? Can't you see the little things that he does (True. He'll never be as fast/quick as IA)? And if this guy improves over the next 7-8 years (stat wise; because that's all you look at)? What will you say then?

And as far his "differences." You don't think that "difference" is concentrating on more things than just scroring? You don't think those things matter? Of couse he'll have limitations to someone like IA on a physical level. But that's that's just the way it is. He'll have to find other ways to contribute.

 

btw DavidS,

we won't let this disagreement get in the way of going to games together again this year, right?

it's all good!

 

"Three rings?" Ok, are you talking about Bird or Kobe? I wasn't referring to the players of the 80s when I said, "scoring for the sake scoring." I was talking about today's "star" players. They have a limited view on how to contribute.

As far as the PG vs playmakers. What I want to know is this? Are playmakers like Jordan and Bird "supposed" to shoot worse than a PG of their era? I don't buy that.

I think playmakers is a narrow term today. It could be used as an excuse. For example, someone could say, "Well, today's scorers are limited in their skills. Thus, they *make plays* by scoring mostly. Passing? Eh. That's secondary." It kinda "dumbs down" the term "playmaker" doesn't it?

A playmaker of the past, could score AND pass (Which I give McGrady some credit for). Thus, I would call Jordan and Bird playmakers. None of them PGs. Even Drexler and Pippen could be considered playmakers.

So, when we start getting into FG%. It just comes down to the players themselves. Not the position. They either had it, or they didn't. That's why they earned the right of the title: stars.

Today's standard has been lowered. Defense or not.

English, Gervin, McAdoo, Rudy....Why do you think their FG% was better than Rice, Reggie, Dirk, Houston and Peja? You don't see the love affair of the 3pt line having any effect on this? Remember where English, Gervin, McAdoo and Rudy's shots came from? Remember Gervin and English's 15-18 footers? McAdoo inside scoring? The art of the mid-range shot...do you remember this?

By the way...
This was quite common to have forwards/guards that had low 3pt%, but had near 50 FG% (during the advent of the 3pt line). Alex English was a good example of this; incredible FG% efficiency, but terrible 3pt%. Same w/Murphy. But, this is getting to other issues regarding the effect the 3pt line had on the league (good and bad).

I'm a Marylander now. So, I'm a little too far for games; except the Wizards! Ugh ...

 

The last time I checked basketball is still a team sport. Allowing the clear-out ISO is ugly basketball. Why even bother to have 10 people to play the game. Might as well play 3 on 3 just like most "streetball". Allowing a 350 lb bully to run over his defender is ugly also. I thought the heart and soul of basketball is still about ball movement and shooting the damn ball, not sumo wrestling. Allowing fancy cross-over with palming is surely entertaining, but I thought this is basketball, not handball.

 

Jerry West's career FG% - .474
Lenny Wilkens career FG% - .432
Rick Barry's career FG% - .449
Dave Bing's career FG% - .441
Bob Cousy's career FG% - .375
Gail Goodrich's career FG% - .456
Hal Greer's career FG% - .452
John Havlicheck's career FG% - .439
Pistol Pete's career FG% - .441
Bill Sharman's career FG% - .426

By contrast, Jeff Hornacek shot nearly 50% for his career. Dr. J, who couldn't shoot a lick, averaged over 50%. And I hate to break it to some of you guys, but in his first five seasons in the league, Larry Bird shot 21.2% from beyond the arc. Simply put, shooting percentages are a terrible way to gauge a player's ability.

( Not that that has anything to do with this thread really, but in case you were interested )

 

it was fairly obvious i was debating you by the fact i went on a 1/2 page rant discounting comments made by you. just because it was in a 2nd person style didn't really matter. but then again, you've always been about style over substance. results don't matter, how you get there does and you favor the way the game was played in the 80's and thus think it the pinnacle of all that is basketball and will go to great lengths to discount all that is not the pinnacle of basketball in your mind. me? i can appreciate different styles. i like watching 80's basketball (except for the amazing lack of D), i liked watching 90's basketball, and i like watching basketball now.

that pacers/pistons game in the playoffs where the two teams combined for 26 blocks and barely broke 70. you probably thought it was ugly and showed the disintegration of the NBA as we know it. to me, it was a symphony of defense. the most brutal and well-defended game i have ever had the pleasure of watching. it was astounding to watch the rotations, the way every jump shot was challenged, every inside drive turned away. thankfully, i could appreciate it.

 

no, it was because guys depend on their athleticism, never practice, are mesmerized by and1 highlights, and don't know how to adapt!


oops, i did it again.

 

You know one of the things I find funny. It's that you always think in term of extremes. Like, you think I'm saying that *all* players are sucky today. Or that *none* can play the right way today! Or that defense has *no* effect.

This is not what I'm implying. You can have both. But I can't belive you can't see the lack of offense (on a team scale) and what many stars players have not learned over the last 15 years. During the late 80's and beginning of the 90's, the increased defense has been in response to a lot of young players that are not ready for the NBA; maturity and skills. And yes, it was because the Pistoned proved it could be used to "win." But the coaches have to use what they are given. If draft picks lack the skills to lead and run a team. Well, what's a coach to do? Teams will use defense but as their main weapon. Because that's all they have. It's not like stars skills are getter better (even their open shots). So, it's reactionary to the situation to the current "known skills" of player that is coming into the league with.

Note: When I say "skills" I'm talking about all aspects of the game. Not just one-on-one and dunking.

Having younger and younger "stars" does have an effect on how well an offense (or defense) will be played (overall; league wise). And yes, defense does have an effect. I agree w/that. But you have to look at the big picture. I'll repeat....Defense today does have an effect. But so does a lack of over-all offensvie skill being "not learned" by our stars. They are not learning the extra skills (either do to skipping college or concentrating on scoring at the expense off passing and rebounding).

Another thing is that you seem to think that the whole league plays defense like the Pistons of the 90's. Not every team plays hardnosed (90's style) defense. There's plently of teams out there that are bad/average defensive teams. I mean, if your going to use the zone a example of "great 90's defense?"

So, don't think that the "great so-called defense of the 90's (and now)" would be a problem for Jordan, Bird, Isiah, Magic, Drexler, etc... Sorry. I don't buy it. If you want to talk about the 70's ok fine. But as the 80's progressed and defenses changed, so did these star playyers. They weren't born w/out brains. They could adapt to the league's defenses. And they would adapt to today's "great defense."

 

Define "playmaker." Does that mean "scorer" to you? Because I can see the reason you would think that 29ppg vs 20ppg is "better playmaker."

But this does not address the actual player themselves. This is what I'm trying to address. I mean, how can I get you to understand the skill level of a particular player and how that's changed over the years? These players *could* shoot better overall and score in many ways, other than drving for dunks. That's lessened now. And it's not only because of defenses.

That's one part of it. The other part is the ablity to see the the court (vision) even if they were not PGs. Defenses imroved over time, but yet Jordan/Bird/Magic were able to overcome these defenses even during the late 80's/90's. And I have the greatest confidence that the best players of the 80's could overcome the defenses of the 90's. Not that it wouldn't have some effect. But that they wouldn't suddenly forget how to shoot or pass and could figure out how to best play against them.

Now, remember. I"m talking about our best players of yesteryear and today. Shooting is just one aspect of it. Other parts are passing and team play. This is a lost skill from our best stars. It's just not programed in them *as much* as it was in the past. One-on-one is more the thing today.

And as far International 3pters. Yeah, they like the 3 beacuse they can shoot. It's just another strong points for them. The other factors being their passing, and team play. But just because they can hit the 3, doesn't mean they can't score other ways. They are better passers as well.

 

If you going to resign yourself to solving the problem, I think you first have to comimt to the fact they are just better. Which makes us the underdog. And once that determination is made, you can now approach from the right mindset.

as an underdog I would try to:
1. Know their Strengths
- Team play
- Fundamentals

2. Take their strengths away
3. Use their Strenght against them
4. Attack their weakess
5. Hide my weakness

 

as an underdog I would try to:
1. Know their Strengths
- Team play
- Fundamentals
- Shooting

2. Take their strengths away

- Destroy Fundamentals by tiring them
- Force them to use the bench
- Pressure them if possible
- Trick them into isolation plays
- Let them come into the post to shoot

3. Use their Strength against them

- This you have to think about.

If they are good at team ball, then make
4. Attack their weakness

They aren't athletic, so we run, jump, and dunk.

5. Hide my weakness

- Well, it's too late for that now. They know it.