large graphic Spoiler http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...7/courtvision-the-secret-dead-spot-of-the-nba
That's just silly....Who ****ing takes a 4-feet jumper? Rudy Gay? Much better to go for a lay-up or a dunk.
I suppose that stat has something to do with the defensive presence when you get closer to the basket, such that four feet is the peak of defensive pressure. It's like in football,,,the most difficult running plays are within 3 yards of the goal line. Are you dumb or what? It's not a four foot "jumper," it's a low post move. I suppose you don't believe Hakeem ever shot from four feet away. The low bball IQ of people on this board can be stunning.
Hakeem, yes.....but the majority of today's big men? **** No! One day I will make a thread about the death of the elegant hook shot and the emergence of the manly dunk move for manly men. Also, for low BBIQ people, look no further to this kobetard lovefest: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=235191
You are assuming this stat wasn't true throughout history. Can we assume that? Maybe 4 feet away has always been low percentage. You are right that today's big men suck vs the Hakeem era. But note that in the Hakeem era there were also better big man defenders. So it should offset. No?
No, because the low post monsters of the 80s and 90s all scored with excellent efficiency by taking shots within 5 foot of the rim (something I apparently did not grasp due to my Javalee IQ ) off their were low post moves, be it bank shots or hook shots. That's the reason why throughout history those types of dominant big men have been considered go-to guys and franchise players, because chuckers they were not.
Now, that I've been set thinking about this, it seems quite intuitive that a 4 foot shot will be the most blockable.....Consider the fact that 4 foot is the shortest distance for a real shot, then it makes sense that it would have the smallest amount of arc and the lowest speed (unless it's a lower percentage bank shot)....when you add in the fact that this area is defended by the tallest players on the court, it start to make sense.....but this seems to be confined to crappy low post players and to low IQ players who do take Rudy Gay-type 4-feet jumpers if you consider the body of work of dominant bug men.
Do you know what I'm arguing. You are saying that the 4ft shot as worst % is due to lack of low post scorers now. I'm questioning that, because this is also the era of the worst low post defenders, too. I'm willing to bet that 4 foot has always been the lowest percentage, because the era of great low post scorers is also the era of the best low post defenders. And I am not saying that a great defender can offset a great low post scorer, but the great defender anchors the protection of the paint to make it hard for guys like Parker and Nash to get that bullsh!t 4 ft floater in. He affects all percentages. One fact of NBA history I think we all have to agree is that the Hakeem era had not only the best low post defenders of all time, but the highest concentration of them, too.
Makes sense. More players are right handed, left side of the hoop 4 feet away from the basket will be more prone to more blocked shots/misses.
For 4-feet jumpers or for killing it from the low-post? Because (1) no one is stupid enough to make a 4-feet jumper (2) there is currently no significant low-post threat apart from the Gasol brothers and lesser players like Millsap. Crappy low-post defenders is not a problem when you've got nothing to defend against. Most big men nowadays have no real back-to-the-basket game and like to front their defender they either take the Dwight path (pure athleticism and reliance on dunking) or the Dirk route (jump shooting perimeter big). Do they even know how to get proper position under the hoop?
Also, a low-post beast with finesse hook shots and bank shots from 4 feet out is a perfect description of.....McSuccess....
