Are Dirk Nowitzki highlights 'impressive' to watch? How about Kevin Love?

[CavaliersFTW]

If so, what makes them impressive? Dirk's fade away? Kevin Love's jump shot?

[b1imtf]

I personally love the way Dirk operates on offense.. Especially the fade away

[pudman13]

Nowitzki was certainly impressive to watch during his championship run. He fearlessly takes and makes a lot of tough shots, and I, personally find that exciting to watch. Love is more complicated. I don't like his game (well, his offensive game), but that has a lot to do with my own disdain of the 3-point shot. I do like his aggressive rebounding style, but when do you ever see rebounds on sports center? You know who else should be mentioned in this thread? Zach Randolph. He does nothing fancy and can't jump any higher than I can, but he gets the job done. He reminds me of Paul Silas but with more offensive skills.

[AirFederer]

Will & skill. Dirk is the man :applause:

[kNicKz]

Please don't put Kevin Love and Dirk Nowitzki in the same phrasing

[Kblaze8855]

Dirk yes Love no.

[pudman13]

Please don't put Kevin Love and Dirk Nowitzki in the same phrasing

Thank you! Do his supporters realize he had a .352 FG% last year? That was even worse than Rubio.

[Haymaker]

Thank you! Do his supporters realize he had a .352 FG% last year? That was even worse than Rubio.

Damn, that's bad. :wtf:

[CavaliersFTW]

Thank you! Do his supporters realize he had a .352 FG% last year? That was even worse than Rubio.
wahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!? just looked that up because I thought it was impossible but it's true, he did only play 18 games though but still

[bigt]

Watching Dirk highlights is a thing of beauty. Just because he's not doing flashy passes or big slams doesn't mean they're boring. His shots are so clean, he's taking these tough contested fadeaways that swish clean through the basket. You can appreciate his ability when it's slowed down.

Can't comment on K-Love highlights

[R.I.P.]

Kevin Love is the very definition of empty stats. So far he has had almost no positive impact on his teammates and therefore team performances. Minnesota should realize that they are in a great and unique situation that their real star/draw is Ricky Rubio, which allows them to trade their best player Love without the usual backlash. Love has acted poorly toward the Wolves before. If they are a 0.500 team at the all-star break I

[MavsSuperFan]

The only similarity between dirk and love is their race

[CavaliersFTW]

Dirk yes Love no.
Kblaze I'm trying to figure who most-visually resembles the game of Bob Pettit today, you've seen some of him cause I know you made a mix about him a while back, what do you think?

[BoutPractice]

Dirk yes Love no.
This (which doesn't mean Love isn't a fine player, since that's clearly the larger point of this thread. Nowhere near Dirk, of course, but it doesn't have to do with being spectacular)

[La Frescobaldi]

Thank you! Do his supporters realize he had a .352 FG% last year? That was even worse than Rubio.

The guy was playing with a freaking broken hand and you talk about FG% ?

His career FG% is 45 and that's including that season.

It remains to be seen if he EVER gets his stroke back after returning way too soon, and learned bad mechanics to compensate.

[Ken_Masters]

Funny you mention Dirk highlights. I found some of his highlights on this youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/NBAClutchTime/videos

Out of all the player videos on that channel, Dirks was one of the most impressive. The guy is just simply unguardable.

[HomieWeMajor]

Nothing fun about watching a guy play volleyball with his rebounds to pad his stats. I **** with Dirk highlights though. Dat unguardable release

[KyleKong]

Thank you! Do his supporters realize he had a .352 FG% last year? That was even worse than Rubio.

He only played 18 games and more than half of those games his hand was broken.

[pudman13]

His career FG% is 45 and that's including that season.

That's still nothing to be proud of for a power forward.

[SyRyanYang]

You guys missed op's agenda:facepalm

[pudman13]

Kblaze I'm trying to figure who most-visually resembles the game of Bob Pettit today, you've seen some of him cause I know you made a mix about him a while back, what do you think?

I've studied up on Pettit and he's one of those old-time players who doesn't translate that well to the modern game. He's not as far off as those set-shooters, or the guys with the running hook shots, but he's also nowhere near as athletic as someone like Nowitzki.

Are there are any modern day players who are/were really good rebounders without being bruisers? Great outside shooters who didn't drive or dribble much? What struck me when reading about Pettit is how he was aware of his own limitations. He couldn't handle the ball to save his life, which is a big reason he learned to get a shot off so quickly. This sounds weird, but a somewhat modern player who reminds me of him is Danny Ferry. Nowadays a guy like Pettit wouldn't be an all-around scorer. He'd probably end up being a 3-point specialist (don't get me started.) Donyell Marshall is another one who comes to mind (and is maybe a better comparison since he was a good rebounder.) I like to think that Pettit would be better than Ferry or Marshall, but unlike a lot of great non-centers who came a bit after him (West, Baylor, Robertson, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Lenny Wilkens, etc...) I'm less likely to be able to make an argument that he would be a star today.

[fpliii]

I've studied up on Pettit and he's one of those old-time players who doesn't translate that well to the modern game. He's not as far off as those set-shooters, or the guys with the running hook shots, but he's also nowhere near as athletic as someone like Nowitzki.

Are there are any modern day players who are/were really good rebounders without being bruisers? Great outside shooters who didn't drive or dribble much? What struck me when reading about Pettit is how he was aware of his own limitations. He couldn't handle the ball to save his life, which is a big reason he learned to get a shot off so quickly. This sounds weird, but a somewhat modern player who reminds me of him is Danny Ferry. Nowadays a guy like Pettit wouldn't be an all-around scorer. He'd probably end up being a 3-point specialist (don't get me started.) Donyell Marshall is another one who comes to mind (and is maybe a better comparison since he was a good rebounder.) I like to think that Pettit would be better than Ferry or Marshall, but unlike a lot of great non-centers who came a bit after him (West, Baylor, Robertson, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Lenny Wilkens, etc...) I'm less likely to be able to make an argument that he would be a star today.

Meh. Wasn't he one of the first (if not the first) guys to have a regular weight-training regimen? He also got a ton of offensive rebounds (in a couple of sources, he's called one of the GOATs in that regard) and by all accounts got a ton of baskets on putbacks, so he was pretty physical inside.

FWIW he was listed as a center pretty regularly during his first few years (6'9" barefoot, so he wasn't huge, but he wouldn't be one of the smallest centers in the league in any era), though Chuck Share when he came in played a lot at the pivot as well.

[CavaliersFTW]

I've studied up on Pettit and he's one of those old-time players who doesn't translate that well to the modern game. He's not as far off as those set-shooters, or the guys with the running hook shots, but he's also nowhere near as athletic as someone like Nowitzki.

Are there are any modern day players who are/were really good rebounders without being bruisers? Great outside shooters who didn't drive or dribble much? What struck me when reading about Pettit is how he was aware of his own limitations. He couldn't handle the ball to save his life, which is a big reason he learned to get a shot off so quickly. This sounds weird, but a somewhat modern player who reminds me of him is Danny Ferry. Nowadays a guy like Pettit wouldn't be an all-around scorer. He'd probably end up being a 3-point specialist (don't get me started.) Donyell Marshall is another one who comes to mind (and is maybe a better comparison since he was a good rebounder.) I like to think that Pettit would be better than Ferry or Marshall, but unlike a lot of great non-centers who came a bit after him (West, Baylor, Robertson, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Lenny Wilkens, etc...) I'm less likely to be able to make an argument that he would be a star today.
Uh, what exactly did you study?

[CavaliersFTW]

Meh. Wasn't he one of the first (if not the first) guys to have a regular weight-training regimen? He also got a ton of offensive rebounds (in a couple of sources, he's called one of the GOATs in that regard) and by all accounts got a ton of baskets on putbacks, so he was pretty physical inside.

FWIW he was listed as a center pretty regularly during his first few years (6'9" barefoot, so he wasn't huge, but he wouldn't be one of the smallest centers in the league in any era), though Chuck Share when he came in played a lot at the pivot as well.
The listing of him as a center is misinformation. He did not play center in the NBA, he immediately started off as a forward in the NBA because the coach knew he was too small to play center in the NBA (as a rookie, 6-8 and 1/4 inch tall w/o shoes and only 210lbs). He eventually bulked up to 245lbs and probably did split duties occasionally much later in his career, but out of the gates his coach told him to stay outside thus he learned to play as a jump shooting and driving power forward (he was a hook shooting center only in college - he also retired any use of his hook shot when Bill Russell came into the league because Bill Russell caught his hook shot out of the air). All these important details to his career should become more obvious to the masses when I release the Bob Pettit mix (still in progress).

[fpliii]

The listing of him as a center is misinformation. He did not play center in the NBA, he immediately started off as a forward in the NBA because the coach knew he was too small to play center in the NBA (as a rookie, 6-8 and 1/4 inch tall w/o shoes and only 210lbs). He eventually bulked up to 245lbs and probably did split duties occasionally much later in his career, but out of the gates his coach told him to stay outside thus he learned to play as a jump shooting and driving power forward (he was a hook shooting center only in college - he also retired any use of his hook shot when Bill Russell came into the league because Bill Russell caught his hook shot out of the air). All these important details to his career should become more obvious to the masses when I release the Bob Pettit mix (still in progress).

Ah okay, thanks for the info. I'm just basing that on listings I've seen in old box scores and articles from dumping archives. I really want to pick up his autobiography, must be a great read.

As always, looking forward to more of your videos. :cheers:

[pudman13]

Uh, what exactly did you study?

I've read as many books about the 50s and 60s NBA as I could find and one thing that comes up again and again is that he wasn't very athletic and that he was so weak on the dribble that he did everything he could to avoid having to dribble more than a couple times on any play. The lack of athleticism can be compensated for, but I just don't see poor ball-handling skills translating to an all star in today's game, especially when the defenses play to keep people from getting the kind of position he always seemed to have for his mid-range shots. (I also think Jerry West would have had to develop a left hand to be a star in a later era---and maybe they both would have developed ball handing skills if they needed to, just as I believe any old time star would haveadapted to the conditioning or defenses of any other era.) If you've read my posts here you'll know that I'm one of the guys who continually defends the old time greats and believes they would have been stars in any era. I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong here (especially since Russell names him as one of the best he ever played against), but unfortunately there's very little video of him beyond a few shooting highlights. I have to see full games of people to realy get a handle on their style nad their strengths/weaknesses. Unlike many of the others, I'm basing my comments here about 98% on hearsay from people who were there at the time. If you have arguments that contradict what I believe, I'd love to hear them.

[CavaliersFTW]

I've read as many books about the 50s and 60s NBA as I could find and one thing that comes up again and again is that he wasn't very athletic and that he was so weak on the dribble that he did everything he could to avoid having to dribble more than a couple times on any play. The lack of athleticism can be compensated for, but I just don't see poor ball-handling skills translating to an all star in today's game, especially when the defenses play to keep people from getting the kind of position he always seemed to have for his mid-range shots. (I also think Jerry West would have had to develop a left hand to be a star in a later era---and maybe they both would have developed ball handing skills if they needed to, just as I believe any old time star would haveadapted to the conditioning or defenses of any other era.) If you've read my posts here you'll know that I'm one of the guys who continually defends the old time greats and believes they would have been stars in any era. I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong here (especially since Russell names him as one of the best he ever played against), but unfortunately there's very little video of him beyond a few shooting highlights. I have to see full games of people to realy get a handle on their style nad their strengths/weaknesses. Unlike many of the others, I'm basing my comments here about 98% on hearsay from people who were there at the time. If you have arguments that contradict what I believe, I'd love to hear them.
He definitely didn't dribble more than 2-3 times a possession so he couldn't dribble much but it's not like he was or would be getting stripped or forcing himself to do things he couldn't - his limited dribbling ability is true and is a product of him being brought up a traditional back-to-basket center through college and being told to play forward in the NBA. Today training early on emphasizes face up skills, and back to basket skills are a forgotten art where as then sort of the opposite was true, back to basket skill was drilled into the taller projects and face-up skills were sort of a 'learn it on your own free time' venture. He has touched on this stating he would work on his dribble if he played the modern game just like he has touched on the fact that he would have started weight programs at a younger age than he did in the NBA (he started at 23) and how he wouldn't play at 245 today, he'd instead play at about 260.

But as far as athleticism goes - how could anyone seriously think Dirk or any other typical European or cliche white guy in the NBA is 'way more athletic' than Bob Pettit. His athleticism is... well, pretty much on par with any typical big NBA-level white guys. It's still NBA level, he still was fluid and co-ordinated with great touch and it shows on his drives to the hoop, he also had strength and could also absorb contact well and he knew how to really stretch out and make the best of his limited dribbling. I just don't understand how people can jump to a conclusion about someones comparative athleticism from reading a book.

*EDIT* btw, a dominant modern player just came to mind who dribbles as few times per possession as Bob Pettit... Tim Duncan also doesn't dribble more than 2-3 times a possession. Yet he's still a dominant figure in this era. If you watch Duncan dribble he dribbles very few times but can cover a lot of ground each dribble and stretch himself to the hoop with finesse to cover a lot of ground with few dribbles. Pettit's floor game in that respect, looks very similar watching film. Duncan is also a traditional 5 who was told to play the 4.

[Inactive]

That's still nothing to be proud of for a power forward. His career shooting efficiency is about the same as Duncan's, and Garnett's, slightly lower than Pau's. He just shoots more 3s.

[pudman13]

how could anyone seriously think Dirk or any other typical European or cliche white guy in the NBA is 'way more athletic' than Bob Pettit.

Dirk seems very quick to me, but of course there's something about the nautre of old-time video that makes people look slower than they were, so Pettit might have been quicker than I think. I think that's one reason people don't appreciate Baylor like they should, and it's why 70s Havlicek appears on film to be a better player than 60s Havlicek (when, of course, he's basically the same, just in a slightly differentrole.) Again, I haven't seen as much video of Pettit as I'd like. There definitely is something to "know your limitations," i.e. if he's not a great dribbler he figures out what else he needs to do. Not sure about the Duncan comparisons--Duncan's an inside player and doesn't rely as much on the outside shot, and also is a very good passer and shot blocker, and, of course, we have no block data from that era so who knows about that. But yes, Duncan rarely dribbles and is an expert at positioning himself.

Another thing in Pettit's favor is that he was still playing at an all-star level in '63-'64 and in fact had an improved FG% as his career went along, which to me indicates a high basektball IQ and an ability to adapt.

[Bigsmoke]

If so, what makes them impressive? Dirk's fade away? Kevin Love's jump shot?

Dirk ability to make difficult shot like its easy >>>>

[CavaliersFTW]

Dirk seems very quick to me, but of course there's something about the nautre of old-time video that makes people look slower than they were, so Pettit might have been quicker than I think. I think that's one reason people don't appreciate Baylor like they should, and it's why 70s Havlicek appears on film to be a better player than 60s Havlicek (when, of course, he's basically the same, just in a slightly differentrole.) Again, I haven't seen as much video of Pettit as I'd like. There definitely is something to "know your limitations," i.e. if he's not a great dribbler he figures out what else he needs to do. Not sure about the Duncan comparisons--Duncan's an inside player and doesn't rely as much on the outside shot, and also is a very good passer and shot blocker, and, of course, we have no block data from that era so who knows about that. But yes, Duncan rarely dribbles and is an expert at positioning himself.

Another thing in Pettit's favor is that he was still playing at an all-star level in '63-'64 and in fact had an improved FG% as his career went along, which to me indicates a high basektball IQ and an ability to adapt.
I did touch on this earlier in the week when I discovered through studying the shot clocks in stock film of his that even the footage that appeared to NOT be in 'slow motion' was indeed, being played back much slower than real time. Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb2lpbHuCtQ

unadjusted series of clips start from the beginning, followed by the exact same series of clips that have been shot clock corrected at 1:15.

Also Pettit was indeed adaptable, for example when Bill Russell came into the league Russell caught Bob Pettit's hook shot and Pettit retired the shot immediately after that. If something didn't work he dropped it, and he was one of the hardest workers. He practiced 5-6 hours a day every day during his career.

[pudman13]

His career shooting efficiency is about the same as Duncan's, and Garnett's, slightly lower than Pau's. He just shoots more 3s.

There's a big qualitative difference between 45% and 50% (Duncan and Garnett), but yes, the 3's do make the overall efficiency somewhat closer. I'm not sure this is the place to have this discussion, but when you have a guy who can rebound like Love, I hate the thought of him taking all of those bombs rather than playing an inside game.

[Inactive]

There's a big qualitative difference between 45% and 50% (Duncan and Garnett), but yes, the 3's do make the overall efficiency somewhat closer.His 2p% is typically around 47-48%, Duncan and Garnett are usually around 50%. It's a difference, but not a big one, and he more than makes up for it with his FT, and 3pt superiority.

His weakness is really not efficiency, or offensive impact. He's just bad on defense, better than average but not great at creating for himself, and injury prone. When you need a big bucket, or a stop, you can't rely on Love, but he will do work over the course of a game.


I'm not sure this is the place to have this discussion, but when you have a guy who can rebound like Love, I hate the thought of him taking all of those bombs rather than playing an inside game.I think the spacing he provides for Pek is much more important than the occasional offensive rebound.

[pudman13]

unadjusted series of clips start from the beginning, followed by the exact same series of clips that have been shot clock corrected at 1:15.

.

Wow. This really does put things into perspective, and I hadn't seen it before. Youtube is weird. I often check your youtube channel and for some reason this one doesn't show up. It has happened before. You have a video on the '63-'64 (i think) Lakers that I discovered by accident a few days ago. It also doesn't show up if I search your channel.

An off-topic question, if you're willing to answer it... I know the sources of almost all of the dunks on your 60s mix, but two of the ones that elude me are the Havlicek dunks. Where did those come from?

[CavaliersFTW]

Wow. This really does put things into perspective, and I hadn't seen it before. Youtube is weird. I often check your youtube channel and for some reason this one doesn't show up. It has happened before. You have a video on the '63-'64 (i think) Lakers that I discovered by accident a few days ago. It also doesn't show up if I search your channel.

An off-topic question, if you're willing to answer it... I know the sources of almost all of the dunks on your 60s mix, but two of the ones that elude me are the Havlicek dunks. Where did those come from?
It isn't Youtube, it's me. A lot of videos on my Youtube channel are deliberately made unlisted by me, for various reasons. You should make playlists and add my videos too them so you can always find them because chances are I will eventually unlist something (to replace it, to avoid copyright, etc). In the dunk video, only 1 time does John Havlicek dunk (the color clip) and that is from the 1963-64 Lakers documentary. The other #17 Celtic that dunks is not Havlicek, it is actually Gene Conley from the 1950's. I initially mistook him for Havlicek but it is not Havlicek.

[pudman13]

It isn't Youtube, it's me. A lot of videos on my Youtube channel are deliberately made unlisted by me, for various reasons. You should make playlists and add my videos too them so you can always find them because chances are I will eventually unlist something (to replace it, to avoid copyright, etc). In the dunk video, only 1 time does John Havlicek dunk (the color clip) and that is from the 1963-64 Lakers documentary. The other #17 Celtic that dunks is not Havlicek, it is actually Gene Conley from the 1950's. I initially mistook him for Havlicek but it is not Havlicek.

Thanks for the info. I'm a youtube idiot, but I really should start saving some of the stuff I return to often. A lot of great 60s NBA games have disappeared, for example, and all of those half hour year-summary documentaries are priceless.

I found a 1960 Conley dunk on efootage...Conley must be the earliest NBA dunker to exist on film.

[CavaliersFTW]

Thanks for the info. I'm a youtube idiot, but I really should start saving some of the stuff I return to often. A lot of great 60s NBA games have disappeared, for example, and all of those half hour year-summary documentaries are priceless.

I found a 1960 Conley dunk on efootage...Conley must be the earliest NBA dunker to exist on film.
His dunk on Bob Pettit? That's a nice one, Conley I've learned was a great all around athlete, he was a pitcher in the MLB (won a championship in baseball with the Braves I believe too) and of course won at least one championship with the Celtics in the NBA though I'm not sure how many seasons the Celtics kept him because he was just a roleplayer in the NBA. He was also the state Champion high jumper when he was in high school. He's not the first NBA dunker on film though. I've never made an effort to go back as far as I can to find the oldest known NBA dunks on film but I'm sure there are at least a few dunks from the early 1950's on film because there are tons of NCAA dunks from the 50's. I just typically don't watch too much 1950's NBA footage.

[Sheik1287]

Dirk yes Love no.
I feel the same.

[pudman13]

It's not on film, but George Yardley claims his final basket of '58, the one that gave him 2000 points for the year, was a dunk. Russell came into the league a year earlier, and he dunked. Most of what I've read insists that people who could dunk before that chose not to because it was considered an insult and there would be physical retaliation. My dad grew up watching basketball, including those NBA barnstorming games, and he says he never saw it until Russell, though it might have been something that he wouldn't have taken notice of and remembered.

You know what time period of the NBA (and ABA, for that matter) is way under-represented on video? The early 1970s. There must be a bunch of games out there somewhere, but hardly any of them ever get shown, even playoff games. I wish itunes would add more to their Hardwood Classics series. I'd watch anything from the early 80s or earlier if it was made available.

[R.I.P.]

Posted Oct 19 2013 10:10PM

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP)

Dallas forward Dirk Nowitzki did not play, getting a night of rest despite occasional "We want Dirk!" chants from some of the 7,678 fans at the Greensboro Coliseum.

Seems Bobcats fans like watching Dirk more than their own team and new star Al Jefferson, who also DNP, but received no chants. Just move them to Seattle already. :cry:

[CavaliersFTW]

It's not on film, but George Yardley claims his final basket of '58, the one that gave him 2000 points for the year, was a dunk. Russell came into the league a year earlier, and he dunked. Most of what I've read insists that people who could dunk before that chose not to because it was considered an insult and there would be physical retaliation. My dad grew up watching basketball, including those NBA barnstorming games, and he says he never saw it until Russell, though it might have been something that he wouldn't have taken notice of and remembered.

You know what time period of the NBA (and ABA, for that matter) is way under-represented on video? The early 1970s. There must be a bunch of games out there somewhere, but hardly any of them ever get shown, even playoff games. I wish itunes would add more to their Hardwood Classics series. I'd watch anything from the early 80s or earlier if it was made available.
They don't exist most everything was either not recorded at all (more so in the 50's and 60's) or, even if they were recorded they were eventually all wiped and recorded over during that era so film could be recycled and re-used. The NBA didn't actively save broadcasts for posterity until sometime into the Bird and Magic era, that's why everything is so underrepresented from prior to that period of time. Those era's aren't deliberately being treated as less important and therefore not shown, film content and broadcasts from back then literally just doesn't exist anymore. That's why it was such a big deal when the final game of the 1973 NY Knicks vs Lakers Finals was discovered on someone's private 8mm film stash or w/e. The NBA certainly didn't have a copy, neither did any of the networks that broadcast the game.

[pudman13]

What a tragedy. It's like all of those classic British TV shows from the 60s, lost forever.

[pudman13]

In the dunk video, only 1 time does John Havlicek dunk (the color clip)

RE: Havlicek: I just learned an interesting piece of trivia about him. His very first NBA basket was a dunk. He was hoping to make his last one a dunk too but in his final game he never got the opportunity, even though as the game neared the end his teammates kept trying to get him fast breaks.

[Dr.J4ever]

[QUOTE=R.I.P.]Kevin Love is the very definition of empty stats. So far he has had almost no positive impact on his teammates and therefore team performances. Minnesota should realize that they are in a great and unique situation that their real star/draw is Ricky Rubio, which allows them to trade their best player Love without the usual backlash. Love has acted poorly toward the Wolves before. If they are a 0.500 team at the all-star break I

[LeGOAT]

Lmao as if Love is on the same level as Nowitzki

[La Frescobaldi]

Lmao as if Love is on the same level as Nowitzki

Love is currently smashing it home on Greg Monroe and Andre Drummond like they're DII college players. ISH is completely full of baloney on Kevin Love.

Agree about levels with Nowitski but it is not due to talent levels it is purely due to intensity.

[La Frescobaldi]

Love is currently smashing it home on Greg Monroe and Andre Drummond like they're DII college players. ISH is completely full of baloney on Kevin Love.

Agree about levels with Nowitski but it is not due to talent levels it is purely due to intensity.
add Josh Smith to that. J Smooth can't even guard Love at all, none of these guys can dream of stopping the guy inside.

[pudman13]

add Josh Smith to that. J Smooth can't even guard Love at all, none of these guys can dream of stopping the guy inside.

Yet he camps out and chucks up threes.

This is a different discussion, but it's yet another reason I don't like the 3-pointer. I'd love to have a serious (i.e. not a bunch of name-calling ) discussion with people old enough to have watched a lot of NBA before the 3 was added, or at least in the early days of it when teams only shot it a couple times a game, about the various merits of the game with or without it. It's not as simple as "it spaces the game out." Ther are a lot of negatives that people don't understand unless they've seen a lot of games without it, ad now that everyone playing has grown up with it, it's not imaginable that anyone ever again will think about the game and its strategy the way they used to.

[La Frescobaldi]

Yet he camps out and chucks up threes.

This is a different discussion, but it's yet another reason I don't like the 3-pointer. I'd love to have a serious (i.e. not a bunch of name-calling ) discussion with people old enough to have watched a lot of NBA before the 3 was added, or at least in the early days of it when teams only shot it a couple times a game, about the various merits of the game with or without it. It's not as simple as "it spaces the game out." Ther are a lot of negatives that people don't understand unless they've seen a lot of games without it, ad now that everyone playing has grown up with it, it's not imaginable that anyone ever again will think about the game and its strategy the way they used to.

Worthy of it's own thread bro.
Yeah the game changed a lot but it was really, to me, a long time before the change happened..... and it really just went in a big circle. I believe statistical studies played a big role.

But that said, a huge reason FG% looks low in the '60s and '70s stat sheets is those guys were bombing a lot of shots from down town too. Pre-three those shots were often last gasp before the 24 clock ran out.

Nobody strategied plays where a guy would take literally the worst possible shot in basketball... the 25 footer.... but with guys like Chamberlain, Thurmond and Russell in the league many many times that was the only shot there was. It was the last shot if a play broke down.
People who bash old films ('50s early '60s esp.) for the slow looking set shooters truly don't get it at all --- those guys were inventing the spot up shooter concept.
Looked at within context of the 3 line, there's very very little difference between Ray Allen or Mike Miller or Steph Curry standing in a spot.... and Bill Sharman or Wali Jones or Paul Arizin standing in a spot.

[pudman13]

Looked at within context of the 3 line, there's very very little difference between Ray Allen or Mike Miller or Steph Curry standing in a spot.... and Bill Sharman or Wali Jones or Paul Arizin standing in a spot.

Good point about it being a big circle. Every book I read about the 50s (or earlier) talks about how during the set-shootiung era people would pass the ball around and eventually someone would take a 30-footer.

[La Frescobaldi]

Good point about it being a big circle. Every book I read about the 50s (or earlier) talks about how during the set-shootiung era people would pass the ball around and eventually someone would take a 30-footer.
Curry is a set shooter, so is Rubio, so are a lot of guys. Ray Allen is one of the greats not just at 3 ball either, but if you study his shot a lot of times he's jumping to add power as you can clearly see because he releases while he is still on the way up
There've been other circle-backs in the NBA - Showtime Lakers & '80s Celtics were enormous throwback to '60s pace of basketball - the kind Riles played, the kind KC played. Piston thuggery was like the Nationals before they moved to Philly or like the early Bulls squads with Jerry Sloan & Van Lier & Bob Love.
Shaq Lakers ran the triangle........ same offense the great '60s Sixers used to such devastating effect & which Phil Jackson watched from the Knicks bench.... but which sat idle until another elite center of enormous strength and passing skills showed up

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Actually the worst shot in basketball is the mid range jumper.

[La Frescobaldi]

Actually the worst shot in basketball is the mid range jumper.
today that is true - goes right to the heart of the whole 3 ball discussion. Before the 3 line, the mid-range shot was always the ideal (if the 4 or 5 couldn't get the ball down low). That is the whole statistical thing I was talking about earlier

[CavaliersFTW]

Actually the worst shot in basketball is the mid range jumper.
It looks that way right now because:

A. the 3 point shot makes it more difficult for players to justify practicing/taking mid-range shots. Old school guys like Larry Bird tell players he never practiced the 3 point shot ever (which is true, he never did - only mid range shots) and they look at him cross eyed like he's crazy.

B. Because of A., hardly anyone in the league today has developed a competent mid-range game. If your a 'shooter' today it means you camp out on the 3 point line, if your a slasher it means you finish at the rim. So that's all they practice and drill.

Anything can become the worst shot in basketball if it is never practiced, taught, or emphasized anymore. Today most players shoot in the mid-range only when denied the 3 point shot and get blocked from a drive so some ugly thing is a jacked up in desperation. 30+ years ago however, a 3 was more the 'desperation' shot and everyone's mid-range game was highly polished.

[pudman13]

The midrange shot is the greatest lost art in the game. You'd think modern players would understand what a big part of Jordan's game it was, but sometimes it seems as if people only practice dunks and 25-footers.

What I wonder is if (and how) the game will change the next time a truly great big man shows up in the NBA...another Wilt, or Russell, or Kareem, or Moses Malone, or Shaq, for that matter.

[pudman13]

But that said, a huge reason FG% looks low in the '60s and '70s stat sheets is those guys were bombing a lot of shots from down town too. Pre-three those shots were often last gasp before the 24 clock ran out.

What really strikes me about some of the stars of that time is how good they were at getting open and taking short jumpers. Havlicek, who of course is famous for outrunning everyone, must have scored half of his points on 12-footers. Watch any of his games and you'll see him get open on the baseline over and over again. Have defensive schemes changed so much that this would be impossible today, or has the art of moving without the ball disappeared (or, more likely, changed to getting open behind the 3-point line?)

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

No, the mid range shot is the worst shot in the league not because people don't practice but because the yield on the shot versus reward.

It is not a dying art. It is the worst shot in basketball statistically speaking. And team defense want teams shooting them. Not because they can't hit the shot, but because it is better for the defense to have the opponent shoot from that area.

[pudman13]

Anything can become the worst shot in basketball if it is never practiced, taught, or emphasized anymore. Today most players shoot in the mid-range only when denied the 3 point shot and get blocked from a drive so some ugly thing is a jacked up in desperation.

The result is that odd stat where there are a bunch of players who have a higher 3-point FG% than 2-point FG%.

Back to the original point of this thread--you know who has probably the best midrange in the game? Dirk.

[CavaliersFTW]

The midrange shot is the greatest lost art in the game. You'd think modern players would understand what a big part of Jordan's game it was, but sometimes it seems as if people only practice dunks and 25-footers.

What I wonder is if (and how) the game will change the next time a truly great big man shows up in the NBA...another Wilt, or Russell, or Kareem, or Moses Malone, or Shaq, for that matter.
I guarantee you ESPN will treat it as if the things that that big man does is 'revolutionary' and 'new' (and better) than the previous historic big men. They will rewrite history and say things like 'well all Shaq ever did was dunk / no competition' 'Kareem was just taller than everyone else' 'Hakeem had skill but couldn't _____ (some arbitrary thing this 'new' center does well that makes him unique) 'Wilt played in a weak era' etc. Guys like Robinson, Reed, etc won't even be mentioned in the future. If a new dominant center comes along he and whatever skillset or gifts he has that helps him be dominant will be presented as if it is the most special thing the world has ever seen and as if no big man of the past could or used to do it or if they did they 'didn't do it as well' - which will all be hogwash but hey they gotta sell the new Ford not the old Ford. But trust me, he'll be praised like a god and the past centers abilities will be forgotten or dismissed.

This happened with Shaq btw. The famous 'ARE U SERIOUS THAT'S A 7 FOOTER!' (as he runs up court on the break - as if that had never been done before). The hype machines will know no bounds if a new force like that enters the league.

[La Frescobaldi]

What really strikes me about some of the stars of that time is how good they were at getting open and taking short jumpers. Havlicek, who of course is famous for outrunning everyone, must have scored half of his points on 12-footers. Watch any of his games and you'll see him get open on the baseline over and over again. Have defensive schemes changed so much that this would be impossible today, or has the art of moving without the ball disappeared (or, more likely, changed to getting open behind the 3-point line?)
Hondo is not a good choice to talk about because like others of his ilk - Bird, Dirk, yeah to the point of the thread, maybe Kevin Love (dunno yet, I don't remember too many power forwards right now that could do everything offensively at that dude's level) Anthony, Bernard King, McAdoo - he was completely unstoppable. We are talking about one of the true greats in Havlicek and lots of rules, theories, or whatever you want to call it.... just don't apply.

[La Frescobaldi]

No, the mid range shot is the worst shot in the league not because people don't practice but because the yield on the shot versus reward.

It is not a dying art. It is the worst shot in basketball statistically speaking. And team defense want teams shooting them. Not because they can't hit the shot, but because it is better for the defense to have the opponent shoot from that area.
But that is exactly the point. 3 ball has changed basketball at its fundamental core.

[pudman13]

But trust me, he'll be praised like a god and the past centers abilities will be forgotten or dismissed.

Remember that game two years ago when Bynum got 30 rebounds and everyone acted like he could become the greatest player ever? Moses Malone played like that every single night. Heck, smaller guys like Dave Cowens and Wes Unseld played like that too.

Another skill nobody is teaching these days: footwork. I wonder how Hakeem or McHale would look today.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

But that is exactly the point. 3 ball has changed basketball at its fundamental core.

You could say that about anything though. Whether it be zone defense, the lane, 3 sec rule, 10 sec rule, shot clock, etc etc.

And Dirk has scored most of his points from mid range. Probably has the most points from any player ever from 10-20 feet.... doesn't mean it is a wise shot.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Moses Malone played like that every single night.

Of course half of those were his own missed layups padding his stats. He admitted as much that he would blow easy opportunities just to get credited for another rebound.......

[La Frescobaldi]

Remember that game two years ago when Bynum got 30 rebounds and everyone acted like he could become the greatest player ever? Moses Malone played like that every single night. Heck, smaller guys like Dave Cowens and Wes Unseld played like that too.

Another skill nobody is teaching these days: footwork. I wonder how Hakeem or McHale would look today.

gotta disagree now. Nikola Pekovic footwork is just flat astonishing, not just for a guy that size but anybody. Tim Duncan entire career has been nothing short of majestic in that exact area. Watch Chris Kaman or Lopez or Al Jefferson a little closer. LaMarcus Aldridge has times where he's nothing short of transcendent. Chris Bosh needs more credit. No, footwork is blistering great in today's NBA.

[CavaliersFTW]

No, the mid range shot is the worst shot in the league not because people don't practice but because the yield on the shot versus reward.

It is not a dying art. It is the worst shot in basketball statistically speaking. And team defense want teams shooting them. Not because they can't hit the shot, but because it is better for the defense to have the opponent shoot from that area.
You put the 1986 Celtics (A primarily mid-range shooting team) into this modern league where as you put it teams would 'want' them shooting those shots, then they would literally steamroll everyone off those 'worst-shot-in-the-league' mid-range J's. Same goes with the 67 Sixers, or 85 Lakers etc etc. Mid-range shots are statistically skewed in this era by a lack of development of mid-range touch in this generation of players. Yes, it makes less sense to take a mid-range shot today because of the 3 point shot as I already acknowledged but no, it wouldn't be the worst shot in basketball if it were developed and shot as accurately as it used to be.

There is a noticeable difference in the accuracy and fine tuning of players mid-range shooting abilities from say, the late 1980's to prior compared to players today. Back then, players had 'spots' (that they practiced religiously and wanted to get to during a game) that were in the mid range that if allowed to get to the J was automatic. Today, the mid-range is treated as no man's land. Defenses will (as you said) leave someone wide open in mid-range and they'll brick it. Not many players have a touch in the mid-range today, if they did, it wouldn't be the 'worst shot in basketball'

[La Frescobaldi]

You could say that about anything though. Whether it be zone defense, the lane, 3 sec rule, 10 sec rule, shot clock, etc etc.

And Dirk has scored most of his points from mid range. Probably has the most points from any player ever from 10-20 feet.... doesn't mean it is a wise shot.
all those other rules are from the '50s though. I don't know a league that didn't have all of those, except the zone is legal now... so I can't compare. No frame of reference on those.
Dirk is Dirk. Like I was saying about Hondo on the other - if it's Dirk, it's wise.

[CavaliersFTW]

You could say that about anything though. Whether it be zone defense, the lane, 3 sec rule, 10 sec rule, shot clock, etc etc.

And Dirk has scored most of his points from mid range. Probably has the most points from any player ever from 10-20 feet.... doesn't mean it is a wise shot.
Got a title against the 'big 3', has had an incredible HOF-caliber career and is going to be a lock as a 75th anniversary player from taking those 'unwise' shots. Thus, perhaps they aren't so unwise?

[pudman13]

No, footwork is blistering great in today's NBA.

I'll defer to you on this one...now that I've ditched cable I don't watch as much NBA as I did a few years back. It does seem odd to me though that we have so few centers among the league scoring leaders.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

You put the 1986 Celtics (A primarily mid-range shooting team) into this modern league where as you put it teams would 'want' them shooting those shots, then they would literally steamroll everyone off those 'worst-shot-in-the-league' mid-range J's. Same goes with the 67 Sixers, or 85 Lakers etc etc. Mid-range shots are statistically skewed in this era by a lack of development of mid-range touch in this generation of players. Yes, it makes less sense to take a mid-range shot today because of the 3 point shot as I already acknowledged but no, it wouldn't be the worst shot in basketball if it were developed and shot as accurately as it used to be.

They would steamroll because of the talent disparity, not because of the mid range game. Take DJ/McHale (or Parrish) off the team.... and the 86 Celtics would not steamroll.

And yes it would still be the worst shot in basketball. As long as the layup is still allowed and the 3 point shot exists, the midrange will be the worst shot in basketball.


all those other rules are from the '50s though. I don't know a league that didn't have all of those, except the zone is legal now, so I can't compare. No frame of reference on those.
Dirk is Dirk. Like I was saying about Hondo on the other - if it's Dirk, it's wise.

Just throwing out some. Others include handchecking, 5 second rule, interpretation of traveling/paming etc.....

[La Frescobaldi]

I'll defer to you on this one...now that I've ditched cable I don't watch as much NBA as I did a few years back. It does seem odd to me though that we have so few centers among the league scoring leaders.
Chuckin' up 3s, man

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Got a title against the 'big 3', has had an incredible HOF-caliber career and is going to be a lock as a 75th anniversary player from taking those 'unwise' shots. Thus, perhaps they aren't so unwise?

Can't make a generalization based on one player. Dirk has made a living on the worst shot in basketball. But he is one of the exceptions to the rule regarding the shot. The skyhook was a remarkable shot for one player in history. Not a good shot either for most players.

[Droid101]

You put the 1986 Celtics (A primarily mid-range shooting team) into this modern league where as you put it teams would 'want' them shooting those shots, then they would literally steamroll everyone off those 'worst-shot-in-the-league' mid-range J's. Same goes with the 67 Sixers, or 85 Lakers etc etc. Mid-range shots are statistically skewed in this era by a lack of development of mid-range touch in this generation of players.
Give me a break.

Put Ray Allen in a wide open gym, no defenders. This is what his percentages will probably look like.

4 ft (restricted arc): 99%
15 ft (free throw line): 90%
20 ft: 65%
25 ft: 50%
30 ft: 40%
Etc.

So yes, a mid range jump shot is less efficient than a shot a few feet further that nets you an extra point.

Don't be silly.

[La Frescobaldi]

They would steamroll because of the talent disparity, not because of the mid range game. Take DJ/McHale (or Parrish) off the team.... and the 86 Celtics would not steamroll.

And yes it would still be the worst shot in basketball. As long as the layup is still allowed and the 3 point shot exists, the midrange will be the worst shot in basketball.



Just throwing out some. Others include handchecking, 5 second rule, interpretation of traveling/paming etc.....
I would suggest that even handchecking being taken away from the game, with all that has meant as far as horrific wide-open, slashing & driving... has not had nearly as much impact as the 3.

Palming went away around the time of Magic Johnson and well and truly dead & gone forever I hope. It's far better for the game to get have that flexibility on the dribble instead of that drab, hand-on-top-or-whistle that we used to see in the '60s and '70s. It was positively a hindrance & people today think those guys were 'unathletic' because it looks so strange to a modern (i.e., young) eye.
There again though.... a relatively minor detail compared bringing in the old ABA's 3 point line.
Strange that it took so long for the league to really exploit it though. Kiki Vandeweghe understood it clear back in the beginning of the rule and just tore everybody up, to this day the Kiki step is one of the deadliest moves around!!