Dunk of the Year: Alec Burks Decimates Jon Leuer

[no pun intended]

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

:biggums:

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Its such a white person thing to immediately get the ball in for the inbounds pass after something like that:lol :lol :lol

[imdaman99]

He just threw that shit in :oldlol: Would have been... had he not fell.

[sundizz]

Kobe touched the rim. Better dunk.

This is the best thrunk of the year though thus far.

[outbreak]

nba is getting weak, hate seeing big men step aside when a smaller guy goes for the dunk. even if you get posterized at least let them know you will be trying to stop them next time

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Pretty decent crowd reaction for the 200 people there.

[WayOfWade]

The Commentator's reaction to the Suns layup after was the best:
Boone: Do you see what the Suns did there?
Bolerjack: It doesn't Matter!! I want to see that again!

[Big Cheese]

:lol @ trevor bookers reaction

[SugarHill]

How come there's an influx of these throw-in dunks? I remember when Dwight did it in the contest and thinking how it was new and exciting. Think that dude opened the door and Blake broke it down altogether

[SugarHill]

Kobe touched the rim. Better dunk.

This is the best thrunk of the year though thus far.
you think kobe has dunk of the year? it's Derozan right now for sure

[Straight_Ballin]

Nance's dunk tho

[Rake2204]

How come there's an influx of these throw-in dunks? I remember when Dwight did it in the contest and thinking how it was new and exciting. Think that dude opened the door and Blake broke it down altogetherThat's a good question. I think it's just a matter of people not really knowing it was possible beyond fluke one-offs. Then once someone busted down the door and brought that type of dunk to the mainstream, it entered into the realm of expected outcomes when certain players took off.

I'm trying to think... on a lot of these throw-ins, what would have been the result in previous generations? Double-pumps? Like, if Jordan had been a part of the current generation, might he have just tried to throw-in on plays like his palming double-pump layup over Patrick Ewing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxkoGH07ckc)? I mean, it looked like he got hit too hard early on that play in particular, but the gist of the play... maybe it'd be different now.

It's kind of like Vince Carter's dunk contest. Some of his dunks had been completed by some people somewhere, but 99.9 percent of the basketball public had not seen the majority of them until that very night. But once Carter knocked that door down, suddenly elbow dunks became possible and between-the-legs dunks eventually became things that some local not-even-DI-level talent could pull off.

Leapers with incredible hops existed in the 90's just as they do today. It's just, even in, like, 1997, if you were a great dunker, it mostly meant you did really good 360s and double-pump reverses... and maybe a Dee Brown. They just didn't realize what they were able to do because no one had laid the tracks. Probably a similar story on the throw-ins.

[DCL]

not enough contact and aerial challenge by the white stiff

[Smoke117]

1. It wasn't a dunk

2. he didn't dunk on anyone

3. go f@ck your mother, 3ball.

[TommyGriffin]

He stuffed it big time.

[Xiao Yao You]

That's a good question. I think it's just a matter of people not really knowing it was possible beyond fluke one-offs. Then once someone busted down the door and brought that type of dunk to the mainstream, it entered into the realm of expected outcomes when certain players took off.

I'm trying to think... on a lot of these throw-ins, what would have been the result in previous generations? Double-pumps? Like, if Jordan had been a part of the current generation, might he have just tried to throw-in on plays like his palming double-pump layup over Patrick Ewing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxkoGH07ckc)? I mean, it looked like he got hit too hard early on that play in particular, but the gist of the play... maybe it'd be different now.

That's the kind of circus shot that Burks usually does actually. He doesn't dunk that much. I wouldn't call the one last night a dunk though. Impressive shot, even for him. He usually makes crazy shots look routine.

[Rake2204]

Still trying to figure out the premise of those who always feel obligated to point out that throwing a ball downward through a hoop with force isn't a dunk if fingertips don't make contact with the rim.

I mean, I disagree, because I think the original spirit of a dunk was literally just throwing the ball through the hoop with force, regardless of rim contact (some of the earliest dunks just looked like plops from above with minimal/if any contact with rim). But what does it really matter? The play is still just as incredible regardless of title.

In fact, throwing it down like that is arguably more exceptional. One has to really, really elevate to get to the point of being able to literally throw the ball in while airborne so far away from the rim.

[andgar923]

Still trying to figure out the premise of those who always feel obligated to point out that throwing a ball downward through a hoop with force isn't a dunk if fingertips don't make contact with the rim.

I mean, I disagree, because I think the original spirit of a dunk was literally just throwing the ball through the hoop with force, regardless of rim contact (some of the earliest dunks just looked like plops from above with minimal/if any contact with rim). But what does it really matter? The play is still just as incredible regardless of title.

In fact, throwing it down like that is arguably more exceptional. One has to really, really elevate to get to the point of being able to literally throw the ball in while airborne so far away from the rim.

NO

One has to really really get up high enough to you know.... actually DUNK it.

Some part of one's hand has to hit rim, otherwise it isn't a 'dunk' it's simply a THROW IN.

Or let's just call it what it is, a f*ckin layup.

Either way, not dunk of the year since:

A. It wasn't a DUNK
B. Defender didn't really challenge
C. It wasn't a DUNK

[SugarHill]

NO

One has to really really get up high enough to you know.... actually DUNK it.

Some part of one's hand has to hit rim, otherwise it isn't a 'dunk' it's simply a THROW IN.

Or let's just call it what it is, a f*ckin layup.

Either way, not dunk of the year since:

A. It wasn't a DUNK
B. Defender didn't really challenge
C. It wasn't a DUNK

wait, so you can nitpick over it not being a dunk but you're fine calling that a layup? :oldlol:

So Blake's dunk on Mozgov was a fvcking layup?

[andgar923]

wait, so you can nitpick over it not being a dunk but you're fine calling that a layup? :oldlol:

So Blake's dunk on Mozgov was a fvcking layup?
Well it ain't a dunk.

[Rake2204]

NO

One has to really really get up high enough to you know.... actually DUNK it.

Some part of one's hand has to hit rim, otherwise it isn't a 'dunk' it's simply a THROW IN.

Or let's just call it what it is, a f*ckin layup.

Either way, not dunk of the year since:

A. It wasn't a DUNK
B. Defender didn't really challenge
C. It wasn't a DUNKNot to pull the experience card but... as someone who's been dunking since 1998 (soon to be R.I.P. dunking skills, I'm getting old), I honestly wish I had enough hang time to elevate and throw it in like Blake Griffin or DeAndre Jordan have done. But it's not possible for people who have "normal" dunking skills.

Sure, I could drop the ball in (i.e. a super weak dunk where I'm not high enough so it looks like a layup with a rim grab) but that's way, way different from what guys are doing when they're throwing the ball down into the hoop.

The former is a weak result of not being able to jump well enough (been there). The latter means someone's able to get their arm high enough to where they're able to clear the rim enough to throw the ball downward from above. Whether someone likes the look of it is up for debate, but it's most certainly more difficult than someone like me just making a regular dunk.

Also, I think I've gathered you're a Jordan guy so I don't want to draw too many conclusions, but if this is about Jordan's dunk history in any type of way, I think he'd be pulling the throw-in types of dunks at times if he played today as well. Moreover, without his contributions, we'd wouldn't be at this point of the above the rim evolution in the first place. Yes, he still would have dunked all the plays he dunked (like the leaner over Ron Anderson), but maybe some of his layups would have turned into the throw-in super dunks we see today... if he existed now and still somehow benefited from his own influence in the 80's and 90's.

Still, I tend to err on the side of that type of play being a dunk since again, dunking is about forcing the ball through the bucket from above. There's really nothing about its origin that mandates making contact with the rim. The rim connection has just been a very common byproduct of throwing with such force. A throw-in dunk (or Space Jam as I sometimes reference, after Jordan's final dunk in the movie (before the random cut to him hanging on the rim with two hands)) is just another type of dunk to me.

Above all else, even if we disagree with whether these are dunks or not, they're often undeniably incredible plays. If we want to call Blake Griffin's finish over Kendrick Perkins a layup... okay... but it doesn't change the spectacular nature of the outcome. It was more incredible than most of the dunks I've ever seen. Yet, many seem to want to change the title of the play as a means of lessening or minimizing the execution. Still not sure if I get that.

[WayOfWade]

Well it ain't a dunk.
I personally consider those dunks, exactly how squares are also rectangles, throw ins are dunks. Dunks are defined as this (per the Internet) "score by shooting the ball down through the basket with the hands above the rim.". Does what Alec Burks did not fall under that category?

[Milbuck]

NO

One has to really really get up high enough to you know.... actually DUNK it.

Some part of one's hand has to hit rim, otherwise it isn't a 'dunk' it's simply a THROW IN.

Or let's just call it what it is, a f*ckin layup.

Either way, not dunk of the year since:

A. It wasn't a DUNK
B. Defender didn't really challenge
C. It wasn't a DUNK
1) You understand that it takes more elevation to be able to throw the ball DOWN through the rim than simply dunking it, right?

2) There is no official requirement for touching the rim when dunking.

Dunk: A shot thrown downward through the basket, with one or two hands. Also: slam, slam-dunk, jam
http://www.nba.com/analysis/00422966.html


A slam dunk, also dunk or dunk shot, is a type of basketball shot that is performed when a player jumps in the air, controls the ball(s) above the horizontal plane of the rim, and scores by putting the ball directly through the basket with one or both hands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam_dunk


Only total buzzkills like you and Smoke would rather smell your own farts about some meaningless basketball definition than just appreciating a sick play.

[andgar923]

I don't care how high a player jumps to 'throw in', it simply isn't a dunk no matter how nasty it looks.

This isn't a generational thing either. I'm sure we can pull up clips of throw ins from the past and those won't be considered dunks either. They weren't considered dunks then which is perhaps why the clips didn't last.

What i see is someone that jumped high but not far enough to finish.

And YES there's been tons and tons of players that get hit yet still finish, so that ain't an excuse.

[WayOfWade]

Only total buzzkills like you and Smoke would rather smell your own farts about some meaningless basketball definition than just appreciating a sick play.
Woah, I've never seen such an honest comment in my life

[andgar923]

1) You understand that it takes more elevation to be able to throw the ball DOWN through the rim than simply dunking it, right?

2) There is no official requirement for touching the rim when dunking.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/00422966.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam_dunk


Only total buzzkills like you and Smoke would rather smell your own farts about some meaningless basketball definition than just appreciating a sick play.
Who says that shit ain't nice???

F*ck your definitions.

Shit ain't a dunk.

[WayOfWade]

I don't care how high a player jumps to 'throw in', it simply isn't a dunk no matter how nasty it looks.

This isn't a generational thing either. I'm sure we can pull up clips of throw ins from the past and those won't be considered dunks either. They weren't considered dunks then which is perhaps why the clips didn't last.

What i see is someone that jumped high but not far enough to finish.

And YES there's been tons and tons of players that get hit yet still finish, so that ain't an excuse.
:facepalm You do realize you're arguing against the NBA's official definition of a dunk right? And why do you go find clips of throw-downs that aren't considered dunks? I mean it's fine to have your opinion, but to completely disregard what other posters have posted is kind of a dick move

[andgar923]

:facepalm You do realize you're arguing against the NBA's official definition of a dunk right? And why do you go find clips of throw-downs that aren't considered dunks? I mean it's fine to have your opinion, but to completely disregard what other posters have posted is kind of a dick move
My "opinion" isn't unique. The majority of Dunkers from all eras won't consider that a DUNK.

If i'm being a dick, some of y'all being p*ssies.

[WayOfWade]

My "opinion" isn't unique. The majority of Dunkers from all eras won't consider that a DUNK.

If i'm being a dick, some of y'all being p*ssies.
That's fine to have your opinion, go for it
And you aren't a dick, my bad for over reacting :cheers:

[Rake2204]

I don't care how high a player jumps to 'throw in', it simply isn't a dunk no matter how nasty it looks.

This isn't a generational thing either. I'm sure we can pull up clips of throw ins from the past and those won't be considered dunks either. They weren't considered dunks then which is perhaps why the clips didn't last.

What i see is someone that jumped high but not far enough to finish.

And YES there's been tons and tons of players that get hit yet still finish, so that ain't an excuse.1) Not only does a legitimate throw-down (not a drop-in or fingerroll) follow the spirit of a dunk (that is, to throw the ball downward through the rim with force), but it also matches with virtually every definition of what a dunk's supposed to be, including the NBA's official description.

One would be hard pressed to find anything suggesting that contact with the rim be necessary in order for it to be deemed a dunk. It's one thing to desire a dunk to require contact with the rim, it's another to be factually correct.

2) I'd be interested to see clips of throw-ins from previous generations. Though, it appears as if you've protected this aspect of your argument by stating we'll never find them because even if they did exist, no one cared to consider them dunks back then so they've somehow been deleted from history.

I imagine they happened at some point here or there but were likely treated as oddities and one-offs - like a blooper or circus shot almost - a kind of "Wow, there's something you don't see everyday, but how spectacular". Sometimes it takes someone to bust the door down for others to believe and recognize it can be done by design under the right circumstances.

3) "What i see is someone that jumped high but not far enough to finish.

And YES there's been tons and tons of players that get hit yet still finish, so that ain't an excuse."

With respect, I think that's a gross misunderstanding of what's happening on throw-in dunks. Throw-in dunks are a triumph over plays that'd previously forced players to double-pump and attempt a layup or some kind.

In previous generations, when players were dinged or stood up that far away from the hoop, it wasn't really a thought of players, even high risers, to try to throw the ball in anyway, largely due to the established belief that throwing the ball in likely could only work when close enough to the rim to make contact with it.

However, once a few players proved it could be done by more than just random happenstance, suddenly some of the best high-risers realized there's a way to finish those far-out plays with authority.

Again, I don't at all think this is a matter of players failing at dunking. It's them succeeding at what used to be dead balls or difficult layup attempts. If a prime Jordan played today, his history of dunks wouldn't be traded out for any throw-in dunks. Instead, he'd have all the dunks he had before plus the additional throw-in flushes he'd now be cognizant of executing.

[andgar923]

That's fine to have your opinion, go for it
And you aren't a dick, my bad for over reacting :cheers:
I and most like these throw ins, they are sick!!!

Just feel like there should be a distinction between the two.

I got no problem if someone says 'play of the year' on a throw in, but 'DUNK'???

Pfft

There are other aggressive ass lay ups that we can redefine then.

It's just about distinction for clarification and give proper props. Imagine a dunk with nothing but throw ins??

[Milbuck]

Who says that shit ain't nice???

F*ck your definitions.

Shit ain't a dunk.
Yeah definitely, random poster on a message board's opinion > the NBA's official definition of a basketball play.

You're talking out of your ass on this one.

[andgar923]

1) Not only does a legitimate throw-down (not a drop-in or fingerroll) follow the spirit of a dunk (that is, to throw the ball downward through the rim with force), but it also matches with virtually every definition of what a dunk's supposed to be, including the NBA's official description.

One would be hard pressed to find anything suggesting that contact with the rim be necessary in order for it to be deemed a dunk. It's one thing to desire a dunk to require contact with the rim, it's another to be factually correct.

2) I'd be interested to see clips of throw-ins from previous generations. Though, it appears as if you've protected this aspect of your argument by stating we'll never find them because even if they did exist, no one cared to consider them dunks back then so they've somehow been deleted from history.

I imagine they happened at some point here or there but were likely treated as oddities and one-offs - like a blooper or circus shot almost - a kind of "Wow, there's something you don't see everyday, but how spectacular". Sometimes it takes someone to bust the door down for others to believe and recognize it can be done by design under the right circumstances.

3) "What i see is someone that jumped high but not far enough to finish.

And YES there's been tons and tons of players that get hit yet still finish, so that ain't an excuse."

With respect, I think that's a gross misunderstanding of what's happening on throw-in dunks. Throw-in dunks are a triumph over plays that'd previously forced players to double-pump and attempt a layup or some kind.

In previous generations, when players were dinged or stood up that far away from the hoop, it wasn't really a thought of players, even high risers, to try to throw the ball in anyway, largely due to the established belief that throwing the ball in likely could only work when close enough to the rim to make contact with it.

However, once a few players proved it could be done by more than just random happenstance, suddenly some of the best high-risers realized there's a way to finish those far-out plays with authority.

Again, I don't at all think this is a matter of players failing at dunking. It's them succeeding at what used to be dead balls or difficult layup attempts. If a prime Jordan played today, his history of dunks wouldn't be traded out for any throw-in dunks. Instead, he'd have all the dunks he had before plus the additional throw-in flushes he'd now be cognizant of executing.
I agree that these throw ins are a result of the defense, but as I mentioned there have been tons of people getting hit and still dunking.

I appreciate your argument but simply disagree. Even if the play is more exciting and impressive they simply aren't dunks.

Some of these throw ins are more impressive than 90% of the dunks we'll see that season, but that doesn't make them dunks no matter how high they jumped, no matter how much force is used they ain't dunks homes.

For the record, I was a mean dunker on 9 foot tall courts, and I had some throw ins myself, but I never called them dunks, cause well... They
Weren't.

[mehyaM24]

andgar in a nutshell:

http://i.imgur.com/91sn32Q.jpg

[Rake2204]

I agree that these throw ins are a result of the defense, but as I mentioned there have been tons of people getting hit and still dunking.

I appreciate your argument but simply disagree. Even if the play is more exciting and impressive they simply aren't dunks.

Some of these throw ins are more impressive than 90% of the dunks we'll see that season, but that doesn't make them dunks no matter how high they jumped, no matter how much force is used they ain't dunks homes.

For the record, I was a mean dunker on 9 foot tall courts, and I had some throw ins myself, but I never called them dunks, cause well... They
Weren't.You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. It just does not align with the actual longstanding definition of a dunk, a definition I fully support because, well, it defines what a dunk is.

[3ball]

In previous eras, I imagine this type of dunk happened at some point here or there.. But they were likely treated as oddities and one-offs - like a blooper or circus shot.


What a joke - those types of dunks are oddities and one-offs in TODAY'S game.

We hardly EVER see Mosgovs in today's game - most seasons, there are zero...

Other seasons, there are 1 or 2.. Blake has done it a few times in his entire career, just like Larry Nance did several times.

[3ball]

In previous generations, when players were dinged or stood up that far away from the hoop, it wasn't really a thought of players.... bullshit bullshit bullshit



MJ routinely took off from further - in the dunk below, he takes off from the edge of the "outside" lane:


http://i.imgur.com/DEzYdEy.gif



Otoh, Burks clearly takes off from INSIDE the "outside" lane:


http://i.imgur.com/3rgQW9l.gif



As you can see, MJ didn't have to throw the ball in the hoop like Burks - MJ had the superior hops and power to actually DUNK the ball despite taking off from further or going through more contact/defenders:


https://media.giphy.com/media/DJYkKtdq0dpao/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/89alzfyBRN8E8/giphy.gif

[ArbitraryWater]

Who says that shit ain't nice???

F*ck your definitions.

Shit ain't a dunk.

:facepalm

[Rake2204]

^^Allow me to clarify, 3Ball. I was referring to the plays where a player just flat out wasn't going to be able to get the rim. Michael Jordan deserves all the credit for the Ron Anderson dunk (the Sixers leaner) and any other flushes where he took off from as far as he did. But there were also times that, despite his best efforts, Jordan just couldn't get to the rim. It happens to the best of us.

As I mentioned prior, if Jordan existed today, I think he still would have completed all the dunks he did. And as you're a big proponent of this - he'd probably have a lot more uncontested dunks today as well (no need for gifs, I think you're right on that one).

But on top of all those dunks already mentioned, I think Jordan also would have had some throw-in dunks if he played today.

For as many plays as Jordan had where he dunked through and over people (from distance), there were also many where he was impeded heavily and couldn't get his arm to the rim. For example: his famous palming pump layup over Patrick Ewing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yyknR7ltkg). In that particular case, I think he was hit too early and low for Jordan to attempt a throw-in dunk even if he wanted to.

However, under similar, though slightly different circumstances, if Jordan had just a little bit of a cleaner takeoff but was stood up in a similar fashion, he may have been able to squeak out a throw-in there. He certainly had the hands for it.

TL;DR - If throw-in dunks were as known then as they are today, and more players knew they were a semi-reliable option, Jordan would have had even more dunks than he did, which is an alarming notion.


What a joke - those types of dunks are oddities and one-offs in TODAY'S game.

We hardly EVER see Mosgovs in today's game - most seasons, there are zero...

Other seasons, there are 1 or 2.. Blake has done it a few times in his entire career, just like Larry Nance did several times.I suppose that depends what one's definition is of oddities and one-offs. My point was to say that if/when they occurred pre-2000's, there weren't a lot of people saying, "Yeah, you know, that might just work if I did that too."

However, present day, alongside Blake Griffin, we have Alec Burks last night, DeAndre Jordan on multiple occasions (most recently through Greg Monroe last week), JaVale McGee (most famously over Joakim Noah as he was getting pushed), Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett's "Sealy" tip-dunk, and even a fair portion of amateurs who can rise (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZSMRalux0).

It's not as common as a one-handed standard breakaway flush, but the throw-in dunk is most definitely more of a thing now than it may have ever been in basketball history, particularly in its current powerful form. That's why we have these conversations multiple times within recent years when these dunks inevitably take place over and over again.

[3ball]

However, present day, alongside Blake Griffin, we have Alec Burks last night, DeAndre Jordan on multiple occasions (most recently through Greg Monroe last week), JaVale McGee (most famously over Joakim Noah as he was getting pushed), Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett's "Sealy" tip-dunk


You just listed 8 or 9 over a 15 year period.

That's the definition of "one-off".

If we were living in the 80's or 90's with the same media coverage and availability of every single play highlight from numerous media mediums, we would see the same one-off frequency from guys like Nance, Kemp, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, you name it..

Also, I seem to remember a lot of no-names doing it too, like Blue Edwards and Tariq Abdul Wahad.

However, in previous eras, people didn't make AS big a deal out of posters.. When MJ dunked over Ewing, it's amazing how calm many of the Bulls players were..

But no one dunks over guys like that anymore, because such moves to navigate no-spacing traffic isn't required - it's a spaced-out game now, so drives are easy bee-lines to the hoop like the Burks dunk.

[Rake2204]

You just listed 8 or 9 over a 15 year period.

That's the definition of "one-off".

If we were living in the 80's or 90's with the same media coverage and availability of every single play highlight from numerous media mediums, we would see the same one-off frequency from guys like Nance, Kemp, Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, you name it..

Also, I seem to remember a lot of no-names doing it too, like Blue Edwards and Tariq Abdul Wahad.

However, in previous eras, people didn't make AS big a deal out of posters.. When MJ dunked over Ewing, it's amazing how calm many of the Bulls players were..

But no one dunks over guys like that anymore, because such moves to navigate no-spacing traffic isn't required - it's a spaced-out game now, so drives are easy bee-lines to the hoop like the Burks dunk.My list of people who'd completed the throw-in dunks, aside from the amateur guy, were simply off the top of my head and were not meant to be a complete rundown. I believe it extends far beyond those names, just would take a little research (for instance, Shawne Williams and Rudy Gay both pull it off in this clip from 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd8seTK5u1I).

As for the frequency in previous eras, I respectfully disagree. As I've said all along, I have little doubt it happened. But I don't think throw-in dunks in present form were anywhere near as common as they are today. Again, if they were as much of a thing then as they've become post-Howard, I think Jordan would have a handful in his own highlight reel.

Moreover, a reduction in availability of highlights in the 80's and 90's does not necessarily mean we get to just assume or pretend they happened just as frequently. What Griffin did to Timofey Mozgov was spectacular for present day, for the 90's, for the 80's, etc. If that type of throw-in dunk was happening in the 80's, at least one highlight of it would have likely slipped through the cracks, right alongside the thousands of crazy dunk highlights from the 80's we do have access to.

The problem, of course, is my word is no better than your word. I can say I'm a huge dunk fan and have studied thousands of hours of dunks from all eras of basketball over my life and you could say the same.

However, there's an absence of proof regarding the assertion of the same one-off frequency of these above-the-rim power throw-in dunks in the 80's.

For starters, David Robinson is my all-time favorite basketball player - watched his full career, made mixtapes, etc. I don't remember a single time he executed a throw-in dunk on the level of DeAndre Jordan over Greg Monroe. I think he was more than capable but again, it just wasn't established as a thing that players did frequently and with intent. And unless we can un-Earth some kind of proof somewhere, of any kind, there's not a whole lot that suggests otherwise. It wasn't even a thing in the highlight-heavy early 2000's.

P.S. As a sidenote, tough to put an exact number on it, but I think the throw-in dunk era probably really began to take off after Dwight Howard's Superman performance in 2008, thus making Garnett's tip-dunk one of the outliers. At the time of that tip, it was special and huge because it was so rare. It was massive and unusual. But as Howard popularized it (he had an early in-game oop in that fashion as well), it's become more and more common. I'd say over the past five years or so, it seems we've gotten a few throw-in classics each season. Tough to say that for any season prior to, say, 2008.

[3ball]

if throw-in dunks were as much of a thing then as they've become post-Howard, I think MJ would have a handful in his own highlight reel.


The above premise that Howard popularized the throw-in so that wings like MJ would be doing it today is pure bullshit, and I'll prove it:

How many throw-in dunks does Lebron, Kobe, Wade, or ANY wing player in today's game have?

ZERO.

The only wing that has one is Burks... and the remaining half dozen or so over the last 15 years are from literally only 3 or 4 bigs.

Again, they're one-offs today, just like they were back then.





I believe it extends far beyond those names.


Your "belief" is no more provable provable than my belief that previous eras did it a couple times a year, just like today's game..

The difference is that you SHOULD be able to prove there were more than just a dozen in 15 years, since we have footage of every single play and throw-in dunks are recognized as huge plays in today's game.

But in previous eras, nobody made a big deal about it, because things were less sensationalized and media-covered back then..

More importantly, fans and the media recognized/respected fundamentals more, so a throw-in dunk wouldn't have garnered a bunch of attention like it was a great play.. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't even get replayed.. It was Jordan's presence that caused the league to try to imitate him, leading to worse fundamentals and focus on things like throw-in dunks.

[Dro]

I understand how the nba defines a dunk, but I disagree. Throw ins are not dunks to me. They don't give me the same reaction when I see them. Without breaking down any mechanics, logistics, etc...Just off of pure looks, these aren't dunks and I've never been a fan of them. Only when Deandre does it can I get behind it a LITTLE bit...

[LoneyROY7]

Homie got a little bounce in dem boots.

[Rake2204]

The above premise that Howard popularized the throw-in so that wings like MJ would be doing it today is pure bullshit, and I'll prove it:

How many throw-in dunks does Lebron, Kobe, Wade, or ANY wing player in today's game have?

ZERO.

The only wing that has one is Burks... and the remaining half dozen or so over the last 15 years are from literally only 3 or 4 bigs.

Again, they're one-offs today, just like they were back then.



Your "belief" is no more provable provable than my belief that previous eras did it a couple times a year, just like today's game..

The difference is that you SHOULD be able to prove there were more than just a dozen in 15 years, since we have footage of every single play and throw-in dunks are recognized as huge plays in today's game.

But in previous eras, nobody made a big deal about it, because things were less sensationalized and media-covered back then..Yeah actually, I edited my previous post because I kind of figured you'd rightfully jump on that belief thing, since it has to do with the point I was making (regarding proof). That's why I added the clips of Shawne Williams and Rudy Gay in the first paragraph as well (and a Paul Pierce one that appeared too close to call, so I called it not).

Edit: While I'm thinking of it, add 6'5'' Gerald Henderson on Dwight Howard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3izkFFfkNZc

[Dro]

Yeah actually, I edited my previous post because I kind of figured you'd rightfully jump on that belief thing, since it has to do with the point I was making (regarding proof). That's why I added the clips of Shawne Williams and Rudy Gay in the first paragraph as well (and a Paul Pierce one that appeared too close to call, so I called it not).

Edit: While I'm thinking of it, add 6'5'' Gerald Henderson on Dwight Howard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3izkFFfkNZc
I remember that Henderson dunk. That one to me is more acceptable because he obviously would have completed it fully if Dwight hadn't pushed him in the stomach. Its not like he just took off from too far away to grab the rim. In those situations, its more acceptable. Kind've like the Mosgov dunk. It was more acceptable because Blake had to go over him and obviously would have completed that dunk fully if not for the foul.

[3ball]

Yeah actually, I edited my previous post because I kind of figured you'd rightfully jump on that belief thing, since it has to do with the point I was making (regarding proof). That's why I added the clips of Shawne Williams and Rudy Gay in the first paragraph as well (and a Paul Pierce one that appeared too close to call, so I called it not).

Edit: While I'm thinking of it, add 6'5'' Gerald Henderson on Dwight Howard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3izkFFfkNZc


Out of literally millions of possessions over a 15 year period, you can only find 10 or so throw-ins.

Now let's say the entire 80's and 90's only had 3 throw-ins - the difference between 3 and 10, or even 30 is NOTHING when we're talking about millions of possessions - it isn't statistically significant to say "see, they do throw-ins more now".. Infact, doing so is dumb.

And if the 80's and 90's had 30 throw-ins, that ALSO wouldn't be significant compared to today's 10.

Throw-ins are one-off rarities regardless of era - but the difference is that fans from this era should be able to prove there were more than just 10 throw-ins in 15 years, since we have footage of every single play and throw-in dunks are recognized as plays of the year in today's game.

But in previous eras (the 80's especially), fans and the media recognized/respected fundamentals more, so a throw-in dunk wouldn't have been looked at like the play of the year or even replayed much, if at all.. It would've been looked at like a one-off, gimmick, weird funky play..

Like, when Orlando Woolridge did a reverse, between-the-legs dunk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ijzLPcx1I) in 1984 dunk contest, people thought it was a weird dunk - no one really gave him props for it - no one replayed it over and over like they did JR Rider's dunk, which was nowhere near Woolridge's.

Here's the truth that is widely known - it was Jordan's presence that caused the league to try to imitate him, leading to worse fundamentals and focus on things like throw-in dunks.. This is why we think throw-in dunks are more prevalent now - they're simply respected and given more props now.. and obviously replayed over and over as great plays.

Btw, for you to say "i'm not saying the throw-ins happen as much as the one-leggers on the break" is RIDICULOUS... Throw-ins happen once every couple hundred thousand possessions, while one-legged dunks happen 5-10 times per game... Again, you could stand to get a proper handle/perception on the stats.

[Rake2204]

Out of literally millions of possessions over a 15 year period, you can only find 10 or so throw-ins.Correction. Out of the 100 or so plays I looked up (the top 50 dunks of 2011, a few top 10's from other years), I found 10 players over the past seven years who've completed the dunk, some on multiple occasions.

As much as I'd love to believe those 100 plays I watched represent every single throw-in dunk that's ever occurred on the NBA, college, or high school level over the past seven years... it's not. And I believe it'd be disingenuous to suggest as such, particularly with how readily the previous examples were provided through light searches.


Now let's say the entire 80's and 90's only had 3 throw-ins the difference between 3 and 10, or even 30 is NOTHING when we're talking about millions of possessions - it isn't statistically significant to say "see, they do throw-ins more now".. Infact, doing so is dumb.So far, there have been zero examples of Blake Griffin/DeAndre Jordan style of throw-in dunks from the 80's and 90's provided so far. Tens of thousands of dunks exist on YouTube stemming from the 80's and 90's and so far, zero examples provided. Once we find one (if we find one), that'd be one over a 20 year span... perhaps even a 50 year span.

Taking that into account, even if we incorrectly decided the Griffin-style throw-in has only occurred 15 times over the past seven years, that'd be a startling increase over the one other hypothetical event we're claiming happened between 1980 and 2000.


Throw-ins are one-off rarities regardless of era - but the difference is that fans from this era should be able to prove there were more than just 10 throw-ins in 15 years, since we have footage of every single play and throw-in dunks are recognized as plays of the year in today's game.Upon a very quick, non-thorough search, we've come across more than 10 such events over the past seven years.

Meanwhile, for the years 1980-2000, we've come across zero so far.

It's a tough play to pull off and it takes an interesting mix of circumstances and athleticism to execute. Still, even if there really was just 12 examples of such a play over the past seven years, that's 12 more examples than we've seen from 1980 to 2000 at this point.


But in previous eras (the 80's especially), fans and the media recognized/respected fundamentals more, so a throw-in dunk wouldn't have been looked at like the play of the year or even replayed much, if at all.. It would've been looked at like a one-off, gimmick, weird funky play..

Like, when Orlando Woolridge did a reverse, between-the-legs dunk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ijzLPcx1I) in 1984 dunk contest, people thought it was a weird dunk - no one really gave him props for it - no one replayed it over and over like they did JR Rider's dunk, which was nowhere near Woolridge's.I agree that Woolridge's between-the-legs dunk was overlooked for years.

That said, it was awkward and clunky as hell - but that's often where the evolution begins with dunks. Someone kicks it off with the prototype then the next guy eventually knocks down the door (J.R. Rider with his butter smooth Eastbay Funk).

Still, despite being overlooked, here we are acknowledging Woolridge's dunk all these years later. And there's a video of it. And because of Woolridge (and Rider, and Bryant, and Carter), the between-the-legs dunk is also way, way, way more common than it's ever been in basketball history. High schoolers have pulled it off in-game... that's kind of nuts.

In the same vein, the throw-in dunk has become more common as well, just not as common as between-the-legs. But compared to the zero examples we have from the thousands of 80's and 90's clips so far, the growth may as well be exponential.

One would think you'd be able to find at least one for as staunch as you stand on this matter. After that, then we could discuss finding two...

[ralph_i_el]

Its such a white person thing to immediately get the ball in for the inbounds pass after something like that:lol :lol :lol
....because the dude who dunked is now laying on the ground, so you have a great shot at getting an easy bucket on the other end if you inbound quickly.

efficiency.

[3ball]

Upon a very quick, non-thorough search, we've come across more than 10 such events over the past seven years.


10 such events in 7 years... You make my point... During those 7 years, there were millions of possessions, literally.

Let's say there were zero throw-ins during the 80's like you say - the difference between 0 and 10 is NOTHING when we're talking about millions of possessions - it isn't statistically significant to say "see, they do throw-ins more now".. Infact, doing so is dumb.





Meanwhile, for the years 1980-2000, we've come across zero so far.


You've only shown 10 instances out of 7 years and literally millions of possessions, so it isn't statistically significant..

Also, in today's game, it's easy to find ALL the throw-ins because we have an overabundance of footage, and throw-ins are viewed as plays of the year.

But in previous eras (the 80's especially), fans/media recognized and respected fundamentals more, so a throw-in dunk would've been perceived as a weird, funky play, not the play of the year like today's game.. It wouldn't have gotten the proper respect (like the aforementioned Woolridge dunk), or even replayed much, if at all..





even if there really was just 10 examples of such a play over the past seven years, that's 10 more examples than we've seen from 1980 to 2000 at this point.


Again, today's era has easy access to high quality footage, and throw-in dunks are viewed as plays of the year - so those 10 throw-ins are all there is - if there were more, they would easily be found on youtube.

Otoh, previous eras don't have the same abundance of footage - plays like throw-in dunks were considered non-fundamental, gimmick plays that weren't respected, and wouldn't be replayed.





Woolridge's eastbay was awkward and clunky as hell - but that's often where the evolution begins with dunks. Someone kicks it off with the prototype then the next guy eventually knocks down the door (J.R. Rider with his butter smooth Eastbay Funk).


Bullshit - JR Rider's eastbay was BASIC - the most basic one you can do.. Otoh, Woolridge's was more complicated - infact, it was the exact same dunk as Jason Richardson's final dunk that he won the contest on... You're just biased and overrate today's era, plain and simple - I've proved it about a dozen different times already.

For every high flyer you can name in today's era, there is someone to match them from a previous era - you're just not aware of this and haven't seen previous eras much...

Or if you have seen previous eras, you're a basic thinker and are biased by the short shorts and grainy footage like most people - that's the only way you could claim there were no throw-ins in the 80's - you obviously have no idea how athletic many players were back then.

Just based on the high level of athleticism alone, there must have been throw-ins.. But again, they wouldn't be replayed, since that type of play wouldn't be considered fundamental, and instead would be perceived as a weird, funky, gimmick play, rather than a play-of-the-year like in today's game.





One would think you'd be able to find at least one for as staunch as you stand on this matter.


I have a lot of experience looking up plays on youtube, and I know that this type of play will be hard to find, because throw-ins wouldn't have been something that was replayed back then and viewed as a top play.

The only reason there is footage of the Woolridge dunk is because it was in a dunk contest.

[Rake2204]

^I think we've taken this about as far as we can. I find it difficult to continue this topic when my words are constantly being ignored and/or twisted, all while having latent insults thrown in my direction despite being the only person who's brought any semblance of evidence to the discussion.

It's unfortunate because it seems you have willfully and completely misunderstood my take on this matter.

I wish you luck with all of this, and here's hoping I can avoid diving back into this conversation later (odds are not in my favor, ha).

[Milbuck]

^I think we've taken this about as far as we can. I find it difficult to continue this topic when my words are constantly being ignored and/or twisted, all while having latent insults thrown in my direction despite being the only person who's brought any semblance of evidence to the discussion.

It's unfortunate because it seems you have willfully and completely misunderstood my take on this matter.

I wish you luck with all of this, and here's hoping I can avoid diving back into this conversation later (odds are not in my favor, ha).
Dude is a copy/paste troll. Anything you type out will go unread by him and will be responded to with bits and pieces of pre-written essays. Don't waste your time.

[MiseryCityTexas]

A dunk like this wouldn't have even made the highlight reels if this was still the 90s. Burks really didn't dunk on Jon all that hard.