Are great shooters from the past still considered all time level in shooting today?

[iamgine]

For example, Larry Bird. In his prime from 1980-1988, he averaged around 1.7 3pt attempts a game with 0.6 makes a game. Or Reggie Miller who averaged around 5 3pt attempts with 2 makes a game.

As a comparison, Zach Lavine averaged around 6-7 3pt attempts a game with 3 makes a game in his prime. No one bats an eye.

Make it seem silly to still consider the old guys all time level shooter doesn't it?

[John8204]

I think they were better because they had to deal with hand checks. Miller, Bird, Mullin, Jordan, Erving, Maravich, Barry etc....those guys had to deal with defense that modern players didn't have to.

[pandiani17]

I think they were better because they had to deal with hand checks. Miller, Bird, Mullin, Jordan, Erving, Maravich, Barry etc....those guys had to deal with defense that modern players didn't have to.

Agree. I consider that it was more difficult to be a great shooter in the past because teams played more defense compared to nowadays, and shooters weren't allowed to put up as many shots.

[Im Still Ballin]

Peja is a name that comes to mind. He had a few super-efficient seasons in the early '00s.

[Phoenix]

For example, Larry Bird. In his prime from 1980-1988, he averaged around 1.7 3pt attempts a game with 0.6 makes a game. Or Reggie Miller who averaged around 5 3pt attempts with 2 makes a game.

As a comparison, Zach Lavine averaged around 6-7 3pt attempts a game with 3 makes a game in his prime. No one bats an eye.

Make it seem silly to still consider the old guys all time level shooter doesn't it?

It's all relative. Bird came along during the infancy of the 3point shot, and it wasn't a featured part of most teams offensive attack even in Reggie's prime. But, at the end of Bird's career he was basically 40% on 3 attempts. By today's standards that obviously still pales, but if the average player in the year 2040 is taking 15 3's and making 7-8 of them, are we then going to retroactively say today's shooters aren't all-time great? You have to judge within the context of the era. It's no different from comparing dunkers then vs today. Today's dunkers have the advantage of the decades of dunking lineage to draw from that their predecessors didn't have access to, and that will only continue on. Someone like JR Rider doing the eastbay funk in 95 was special, now the average 15 year old with hops can do that and Lavine did it from the foul-line a half decade ago. I'm just waiting for someone to dunk from the 3point line.

If you put Zach Lavine back in 1990 he's not going to be shooting that many 3's, and that logic extends to all the shooters you see today. Take 1992 Mark Price and place him in 2022, he's probably taking 8 threes a game and honestly, when I see what guys like Jokic and Luka are doing nowadays, I have very little concerns about placing him against todays 'athletes'.

[ImKobe]

Bird has a couple RS & a title run shooting 3+ 3PA at an elite efficiency. He was one of the first ones to do it so he deserves the praise as a great shooter for moving the game forward.

Reggie had seasons where he shot it almost 6 times a game and a Finals run where he shot 6.7 3PA at 39.5%, he's definitely an ATG shooter in the context of his era. You needed those guys for there to be a Steph Curry.

[SouBeachTalents]

OP low key makes some of the worst points on the forum.

[Kblaze8855]

So if Zach Lavine in his current form is transported to 1983 and he plays for a coach who was born in 1928 and was a disciple of Phog Allen, who was literally the first basketball coach(Dr. Naismith didn’t want to coach after inventing the game)….

This relic tells them to go out there and throw the ball into the post, and when he takes a pull up three he gets taken out of the game even if it goes in….

When Lavine makes 88 threes that whole season…is he worse…or in a different situation?

[SouBeachTalents]

So if Zach Lavine in his current form is transported to 1983 and he plays for a coach who was born in 1928 and was a disciple of Phog Allen, who was literally the first basketball coach(Dr. Naismith didn’t want to coach after inventing the game)….

This relic tells them to go out there and throw the ball into the post, and when he takes a pull up three he gets taken out of the game even if it goes in….

When Lavine makes 88 threes that whole season…is he worse…or in a different situation?
This was so obvious from the start, and something OP must’ve known. I think he’s just one of those subtle troll accounts.

[Yeezy]

larry birds ability to hit difficult shots is why hes looked at as one of the best ever. it has nothing to do with threes. its like kobe/jordan type long contested 2's falling out of bounds or making it through contact. hitting shots over the backboard. left handed etc...

[Phoenix]

The thing with this type of question, unless the basketball community (or I guess sporting discourse in general) gets exponentially better about judging players within the context of their era, you may as well drop the idea of 'all-time' great.

It's like asking if Napolean and his troops could timewarp to today and take on a modern army. It's kind of a ridicullous non-starter conversation.

[Kblaze8855]

This was so obvious from the start, and something OP must’ve known. I think he’s just one of those subtle troll accounts.


That or he’s just bad at this. Some people just…can’t explain themselves clearly through text alone.

I will add though…my analogy had a flaw. Phog Allen’s disciples might be pro three pointer. He was incredibly anti big man. He’s the guy who wanted to raise the rim to 12 feet because he didn’t consider dunking a legit basketball shot. He actually recruited Wilt to Kansas for the express purpose of having him make a mockery of the game by dunking every single touch till people got bored and let him raise the rims(though of course wilt could dunk on the 12 foot one too). Kansas just forced him to retire instead. Dude landed the greatest recruit in the sports history and the school took advantage of an old rule to force him out so he couldn’t use Wilt to destroy basketball.

Hed probably be Dantoni today. He was one of the guys pushing for a height limit in Olympic basketball after we sent what he called 6’7” goons to win the gold medal in the 30s. They wanted basketball to be strictly 6’4” and under.

Not important information but I…like Lisa Simpson…am the answer to a question no one asked.

[iamgine]

It's all relative. Bird came along during the infancy of the 3point shot, and it wasn't a featured part of most teams offensive attack even in Reggie's prime. But, at the end of Bird's career he was basically 40% on 3 attempts. By today's standards that obviously still pales, but if the average player in the year 2040 is taking 15 3's and making 7-8 of them, are we then going to retroactively say today's shooters aren't all-time great? You have to judge within the context of the era. It's no different from comparing dunkers then vs today. Today's dunkers have the advantage of the decades of dunking lineage to draw from that their predecessors didn't have access to, and that will only continue on. Someone like JR Rider doing the eastbay funk in 95 was special, now the average 15 year old with hops can do that and Lavine did it from the foul-line a half decade ago. I'm just waiting for someone to dunk from the 3point line.

If you put Zach Lavine back in 1990 he's not going to be shooting that many 3's, and that logic extends to all the shooters you see today. Take 1992 Mark Price and place him in 2022, he's probably taking 8 threes a game and honestly, when I see what guys like Jokic and Luka are doing nowadays, I have very little concerns about placing him against todays 'athletes'.
Well, why not?

Also, I didn't say they're not all time great. I said it might seem silly to still consider the old guys all time level shooter. Just like how George Mikan is an all time great even tho he might not even make a college team today.

[Phoenix]

Well, why not?

Also, I didn't say they're not all time great. I said it might seem silly to still consider the old guys all time level shooter. Just like how George Mikan is an all time great even tho he might not even make a college team today.

I mean, the answer to that is in the body of the post. I'm not sure how much better I can explain 'context'. Steph Curry taking 12 threes a game in a 2022 league where that's about the uppoer limit of volume 3 point shooting, isn't a less shooter if a 2040 NBA features guys where 12 threes is on the lower end of what would be considered volume three point shooting. Reggie Miller playing in 2022 is going to take more threes than Steph Curry playing in 1995. I would think that's fairly straight forward as to why you can't grade these things on a straight line.

Also, in your thread title you literally say 'Are great shooters from the past still considered all time level in shooting today?

I mean, all time level...all-time great. In the context of the discussion do you think I mean different things?

[iamgine]

If the standard is higher, then doesn't all time level becomes normal/below level?

Like, 1983 Larry Bird isn't going to suddenly able to take 8 threes a game. It requires years of practice and a radical change to his game. Just like 2022 Zach Lavine won't suddenly be able to shoot 20+ threes a game and maintain his percentage. That's a higher level isn't it?

[SaltyMeatballs]

80% of the best shooters in NBA history are playing in this era

[Phoenix]

If the standard is higher, then doesn't all time level becomes normal/below level?

Like, 1983 Larry Bird isn't going to suddenly able to take 8 threes a game. It requires years of practice and a radical change to his game. Just like 2022 Zach Lavine won't suddenly be able to shoot 20+ threes a game and maintain his percentage. That's a higher level isn't it?

Oh boy.

So as I said, if the standard is going to constantly change every 20 years based on how basketball is being played in a given time, does it make sense to use the term 'all-time' at all? Like maybe we should get ahead of the curve and stop calling Steph Curry an 'all-time level/great' shooter right now because in the year 2040 someone will be making 9 threes a game at 45% with 5 of them deliberately shot at half-court because Daryl Morey's son analyzed that this is how basketball should be played. By that standard he will no longer be 'all-time' level, right? There's some 8 year old in a gym or backyard right now with a rusty ass rim that's going to be in the NBA doing shit very similar to what I just described.

So again....... what's the point in calling anyone all-time anything? If Reggie Miller is born in 2010 and comes along watching Steph Curry, is there any reason to think he wouldn't be out there taking 15 threes in the year 2035? He doesn't cease to be all-time because he happened to be born in the wrong era. You judge him by the league he played in. Context. Relative. It's not that hard.

[PAOK]

JxmyHighroller recently posted a video discussing this exact thing


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

From an absolute statistical standpoint, current day shooters are far better than anyone in the past. There are modern players shooting better than MJ from mid-range.

However such a comparison, without taking into consideration the playstyle, ruleset etc, makes zero sense. We always need to compare, taking into consideration relative performance against the competition

[iamgine]

Oh boy.

So as I said, if the standard is going to constantly change every 20 years based on how basketball is being played in a given time, does it make sense to use the term 'all-time' at all? Like maybe we should get ahead of the curve and stop calling Steph Curry an 'all-time level/great' shooter right now because in the year 2040 someone will be making 9 threes a game at 45% with 5 of them deliberately shot at half-court because Daryl Morey's son analyzed that this is how basketball should be played. By that standard he will no longer be 'all-time' level, right? There's some 8 year old in a gym or backyard right now with a rusty ass rim that's going to be in the NBA doing shit very similar to what I just described.

So again....... what's the point in calling anyone all-time anything? If Reggie Miller is born in 2010 and comes along watching Steph Curry, is there any reason to think he wouldn't be out there taking 15 threes in the year 2035? He doesn't cease to be all-time because he happened to be born in the wrong era. You judge him by the league he played in. Context. Relative. It's not that hard.
Steph Curry is all time level right now. The future hasn't happen yet and there's no guarantee of anything. He will be all time level until such a time where there are many people who could outshoot him. I don't know what's hard to understand about this.

[Phoenix]

Steph Curry is all time level right now. The future hasn't happen yet and there's no guarantee of anything. He will be all time level until such a time where there are many people who could outshoot him. I don't know what's hard to understand about this.

I understand your point fine, I just fundamentally disagree with the complete lack of considering ( or not caring about) context. You dont have to know the future to reasonably assume that guys are going to continually push the standard forward in shooting because that's what has always happened. But I fall short of saying you just give the middle finger to the past just because they played the only way they knew how to play or allowed to play. You posed a question that you clearly have a hard-coded opinion on so what is there to discuss?

[CountDracula]

https://i.ibb.co/fCRfqSC/EC6467-ED-6926-4745-8-F13-68-DB060-A4-C1-C.jpg (https://ibb.co/RCnfYSC)

https://i.ibb.co/Vx8kd5J/E5-BC9568-4439-474-C-AFE8-AA066-C7054-DB.jpg (https://ibb.co/f97TbLq)

https://i.ibb.co/BsPDQn4/850-B4-A06-10-C3-4491-A0-FB-6-A30376-E28-EC.jpg (https://ibb.co/2K62CZ8)

https://i.ibb.co/SBZ51wB/A28-E656-D-A848-4-F16-BE17-E2-AF65-BA0-BDF.gif (https://imgbb.com/)

[getting_old]

OMG

Larry Bird and Rick Barry and World B. Free would have made a dozen a game these days

[BigShotBob]

JxmyHighroller recently posted a video discussing this exact thing


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

From an absolute statistical standpoint, current day shooters are far better than anyone in the past. There are modern players shooting better than MJ from mid-range.

However such a comparison, without taking into consideration the playstyle, ruleset etc, makes zero sense. We always need to compare, taking into consideration relative performance against the competition

No there isn't

Only one more efficient is KD and even he doesn't have the volume MJ had during his older years

[BigShotBob]

Steph Curry is all time level right now. The future hasn't happen yet and there's no guarantee of anything. He will be all time level until such a time where there are many people who could outshoot him. I don't know what's hard to understand about this.

In no world is Zach Lavine a better shooter than Jeff Hornacek or Chris Mullin just because he chucks up shots in an offensive friendly era

Stop trolling