Dominique Wilkins goes IN on JJ Redick for "bashing" older players, Redick responds.

[1987_Lakers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN8fwtCysS0&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx3VA07mTBM

[Kblaze8855]

I saw he was arguing about Bird coming off screens being held than Steph as evidence it was a less physical era as if Steph is in a world where these are common fouls:


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IllegalThreadbareArgentinehornedfrog-size_restricted.gif


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SpryLiveHypsilophodon-size_restricted.gif


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnripeTheseBoutu-size_restricted.gif








A lot of the time it feels like JJ is having a different discussion than the people he’s arguing with.

[tontoz]

Redick is right. Bird was not one of the top 5 3 pt shooters ever. That's just ridiculous.

Redick might be downplaying the physicality of that time but some people are being blinded by nostalgia.

[SATAN]

Why this crabs in a pot thing exists so much in basketball is beyond me. I can't remember JJ ever saying anything blatantly ignorant.

Half these older players don't even watch the games anymore. They don't even know who's on the court. Literally listen to Chuck and Shaq, the clowns everyone is supposed to find entertaining. I can't take them seriously, no matter how good their careers were.

Dumb.

[1987_Lakers]

Redick is right. Bird was not one of the top 5 3 pt shooters ever. That's just ridiculous.

Redick might be downplaying the physicality of that time but some people are being blinded by nostalgia.

I agree with this.

Mad dog's justification for having Bird as a top 5 three point shooter ever in the first clip was "The 80's saw so much more physicality", but if you watch an 80's game you see nobody guarding the 3 point line. Defenses back then clogged the paint, a mid-range shot was considered spacing back then. These old heads are kinda annoying.

[tontoz]

I agree with this.

Mad dog's justification for having Bird as a top 5 three point shooter ever in the first clip was "The 80's saw so much more physicality", but if you watch an 80's game you see nobody guarding the 3 point line. Defenses back then clogged the paint, a mid-range shot was considered spacing back then. These old heads are kinda annoying.


Yeah I was watching those games. Running guys off the 3 pt line wasn't a thing back then. Nobody in that era faced even half of the defensive pressure behind the line that Steph faces today.

[Patrick Chewing]

If the importance of the 3-point shot was as important as it is today during Larry's era, then Larry would have dominated behind the arc. Same goes for Jordan. These young people today just dismissing these older players cause they didn't shoot the 3 like players do today are just ignorant.

[1987_Lakers]

If the importance of the 3-point shot was as important as it is today during Larry's era, then Larry would have dominated behind the arc. Same goes for Jordan. These young people today just dismissing these older players cause they didn't shoot the 3 like players do today are just ignorant.

Bird? I can see it.

MJ? LOL

[SATAN]

If the importance of the 3-point shot was as important as it is today during Larry's era, then Larry would have dominated behind the arc. Same goes for Jordan. These young people today just dismissing these older players cause they didn't shoot the 3 like players do today are just ignorant.

You don't even understand what's going on here.

[Kblaze8855]

The Bird argument is kinda like if the nba adds a 4 point line next year and Steph takes like 20 because it isn’t in anyones offense and before he retires he has 1-2 good years as the league adjusts but 30 years from now guys are shooting 4s at 38 percent and making 90 a year when Steph peaked at 26 on 33%. You couldn’t say he’s one of the best 4 point shooters……even if you assume he would be had he come along when someone would expect him to take a bunch.

Can’t make the case as is.

[Xiao Yao You]

The Bird argument is kinda like if the nba adds a 4 point line next year and Steph takes like 20 because it isn’t in anyones offense and before he retires he has 1-2 good years as the league adjusts but 30 years from now guys are shooting 4s at 38 percent and making 90 a year when Steph peaked at 26 on 33%. You couldn’t say he’s one of the best 4 point shooters……even if you assume he would be had he come along when someone would expect him to take a bunch.

Can’t make the case as is.

where's this 4 point line because I believe Curry shoots over 40% on deep 3's while no one else even shoots a decent %

[tontoz]

In the 83/84 season Bird attempted 73 3s shooting 25%.

Darrell Griffith attempted 252 shooting 36%.

[Im Still Ballin]

where's this 4 point line because I believe Curry shoots over 40% on deep 3's while no one else even shoots a decent %

It's the principle, bro! We all know Steph hits 40%+ from 25ft.



Principle:

a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
"the basic principles of justice"

[SATAN]

In the 83/84 season Bird attempted 73 3s shooting 25%.

Darrell Griffith attempted 252 shooting 36%.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/image.php?u=97944&dateline=1675786842

[Kblaze8855]

where's this 4 point line because I believe Curry shoots over 40% on deep 3's while no one else even shoots a decent %


You would think so but no. I believe the best 30+ foot guy by the numbers is Trae young with Dame the best all time.

Stephs numbers I think may be skewed by downright heaves but he doesn’t make the long ones at the rate they do.

[Kblaze8855]

In the 83/84 season Bird attempted 73 3s shooting 25%.

Darrell Griffith attempted 252 shooting 36%.

In his best scoring season Chris Mullin shot 23% having taken exactly 100. I don’t think you would take current Westbrook over 89 Mullin in a 3 point shootout though. There is obviously more to it than the final numbers. It’s just…not having them in the game plan. Taking them randomly, with a lot of “Just get something up” attempts, and emergency shots.

Those dudes were coming open on screens and taking toe on the line 2s because they didn’t think at all about where their feet were.

I think even you would say the percentages don’t tell the whole story.

[Im Still Ballin]

Curry is definitely the best 25-29ft shooter. Not sure about 30ft+.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/shooting?DistanceRange=5ft%20Range&dir=D&sort=25-29%20ft.%20FGM

[Xiao Yao You]

In the 83/84 season Bird attempted 73 3s shooting 25%.

Darrell Griffith attempted 252 shooting 36%.

Dr. Dunkenstein with 3 attempts a game and he had a so-called green light

[Kblaze8855]

Curry is definitely the best 25-29ft shooter. Not sure about 30ft+.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/shooting?DistanceRange=5ft%20Range&dir=D&sort=25-29%20ft.%20FGM



Dame shot 41% on shots over 30 feet one season. The all time leader is Trae at 36% and Dame second at 34. Steph is in the 20s but on much higher volume which again makes me assume…lots of heaves in there.

[tontoz]

You can't give a player credit for something he didn't actually do.

Brook Lopez didn't take 3s in his first 8 seasons, then suddenly started taking a lot of them in his 9th season. Similar situation with Horford.

Can't use the era excuse for everything. Sometimes it is just a case of player choices/development.

[Kblaze8855]

You can't give a player credit for something he didn't actually do.

Brook Lopez didn't take 3s in his first 8 seasons, then suddenly started taking a lot of them in his 9th season. Similar situation with Horford.

Can't use the era excuse for everything. Sometimes it is just a case of player choices/development.


Yea that’s great. You’d still take 89 Mullin in a 3 point shootout vs current Westbrook with your life on the line because you have common sense and the numbers aren’t telling you who shoots threes better.

[Kblaze8855]

And I do see a source now saying that if you take out the heaves Steph shoots 41% from over 30 but I’m not sure who ran the numbers or what they call a “heave”. And it cuts off at 2016. Do with that as you will.

[tontoz]

Yea that’s great. You’d still take 89 Mullin in a 3 point shootout vs current Westbrook with your life on the line because you have common sense and the numbers aren’t telling you who shoots threes better.


Actually in your hypothetical scenario, let's change the names and just look at the numbers.

Low volume makes pretty much all stats suspect so I would look at something other than 3 pt percentage to determine who would win the contest. Foul shooting typically correlates well to NBA 3 pt shooting. Mullin shot 86.5% from the line for his career.

[Kblaze8855]

And 23 percent from 3. While being a great shooter. It happens.

[Im Still Ballin]

a 4pt line would be crazy. Shooting 25% would be equivalent to shooting 50% from 2 and 33.33% from 3. Trae would be shooting four-pointers at 36% for a 72% eFG shot. Imagine all the screen setting at 30+ feet.

[FKAri]

You can't use raw 3pt % across eras. A lot of old 3pt attempts are littered with end of the clock heaves. At the same time a lot of their made 3s are wide open. Someone would need to to do a deep dive into the context of all the shots to determine how good someone really was at taking those shots. There's also the "well if he focused on it he'd be better". Sure. But not everyone can just become a great 3pt shooter. Another wrinkle is the dynamic of defenses and offenses are adjusting to each other. Two guys could have the same numbers but one guy saw much tighter coverage because of the context of his team.

[tontoz]

And 23 percent from 3. While being a great shooter. It happens.

Like I said low volume makes all stats suspect.

But in order to qualify as a top 5 3 pt shooter all time a player has to take 3s and make them at a high rate. Bird had 4 straight seasons in his prime shooting under 30% from 3 on low volume while some of his competitors were taking far more and shooting better. That disqualifies him from being too 5 ever

[Kblaze8855]

Like I said low volume makes all stats suspect.

But in order to qualify as a top 5 3 pt shooter all time a player has to take 3s and make them at a high rate. Bird had 4 straight seasons in his prime shooting under 30% from 3 on low volume while some of his competitors were taking far more and shooting better. That disqualifies him from being too 5 ever


I didn’t say he was top five ever to begin with. I said Chris Mullin shot 23% and was a great outside shooter at the time.

[tontoz]

I didn’t say he was top five ever to begin with. I said Chris Mullin shot 23% and was a great outside shooter at the time.


The thread is about bird's 3 pt shooting.

3 pt shooting is only one part of shooting obviously. And Mullins 23% 3 pt season was an anomaly relative to the rest of his career.

[Kblaze8855]

He shot 30% or less 4 of 6 seasons at that point and that 23% was the best scoring season of his career so it’s hard to say he was having an off year. He just shot poorly from 3. And gun to your head you are taking even that 23% shooting Mullin over a lot of guys who shoot a lot better if they have to shoot for your life because that number means less than your common sense.

[tontoz]

He shot 30% or less 4 of 6 seasons at that point and that 23% was the best scoring season of his career so it’s hard to say he was having an off year. He just shot poorly from 3. And gun to your head you are taking even that 23% shooting Mullin over a lot of guys who shoot a lot better if they have to shoot for your life because that number means less than your common sense.


Shooting 30% is a lot better than 23%. The only other sub 30% season of his career was his rookie year.

[j3lademaster]

As long as tremendous revenue is poured into the league, there will be shooters who come along that are better than Steph. Sports evolve whether you like it or not, and that’s the beauty of it. People are so afraid of their childhood heroes falling out of relevance they miss a lot of what’s happening in front of their eyes. What people should be afraid of is stagnation.

[j3lademaster]

The Bird argument is kinda like if the nba adds a 4 point line next year and Steph takes like 20 because it isn’t in anyones offense and before he retires he has 1-2 good years as the league adjusts but 30 years from now guys are shooting 4s at 38 percent and making 90 a year when Steph peaked at 26 on 33%. You couldn’t say he’s one of the best 4 point shooters……even if you assume he would be had he come along when someone would expect him to take a bunch.

Can’t make the case as is.then these hypothetical shooters in this scenario are better than Steph. We still give Steph his place and respect in history as the player who innovated the game in ~2015 and he’ll get an unfair boost in all time rankings(warranted or not) due to this. It is what it is.

[Kblaze8855]

What are you even arguing with? You quote this:



You couldn’t say he’s one of the best 4 point shooters……even if you assume he would be had he come along when someone would expect him to take a bunch.


And respond as if I said the exact opposite.

[j3lademaster]

I wasn’t trying to be contentious. I’m saying despite them being better shooters, Steph will have the respect embedded in the history of the sport as the guy who innovated it around shooting. Much like Bird in his era when the 3 point line was still a new concept.

[1987_Lakers]

Much like Bird in his era when the 3 point line was still a new concept.

Bird would have been a great 3 point shooter in today's league, but someone saying he is a top 5 three point shooter ever when his own teammate Danny Ainge made more threes on a higher percentage than him from about '87-'92 (when teams started to use that shot as a weapon) is laughable to say the least.

[j3lademaster]

Bird would have been a great 3 point shooter in today's league, but someone saying he is a top 5 three point shooter ever when his own teammate Danny Ainge made more threes on a higher percentage than him from about '87-'92 (when teams started to use that shot as a weapon) is laughable to say the least.
I have zero doubt. The core of shooting hasn’t changed since the 80’s: consistent mechanics and confidence. Bird has both. In droves even. I just have a hard time assuming someone will do something better than someone who is actually doing it. It’s like assuming Jordan will win a dunk contest today. “Oh he’ll be more creative if he came up today, and he still has that freakish athleticism”. I’m sure he’ll be a better showdunker if he cared to, but I can’t just put him over Gordon, Lavine, McClung etc who are actually doing it.

[tontoz]

Scary thing about Bird is that he played with a permanently damaged finger on his shooting hand. He hurt it playing softball I think and never could straighten it. He said he was a better shooter in college before it happened.

[mr4speed]

You can't use raw 3pt % across eras. A lot of old 3pt attempts are littered with end of the clock heaves. At the same time a lot of their made 3s are wide open. Someone would need to to do a deep dive into the context of all the shots to determine how good someone really was at taking those shots. There's also the "well if he focused on it he'd be better". Sure. But not everyone can just become a great 3pt shooter. Another wrinkle is the dynamic of defenses and offenses are adjusting to each other. Two guys could have the same numbers but one guy saw much tighter coverage because of the context of his team.

Great post!!! Could not have said it better.

[hateraid]

There were 2 arguments going on. Physicality vs greatest shooters of all time. They weren't on the same page. I actually agree more with JJ and his sentiments.

[paksat]

Why this crabs in a pot thing exists so much in basketball is beyond me. I can't remember JJ ever saying anything blatantly ignorant.

Half these older players don't even watch the games anymore. They don't even know who's on the court. Literally listen to Chuck and Shaq, the clowns everyone is supposed to find entertaining. I can't take them seriously, no matter how good their careers were.

Dumb.

because the games suck, the players suck, the all star game is pure haram

I don't blame them

[paksat]

I find it funny a player that that averaged a grand total of TWO rebounds and TWO assists and .4 steals and .1 blocks has anything to say about any generation

who cares what this duke bust says, he's nobody

[1987_Lakers]

I find it funny a player that that averaged a grand total of TWO rebounds and TWO assists and .4 steals and .1 blocks has anything to say about any generation

who cares what this duke bust says, he's nobody

Redick was not a bust. I'm willing to bet he had a better career than most #11 overall picks.

[tontoz]

Redick was getting an NBA check until he was 36. He definitely wasn't a bust. I am pretty confident that he outperformed most guys picked at 11.

He was certainly better in the NBA than I thought he would be. The league moved in his direction after he was drafted.

[tontoz]

Redick was not a bust. I'm willing to bet he had a better career than most #11 overall picks.


Lol we just said the same thing at the same time.

[SaltyMeatballs]

I'm with JJ on this one. He wasn't disrespecting Larry Bird. What he said about him not being a top 5 3-point shooter ever is objectively true but old heads get extra defensive when someone talks about the basketball in their era

[j3lademaster]

I find it funny a player that that averaged a grand total of TWO rebounds and TWO assists and .4 steals and .1 blocks has anything to say about any generation

who cares what this duke bust says, he's nobody
How good of a player they were has nothing to do with how they evaluate skill and talent. Otherwise Jordan, Magic and Isiah would be better gm’s than Morey or Presti. When you think of top coaches: Pop, Kerr, Pjax, Spols, Stevens; they usually werent stars, if they were nba players at all. Point is, lay off the weak arguments.

[SATAN]

because the games suck, the players suck, the all star game is pure haram

I don't blame them

They are free to find jobs in other industries. I'd much rather have guys like JJ discussing the game than some old ****s who barely even watch games and don't understand the modern game hating on everything. They straight up disrespect the current players and can't get over their own egos.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Same applies to them. Give someone else who actually needs that job a chance.



I find it funny a player that that averaged a grand total of TWO rebounds and TWO assists and .4 steals and .1 blocks has anything to say about any generation

who cares what this duke bust says, he's nobody

Nah, he was a pretty decent player. His play on court has earned him a life time supply of eggs regardless of the price. :lol

He's certainly not a nobody. You know nothing about basketball.

[theman93]

When Bird starting shooting 3's with volume (85-92) he was shooting 40%. Meanwhile the league average was anywhere from 28-33% during that time. Maybe he's not top 5 all-time, but the gap between him and his peers was vast compared to anyone else in this discussion.

[iamgine]

lol look at Dominique resorting to name calling. :lol

In terms of intelligence, he's very clearly no match for JJ. I wish they would interview some other old head.

[Wally450]

lol look at Dominique resorting to name calling. :lol

In terms of intelligence, he's very clearly no match for JJ. I wish they would interview some other old head.

He should get Bird on. Bird can have a good discussion about the 3 ball from then with JJ discussing it today.

[warriorfan]

Bird? I can see it.

MJ? LOL

MJ was an 84% free throw shooter and had an incredible mid range jumper. If you don’t think he would be a good 3 point shooter if it was more stressed upon and he wanted to make it an aspect of his game then….ya, that’s a mental midget take

[RRR3]

JJ Redick was a good player and he was picked 11th, paktass is braindead calling him a bust. One of the best shooters ever and good for a very efficient 15-18 PPG in his prime.

[HoopsNY]

You can't give a player credit for something he didn't actually do.

Brook Lopez didn't take 3s in his first 8 seasons, then suddenly started taking a lot of them in his 9th season. Similar situation with Horford.

Can't use the era excuse for everything. Sometimes it is just a case of player choices/development.

Of course you can. Because the data reflects exactly what you're saying. You're basically saying if Bird is given the same structure that modern players play with, that he wouldn't evolve even beyond what he did during the 80s.

The three pointer was new, and it's something that Redick even mentions about with the volume. Players got better over time, something that he ignores for some reason

Bird's first 5 seasons he shot just 31% from 3 point distance. The next 8 season, Bird shot 40%. The difference was in volume. Bird took only 1.1 3PA his first 5 seasons, but 2.8 attempts the rest of the way.

So what's he doing with more than 4 attempts a game? Let's actually look at what he did during that stretch where he attempted 4+ 3PA per game:

'85: 13-35 (37%)
'86: 40-89 (45%%)
'87: 58-143 (41%)
'88: 65-168 (39%)
'89: INJ
'90: 36-95 (39%)
'91: 66-154 (43%)
'92: 28-77 (36%)

Total: 306-761 (40%)

So why would it be any different now?

Guys like Lopez and Horford did what Bird did....they adapted to the style of play. Not sure why stiffs like Lopez and Horford get the benefit of the doubt, but a top 10 player and arguably top 5 shooter of all time doesn't.

[HoopsNY]

You can't use raw 3pt % across eras. A lot of old 3pt attempts are littered with end of the clock heaves. At the same time a lot of their made 3s are wide open. Someone would need to to do a deep dive into the context of all the shots to determine how good someone really was at taking those shots. There's also the "well if he focused on it he'd be better". Sure. But not everyone can just become a great 3pt shooter. Another wrinkle is the dynamic of defenses and offenses are adjusting to each other. Two guys could have the same numbers but one guy saw much tighter coverage because of the context of his team.

Right, but we're talking about Larry Bird here. I mean, the guy won 3 consecutive 3 point competitions in a row.

[HoopsNY]

Like I said low volume makes all stats suspect.

But in order to qualify as a top 5 3 pt shooter all time a player has to take 3s and make them at a high rate. Bird had 4 straight seasons in his prime shooting under 30% from 3 on low volume while some of his competitors were taking far more and shooting better. That disqualifies him from being too 5 ever

Right, when the 3 pt shot was in its infancy, and ironically, where Bird saw his lowest volume (0.9 3PA). Redick makes a great point but contradicts himself when he mentions volume.

[HoopsNY]

Bird would have been a great 3 point shooter in today's league, but someone saying he is a top 5 three point shooter ever when his own teammate Danny Ainge made more threes on a higher percentage than him from about '87-'92 (when teams started to use that shot as a weapon) is laughable to say the least.

'92 is Bird's last season. He was also a shell of himself by '89. And yea, Ainge shot .003 pts higher, but no one would seriously take him to hit a big 3 over Bird, really. I mean, Steve Kerr has a higher career 3pt% than Steph, Reggie, and Ray Allen, albeit on lower volume. It's a more extreme comparison, but you get the idea.

Having said that, I disagree that Bird is a top 5 three point shooter. So Redick isn't wrong but his logic is kinda flawed.

[1987_Lakers]

MJ was an 84% free throw shooter and had an incredible mid range jumper. If you don’t think he would be a good 3 point shooter if it was more stressed upon and he wanted to make it an aspect of his game then….ya, that’s a mental midget take

Did you miss the part where he said Jordan would have "dominated" as a 3 point shooter?

Kobe shot a similar FT%, was a great mid-range shooter as well, but never "dominated" from 3 point land.

There are a handful of players who were better 3 point shooters than MJ during the 90's, but somehow he would be "dominant" from there if you put him in the NBA today?

Get out of here with your low IQ takes.

[warriorfan]

Did you miss the part where he said Jordan would have "dominated" as a 3 point shooter?

Kobe shot a similar FT%, was a great mid-range shooter as well, but never "dominated" from 3 point land.

There are a handful of players who were better 3 point shooters than MJ during the 90's, but somehow he would be "dominant" from there if you put him in the NBA today?

Get out of here with your low IQ takes.

I see you have already shifted your argument to playing word game semantics.

Game over.

[1987_Lakers]

I see you have already shifted your argument to playing word game semantics.

Game over.

I see you have no real rebuttal.

Game over.

[warriorfan]

I see you have no real rebuttal.

Game over.

you are legit a waste of time. sorry

[1987_Lakers]

you are legit a waste of time. sorry

Yet, you were the one who responded to my post first.

Low IQ.

[warriorfan]

Yet, you were the one who responded to my post first.

Low IQ.

you are low height

[1987_Lakers]

you are low height

The crack has you seeing things wrong.

[NBAGOAT]

i mean all the context is valid but there's just no way bird's a top 10 3pt shooter let alone top 5. There are so many specialists who are elite like redick himself but listing just stars, there's no way bird is better than like curry, klay, reggie, ray, lillard, durant, dirk, peja, dale ellis, and nash. Just feels obvious to me those guys are better. Bird deserves benefit of doubt for developing into a better shooter than a big like horford, the stars I listed all can make tough 3s however.

[tontoz]

Of course you can. Because the data reflects exactly what you're saying. You're basically saying if Bird is given the same structure that modern players play with, that he wouldn't evolve even beyond what he did during the 80s.

The three pointer was new, and it's something that Redick even mentions about with the volume. Players got better over time, something that he ignores for some reason

Bird's first 5 seasons he shot just 31% from 3 point distance. The next 8 season, Bird shot 40%. The difference was in volume. Bird took only 1.1 3PA his first 5 seasons, but 2.8 attempts the rest of the way.

So what's he doing with more than 4 attempts a game? Let's actually look at what he did during that stretch where he attempted 4+ 3PA per game:

'85: 13-35 (37%)
'86: 40-89 (45%%)
'87: 58-143 (41%)
'88: 65-168 (39%)
'89: INJ
'90: 36-95 (39%)
'91: 66-154 (43%)
'92: 28-77 (36%)

Total: 306-761 (40%)

So why would it be any different now?

Guys like Lopez and Horford did what Bird did....they adapted to the style of play. Not sure why stiffs like Lopez and Horford get the benefit of the doubt, but a top 10 player and arguably top 5 shooter of all time doesn't.


You are making a different argument than the one in the OP. You are arguing about what bird could have been instead of what he actually was.

At the time he was playing there were many guys taking far more 3s and shooting a better percentage, dramatically so in years 2 through 5. That rules him out of being a top 5 3 pt shooter ever.

Would he be a more prolific 3 pt shooter now? Of course, but that is a different discussion.

[iamgine]

People mistake 'could have' for the actual thing.

Could Kareem be the greatest 3pt shooting center ever? Sure, he had great touch and was very long. Had he grown up today it's not out of possibility.

But is he even top 300 3pt shooting center ever? Nope. Not even close. Even Dwight Howard ranks higher than him at shooting 3s.

[tontoz]

The most 3s Bird ever made in a season was 98.

The most 3s Magic made in a season was 106.

Ainge had 5 seasons making over 100, max of 150.

[Jasper]

If the importance of the 3-point shot was as important as it is today during Larry's era, then Larry would have dominated behind the arc. Same goes for Jordan. These young people today just dismissing these older players cause they didn't shoot the 3 like players do today are just ignorant.

well said.
Here is an important point people have forgotten :
Back in the 80's and 90's the score sometimes never got above 80-85 per team.
It was very defensive which means very physical.
KArl Malone was hitting the weights daily , because of the physical part of the game. Which means some players lasted 10 years
and were out.
The NBA changed the game , because they had to make the game more enjoyable for the passive fan.
So they eliminated defensive physical 'can do' things to illegal moves.
Scores went up not only because of the 3 point line , but more freedom in the paint.
JJ is correct current players work the rules to make it harder to score----> they are professionals.
but more fans that are entertained means more revenue and that is what the NBA is all about.
FYI- Bird is in my top 7.

[jayfan]

i mean all the context is valid but there's just no way bird's a top 10 3pt shooter let alone top 5. There are so many specialists who are elite like redick himself but listing just stars, there's no way bird is better than like curry, klay, reggie, ray, lillard, durant, dirk, peja, dale ellis, and nash. Just feels obvious to me those guys are better. Bird deserves benefit of doubt for developing into a better shooter than a big like horford, the stars I listed all can make tough 3s however.


Yet I'd rather have Bird take the 3 with the game on the line than any of them.

.

[Smook A.]

I love how JJ is making the players from the past generations angry :lol They just can't seem to accept how much the game of basketball has evolved.

And he's not wrong either. Larry was a great shooter and easily a top 10 player ever, but he's nowhere near a top 5 three point shooter ever. In fact, JJ himself is a better 3 point shooter than Bird.

[j3lademaster]

Yet I'd rather have Bird take the 3 with the game on the line than any of them.

.Even Dame?

Playoff game-winning buzzer-beaters:

5 - LeBron
3 - MJ
2 - Pierce
2 - West
2 - Dame
2 - Jo Jo White
1 - 35 players

Both were impressive as hell and both were 3's that clinched a series


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mejFtEY5faU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-M3x-eZpV8

don't get me wrong, I'm going to Bird if I need a bucket. The bigger player is usually the right choice, but specifically a 3 point shot with the game on the line?

And yes, it's a small sample size. But a 3 with the game on the line is a rare occasion, it's already a small sample size in the context of the NBA's entire history.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Yet I'd rather have Bird take the 3 with the game on the line than any of them.

.

He didn't practice or take 3s nearly as much, so your logic is bad. You're saying Bird was SIGNIFICANTLY clutcher than all the other guys who have practiced 3s thousands and thousands more than Bird, to the point you'd take Bird even without any supporting data.

I'd take Bird over most for a game winner from midrange, but I'm rolling with most of those guys mentioned over Bird from 3. Other than curry, none of those guys are even viewed as chokers.

[Phoenix]

There were 2 arguments going on. Physicality vs greatest shooters of all time. They weren't on the same page. I actually agree more with JJ and his sentiments.

Objectively speaking JJ is correct. In terms of volume and percentage, Bird isn't a top 5 3point shooter. Without looking it up I'm sure he's not a top 20 one by that measure. Now 'COULD' Bird, coming along today, be a deadeye 3point shooter in terms of volume/%? Sure, he's clearly a deadeye marksman and shotmaker. But 'COULD' is neither here nor there; alot of players 'COULD' be many things under different context, but we can only go with the available data.

[kawhileonard2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN8fwtCysS0&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx3VA07mTBM

Nique is what Lebron is

[Lebron23]

Nique is what Lebron is

You are like the dog pop i saw in every corner of the street

[HoopsNY]

The most 3s Bird ever made in a season was 98.

The most 3s Magic made in a season was 106.

Ainge had 5 seasons making over 100, max of 150.


You are making a different argument than the one in the OP. You are arguing about what bird could have been instead of what he actually was.

At the time he was playing there were many guys taking far more 3s and shooting a better percentage, dramatically so in years 2 through 5. That rules him out of being a top 5 3 pt shooter ever.

Would he be a more prolific 3 pt shooter now? Of course, but that is a different discussion.

Yea, I mentioned in another post that I don't believe he's top 5 all-time. I just find the logic being used from Redick to be contradictory given what he's saying. He's talking about volume, then ignoring it when it works against him (though no one has actually pointed it out).

You're also bringing up Bird's first 5 seasons, but ironically you mention Ainge. Ainge's first 5 seasons in the league, he only attempted 0.5 3PA and shot 29%, even lower than Bird.

The rest of the way? 3.6 3PA on 38.5%. Yea he shot a little more than Bird, but I don't really think it means much.

[HoopsNY]

People mistake 'could have' for the actual thing.

Could Kareem be the greatest 3pt shooting center ever? Sure, he had great touch and was very long. Had he grown up today it's not out of possibility.

But is he even top 300 3pt shooting center ever? Nope. Not even close. Even Dwight Howard ranks higher than him at shooting 3s.

What do you mean "could have"? When the league starts adapting to the 3 pointer, Bird's volume increased. From that point onward when he took 4+ 3PA per game, he shot 40% from 3. This spans the last 8 seasons of his career.

How is this a matter of "could have" when it's precisely what he did, in an era that lacked the relaxed rules and spacing of today?

[HoopsNY]

Objectively speaking JJ is correct. In terms of volume and percentage, Bird isn't a top 5 3point shooter. Without looking it up I'm sure he's not a top 20 one by that measure. Now 'COULD' Bird, coming along today, be a deadeye 3point shooter in terms of volume/%? Sure, he's clearly a deadeye marksman and shotmaker. But 'COULD' is neither here nor there; alot of players 'COULD' be many things under different context, but we can only go with the available data.

Then context doesn't matter in anything, despite the fact that context shows us that players evolve. It's almost a given with someone like Bird. I mean, Bird evolved in his own time. And now, guys like Rondo evolve.

Rondo was one of the worst shooters anyone saw, you just never wanted him taking a shot really. He shot 26% from the distance in his first 9 seasons of play. The league then adopts a different style and his remaining 7 seasons, he shot 36%. That's an increase of 10%.

Relying on current data alone divorces any and every discussion from any context that ever took place.

[iamgine]

What do you mean "could have"?

I mean he could be top 5 greatest 3pt shooter ever had he decided to practice that.

But he didn't.

And it's a good thing he didn't.

[HoopsNY]

I mean he could be top 5 greatest 3pt shooter ever had he decided to practice that.

But he didn't.

And it's a good thing he didn't.

In that sense then I agree. Though I think it would be fair to say that despite not having data, Wilt would be the greatest shot blocker of all-time had he played after 1973. So you can kind of reason with the idea of "what if".

[paksat]

JJ Redick was a good player and he was picked 11th, paktass is braindead calling him a bust. One of the best shooters ever and good for a very efficient 15-18 PPG in his prime.

he benefited from having cp3 on his team to generate wide open looks for him

when I say benefited, I mean his entire career was based on cp3. He has zero ability to beat his man off the dribble, doesn't play defense, laughable at all aspects not including 3 point shooting.

he had a championship level team with prime howard in orlando, with jameer nelson at point creating opportunities for him.

he was great at shooting wide open 3's on stacked teams, find me a highlight of him creating his own shot please. He reminds me of that guy that stands in the corner in pick up games just waiting for his man to fall asleep.

[MrFonzworth]

he benefited from having cp3 on his team to generate wide open looks for him

when I say benefited, I mean his entire career was based on cp3. He has zero ability to beat his man off the dribble, doesn't play defense, laughable at all aspects not including 3 point shooting.

he had a championship level team with prime howard in orlando, with jameer nelson at point creating opportunities for him.

he was great at shooting wide open 3's on stacked teams, find me a highlight of him creating his own shot please. He reminds me of that guy that stands in the corner in pick up games just waiting for his man to fall asleep.

You don't know what you're talking about.


https://youtu.be/3Q7gPWYCKdw

Dudes hit big shots his entire career, he has NEVER been a guy who just stands at the corner waiting for the ball. He's one of the best ever at getting open and hitting 3s in motion

[Champ]

Bill Fitch, Bird's coach until '83, openly discouraged him from taking threes. Coaches league-wide didn't like the shot. Many considered it a novelty. It simply wasn't part of any prevailing coaching strategy of the time.

Imagine guys like Steph, Young, KD, etc. playing in that environment. Something to consider.

Threes didn't become an integrated part of team offense until the mid- to late-80s, and even then they were taken selectively. Bird's Celtics were among the first to do that - the hard push up the middle in transition, followed by the corner three. Bird was also the chief architect of what became know as the dagger three.

Comparing across eras only through statistics is lazy, and Redick should know better. But he's more invested in making headlines than thoughtful analysis and debate.

Tens of thousands of scientists the world over understand the theory of relativity greater than Einstein did 100 years ago. But are any of them greater scientists?

[Im Still Ballin]

Bill Fitch, Bird's coach until '83, openly discouraged him from taking threes. Coaches league-wide didn't like the shot. Many considered it a novelty. It simply wasn't part of any prevailing coaching strategy of the time.

Imagine guys like Steph, Young, KD, etc. playing in that environment. Something to consider.

Threes didn't become an integrated part of team offense until the mid- to late-80s, and even then they were taken selectively. Bird's Celtics were among the first to do that - the hard push up the middle in transition, followed by the corner three. Bird was also the chief architect of what became know as the dagger three.

Comparing across eras only through statistics is lazy, and Redick should know better. But he's more invested in making headlines than thoughtful analysis and debate.

Tens of thousands of scientists the world over understand the theory of relativity greater than Einstein did 100 years ago. But are any of them greater scientists?

I like your prose, Champ.

[Phoenix]

Then context doesn't matter in anything, despite the fact that context shows us that players evolve. It's almost a given with someone like Bird. I mean, Bird evolved in his own time. And now, guys like Rondo evolve.

Rondo was one of the worst shooters anyone saw, you just never wanted him taking a shot really. He shot 26% from the distance in his first 9 seasons of play. The league then adopts a different style and his remaining 7 seasons, he shot 36%. That's an increase of 10%.

Relying on current data alone divorces any and every discussion from any context that ever took place.

I'm not exactly sure what your main point is here. Are you saying Bird not being a top 5 three-point shooter is an erroneous statement? If you think he is, what's your argument if we're going to remove the context of stats here? Bird's heyday was in the infancy of the 3point shot. If he came along today, he would practice it more and likely produce similar volume and efficiency to today's shooters. But in saying that, is 'what he could have done if he came along today' a reasonable argument to say he's a better 3point shooter than what guys actually did? Steph? Ray? Klay? Reggie? Lillard? Who are you removing off that list to make way for Bird, and why?

[j3lademaster]

Tens of thousands of scientists the world over understand the theory of relativity greater than Einstein did 100 years ago. But are any of them greater scientists?Greater as in more intelligent? I'm sure there are some.

Greater than Einstein as in more knowledgeable and better? Absolutely. You can cry unfair all you want, but it is what it is.

[bizil]

Here's the thing with Bird when it comes to the 3 point shot... Bird was THE FACE of three ball shooting back in the day! He put the three point shot on the map! Three straight three point shootout titles. The first 50-40-90 guy in NBA history. TO THIS DAY, only Nash has more 50-40-90 seasons. Bird led the league in three point makes twice back on the day! So when u add all this shit up, there is NO QUESTION Bird was the GOAT 3 point shooter at one point in time.

And OVERALL he's the MOST IMPORTANT FIGURE ever in three point shooting until Curry came down the pike. BECAUSE you could LEGIT SAY Bird was the best player in the league at one point. And one of the top two faces in all of basketball at one point. TRANSCENDED THE SPORT!

So for the SAME REASONS many people still include Dr. J on the Mt. Rushmore of dunking, Bird HAS A CASE on the Mt. Rushmore of shooting. Sheer numbers wise, or course many people don't think so. BECAUSE it wasn't used as a weapon like that back in the day. BUT in Bird's era, he USED IT more as a weapon than ANYBODY ELSE!!!!

Guys like Price and Reggie started using it more as weapon down the road. Mt. Rushmore level shooters to me are guys like Steph, Bird, Price, Reggie, KD, Dirk, Ray, Klay, Peja, Nash, Dame, etc. Guys who are LEGIT very good to great scorers. But FROM THERE are true marksmen from three point range. A Reddick, Kerr, Hodges, Korver, etc. DON'T QUALIFY! They are specialist types who CAN'T DOMINATE GAMES!

[bizil]

Bird would have been a great 3 point shooter in today's league, but someone saying he is a top 5 three point shooter ever when his own teammate Danny Ainge made more threes on a higher percentage than him from about '87-'92 (when teams started to use that shot as a weapon) is laughable to say the least.

But the thing is Bird is STILL A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT figure in three point shooting than Ainge. NOBODY brings up Ainge when it comes to all time great shooting! Bird led the league in three point makes TWICE! Won three three point shootout titles! And from there has two 50-40-90 seasons. Only Nash has more. Guys down the pike ATTEMPTED MORE THREE POINT SHOTS! But was Ainge EVER in the 50-40-90 club? Was Ainge EVER a three point shootout champion. Ainge led the league in 3 point makes once. But if Bird put up as many attempts, he could have hit 148 in a season like Ainge.

The ONLY THING anybody can say about Bird is the volume of shots he was getting up from 3 point land. Guys AFTER Bird watched him. And BUILT of the notoriety he created with the 3 point shot. Bird was ALSO a SF-PF as well. So in that era, it was GONNA BE MORE LIKELY the guards are gonna put up more 3PA than the forwards. In a three point shootout, EVERY BODY would bet on Bird to beat Ainge. With the game on the line, Bird would be MORE FEARED taking a last second 3 than Ainge. Until Curry came down the pike, Bird was the MOST TRANSCENDANT GREAT SHOOTER EVER in NBA history! Bird put the shot on the map. Curry took it to levels that are unreal. Reggie, Ray, Price, etc. are important as well. BUT Bird and Curry BOTH transcended basketball! So their influence as the KINGS OF SHOOTING was much more INFLUENTIAL!!

[NBAGOAT]

But the thing is Bird is STILL A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT figure in three point shooting than Ainge. NOBODY brings up Ainge when it comes to all time great shooting! Bird led the league in three point makes TWICE! Won three three point shootout titles! And from there has two 50-40-90 seasons. Only Nash has more. Guys down the pike ATTEMPTED MORE THREE POINT SHOTS! But was Ainge EVER in the 50-40-90 club? Was Ainge EVER a three point shooting champion. Did Ainge EVER lead the league in three point makes?

The ONLY THING anybody can say about Bird is the volume of shots he was getting up from 3 point land. Guys AFTER Bird watched him. And BUILT of the notoriety he created with the 3 point shot. Bird was ALSO a SF-PF as well. So in that era, it was GONNA BE MORE LIKELY the guards are gonna put up more 3PA than the forwards. In a three point shootout, EVERY BODY would bet on Bird to beat Ainge. With the game on the line, Bird would be MORE FEARED taking a last second 3 than Ainge. Until Curry came down the pike, Bird was the MOST TRANSCENDANT GREAT SHOOTER EVER in NBA history! Bird put the shot on the map. Curry took it to levels that are unreal. Reggie, Ray, Price, etc. are important as well. BUT Bird and Curry BOTH transcended basketball! So their influence as the KINGS OF SHOOTING was much more INFLUENTIAL!!

who cares about being 50/40/90. The question is greatest 3pt shooter, not greatest scorer. also anyone can win in a 3pt shootout since anyone can get hot or cold. Eric gordon won one when klay played. the forwards thing doesnt matter either, forwards will rank higher than guards in other categories like rebounding blocked shots etc. Dwayne wade is one of the greatest shot blocking guards, there's no way in hell he's in my top 10 all time shot blockers. Ainge did lead the league in 3pt makes actually in 88. You do have a point about specialists and influence because making tough 3s is part of being a great shooter but you can list easily more than 5 stars who were better 3pt shooters.

Like from bird's own era forget ainge but i dont see how bird has a good argument over dale ellis. bird is likely the best 3pt shooter in the 80s starting from 85 but dale ellis isnt far behind him scoring like 25 a game in seattle and then he has a whole decade of great 3pt shooting in the 90s. If you only rank guys by how they dominated their own era, I guess that's fine but it just penalizes a modern guy too much and doesnt match the eye test. Idc if damian lillard isnt even a top 2 3pt shooter in his own era, his combo of volume, tough shot making, and 3pt% just puts him as a top 10 3pt shooter all time. There is absolutely no guarantee bird with modern knowledge could match what lillard does from the 3pt line let alone someone like klay.

[bizil]

who cares about being 50/40/90. The question is greatest 3pt shooter, not greatest scorer. also anyone can win in a 3pt shootout since anyone can get hot or cold. Eric gordon won one when klay played. the forwards thing doesnt matter either, forwards will rank higher than guards in other categories like rebounding blocked shots etc. Dwayne wade is one of the greatest shot blocking guards, there's no way in hell he's in my top 10 all time shot blockers. Ainge did lead the league in 3pt makes actually in 88. You do have a point about specialists and influence because making tough 3s is part of being a great shooter but you can list easily more than 5 stars who were better 3pt shooters.

Like from bird's own era forget ainge but i dont see how bird has a good argument over dale ellis. bird is likely the best 3pt shooter in the 80s starting from 85 but dale ellis isnt far behind him scoring like 25 a game in seattle and then he has a whole decade of great 3pt shooting in the 90s. If you only rank guys by how they dominated their own era, I guess that's fine but it just penalizes a modern guy too much and doesnt match the eye test. Idc if damian lillard isnt even a top 2 3pt shooter in his own era, his combo of volume, tough shot making, and 3pt% just puts him as a top 10 3pt shooter all time. There is absolutely no guarantee bird with modern knowledge could match what lillard does from the 3pt line let alone someone like klay.
T
Learn how to comprehend shit! All I was doing was pointing out THE FACT that Bird put the three point shot on the map!!! That CAN'T BE DEBATED!!! He was THE STANDARD for three point shooting in the league at one point! Guys built off that and ATTEMPTED the shot more!

[Champ]

Greater as in more intelligent? I'm sure there are some.

Greater than Einstein as in more knowledgeable and better? Absolutely. You can cry unfair all you want, but it is what it is.

You missed the point entirely.

[NBAGOAT]

T
Learn how to comprehend shit! All I was doing was pointing out THE FACT that Bird put the three point shot on the map!!! That CAN'T BE DEBATED!!! He was THE STANDARD for three point shooting in the league at one point! Guys built off that and ATTEMPTED the shot more!

sure he deserves that credit but that still doesnt mean he's a top 5 3pt shooter. None of the guys who pioneered post play like say george mikan are considered top 10 post scorers though he deserves more recognition.

[Phoenix]

Out of interest, Dale Elis between 86 and 92 shot 41% on nearly 4 attempts. I started from 86 because that's when he started taking two+ 3's. Coincidentally Bird's first two+ 3point attempts season was also 86, and from then till 92 when he retired shot 39% on 3 attempts. Now.... do what you want with the numbers. I'm just saying......we ain't even talking about Dale and yet.....

There's two conversations being had here. The objective numbers and legacy.

[NBAGOAT]

Out of interest, Dale Elis between 86 and 92 shot 41% on nearly 4 attempts. I started from 86 because that's when he started taking two+ 3's. Coincidentally Bird's first two+ 3point attempts season was also 86, and from then till 92 when he retired shot 39% on 3 attempts. Now.... do what you want with the numbers. I'm just saying......we ain't even talking about Dale and yet.....

There's two conversations being had here. The objective numbers and legacy.

dale ellis isnt top 5 but has a case for top 10 I think. He is only 28th in makes but that's where an era adjustment comes in and makes is based a bit on longevity too.

[Phoenix]

dale ellis isnt top 5 but has a case for top 10 I think. He is only 28th in makes but that's where an era adjustment comes in and makes is based a bit on longevity too.

I wasn't trying to make a point about whether he's top 5, 10, 15...whatever. I'm just saying it's interesting that some people are calling Bird top 5 even in the face of guys who grew up on the 3 in the last 20 years with objectively better numbers. Something something different era. Ok, cool. But a guy in Bird's era shot more and better.....I'm not saying anything. But I'm just saying...

[bizil]

Ellis is slept on. When Klay Thompson got rolling, the comp I made for him was Dale Ellis scoring wise. Pretty much the same size, had the sick three point stroke, and overall were great scorers in general.

And for my top 10 GOAT shooter list, I GO FOR GUYS who are LEGIT very good-great scorers. And FROM THERE are true marksmen from three point range. I don't ONLY INCLUDE three point shooting. Even though u GOTTA be a three point marksmen to be on my all time great shooter list. For that list, Bird SURE AS HELL is top 10 of all time.

He was a true marksman and from there was of course legit great scorer. You can't average 25-30 PPG ONLY shooting three point shots. You gotta have a legit arsenal (especially for perimeter players) to average those kind of points. I wouldn't put Bird in my top five three point shooters ever. BUT in terms of importance to the shot, he's top 5. I could make the case top two along with Curry.

[Phoenix]

Ellis is slept on. When Klay Thompson got rolling, the comp I made for him was Dale Ellis scoring wise. Pretty much the same size, had the sick three point stroke, and overall were great scorers in general.

And for my top 10 GOAT shooter list, I GO FOR GUYS who are LEGIT very good-great scorers. And FROM THERE are true marksmen from three point range. I don't ONLY INCLUDE three point shooting. Even though u GOTTA be a three point marksmen to be on my all time great shooter list. For that list, Bird SURE AS HELL is top 10 of all time.

He was a true marksman and from there was of course legit great scorer. You can't average 25-30 PPG ONLY shooting three point shots. You gotta have a legit arsenal (especially for perimeter players) to average those kind of points. I wouldn't put Bird in my top five three point shooters ever. BUT in terms of importance to the shot, he's top 5. I could make the case top two along with Curry.

I think that's why I say there are two different conversations being had here. Numbers and legacy. Bird's importance to the development of the 3 vs his numbers not measuring up via the way we generally tend to say player X is better than player Y. I feel like based on this discourse, who's better between Dame and Bird or Dame and Dale even when you look at Bird and Dale's numbers in the same era, will be viewed through difference lense and answered differently.

[bizil]

I think that's why I say there are two different conversations being had here. Numbers and legacy. Bird's importance to the development of the 3 vs his numbers not measuring up via the way we generally tend to say player X is better than player Y. I feel like based on this discourse, who's better between Dame and Bird or Dame and Dale even when you look at Bird and Dale's numbers in the same era, will be viewed through difference lense and answered differently.

I agree! I think the problem is the analysts on TV don't frame their thoughts properly. BOTH the old school analysts. And the recently retired players like Reddick. For example, an old school analyst will say Bird is a top 5 three point shooter of all time. Which isn't true because the shot wasn't used as a weapon like it is today. BUT at the same time, Bird was the ORIGINAL FACE of the three point shot back in the day. He was really THE GUY to put the shot on the map back in the day. But OF COURSE guys have come along and took it to greater levels. This type of thinking ISN'T put over enough on these shows.

[Xiao Yao You]

never thought much of Ellis myself