Do people understand that live-dribbling isn't a necessary component of basketball??

[3ba11]

If a team wasn't allowed to dribble, they could still do well by simply passing the ball at a high level... Otoh, if a team wasn't allowed to pass, they would do poorly because 1 guy would have to dribble the entire time.

This matters because aside from three-point attempts (which anyone can fix by simply taking more threes), the only area that today's players are "more skilled" at is live-dribbling, which isn't necessary and previous eras were still good dribblers that could get where they needed.. The extra handle of today's players means very little as it relates to a team scoring on any given possession - this is why we barely beat international competition despite massive advantage in athletic talent.

Why is this relevant??... It's because previous eras had better pure basketball players that would destroy today's players if you gave them a modern handle - Alvin Robertson, Dale Ellis and Dan Majerle were superior athletes but simply didn't have a modern handle - if you let "Thunder" Dan Majerle dribble like Austin Reaves, he would be like Austin Reaves on steroids and with way more hops - he would be everything that Laker fans wish Reaves was, aka a perennial all-star and dominator.. Same thing with Reggie Miller - if you gave him a modern handle, he would be a 6'7" Steph Curry.. Players in previous eras were simply superior but today's fan cannot tell due to the difference in live dribbling and 3-point attempts.

[1987_Lakers]

1-9

[sdot_thadon]

It must be retard o'clock again.

[3ba11]

It must be retard o'clock again.


Dale Ellis with a standard, modern handle would be far better than say, Desmond Bane.. Ellis was the superior athlete and more skilled pure scorer, but he didn't have today's handle that would make him a dominant player in today's game.. He otherwise had everything else.. Similarly, if you gave Dan Majerle today's "down-hill" skillset, he would be perennial all-nba due to his superior physique and shooting ability

[sdot_thadon]

You do realize that without a live dribble almost every single one of your god's legendary moments wouldn't exist? Maybe a dunk here and there, but the shit we revere? Obsolete. Retarded thread.

[HylianNightmare]

That's a lot of typing

[3ba11]

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/cache.php?img=https%3A%2F%2Fi.makeagif.com%2Fmedia %2F8-27-2015%2FlMbcER.gif




You do realize that without a live dribble almost every single one of your god's legendary moments wouldn't exist? Maybe a dunk here and there, but the shit we revere? Obsolete. Retarded thread.


Maybe you misunderstand what a live dribble is.

It's an existing dribble facing the basket - point guard style

So any move or drive out of the triple-threat position (pre-dribble, stationary position - shown above) or the post is NOT the kind of dribble that I'm talking about.

Guys like Alex English, Adrian Dantley, or Bernard King scored most of their points via triple-threat, post or spot-up and that's all you really need for a team to score on an offensive possession... And the high-screen roll doesn't require a modern handle either.. The modern handle is pretty in iso's and makes everyone look more talented but it's all fluff and nothing that's really needed for a team to score.. Meanwhile, the 3-point attempts are just that - more attempts - any era could do that... Again, previous eras were simply better pure basketball players - better pure scorers, passers, better touch and better hoops instinct especially in traffic.. and better defenders

[sdot_thadon]

If a team wasn't allowed to dribble, they could still do well by simply passing the ball at a high level... Otoh, if a team wasn't allowed to pass, they would do poorly because 1 guy would have to dribble the entire time.

:biggums:

[ILLsmak]

:biggums:

LOL I'm ded.

Altho you could do Kobe assists. I think the team that dribbles still probably wins. Be an interesting match up.

-Smak

[tpols]

:biggums:

Why would you scoff at that?

https://i.postimg.cc/3xHFxpSg/Screenshot-20240825-163322-Chrome.jpg

Dribbling wasn't even in the official rule book at the inception of basketball.

And everybody knows ball movement and passing are truly king over dribble spam and ball domination with regards to output and winning.

[ILLsmak]

Why would you scoff at that?

https://i.postimg.cc/3xHFxpSg/Screenshot-20240825-163322-Chrome.jpg

Dribbling wasn't even in the official rule book at the inception of basketball.

And everybody knows ball movement and passing are truly king over dribble spam and ball domination with regards to output and winning.

I assume because the limitation of no passing is just ridiculous. haha.

I mean, you'd have to be able to inbound for one, and even then unless you are inbounding into the half court, you could just run everyone at the guy and there is no way he could do anything. It would be dudes chucking up full court shots with 5 guys on them.

-Smak

[sdot_thadon]

I assume because the limitation of no passing is just ridiculous. haha.

I mean, you'd have to be able to inbound for one, and even then unless you are inbounding into the half court, you could just run everyone at the guy and there is no way he could do anything. It would be dudes chucking up full court shots with 5 guys on them.

-Smak

Exactly the entire premise of the thread was off the tracks before it even moved lol. I was just pointing out to capital FOOL that removing dribbling would take away most of the greatest moments we've seen. "What of there was no ball?" -OP

[3ba11]

Exactly the entire premise of the thread was off the tracks before it even moved lol. I was just pointing out to capital FOOL that removing dribbling would take away most of the greatest moments we've seen. "What of there was no ball?" -OP


The ultimate point of the thread, which perhaps wasn't explained adequately in the OP, was that guys like Dale Ellis, Dan Majerle, Reggie Lewis, Jim Jackson, Bernard King, Alex English, or Adrian Dantley would dominate today's NBA with a standard, modern handle.. These guys were bigger, stronger and more pure scorers than today's players (better 2-point scorers - that's what "pure" scoring really means), while being great shooters as well.. A guy like Stacey Augmon would be amazing with a standard, modern handle too.. I'm not even saying Kyrie-stuff - just a standard cadence that basically all of today's players use.

Some guys actually had this handle like Hill, Penny, or Jamal Mashburn (50 on Pippen), and they were amazing before injury.. Their spectacular play was in spite a format that didn't have the spacing or "down-hill" format that is optimal for ball-handlers and allows coaches to feature ballhandlers over bigs.

Regardless, today's handle and "bag" isn't necessary and will still get blown off the court by solid ball-handling and superior ball movement, teamwork and chemistry... If Serbia and South Sudan can overcome massive talent deficits to nearly beat us, then the NBA players of previous eras would easily overcome much smaller or negligible talent gap (and likely a talent advantage) to steamroll today's best (high PNR spammer skillset).

[NBAGOAT]

hello darkness my old friend

[Overdrive]

Why would you scoff at that?

https://i.postimg.cc/3xHFxpSg/Screenshot-20240825-163322-Chrome.jpg

Dribbling wasn't even in the official rule book at the inception of basketball.

And everybody knows ball movement and passing are truly king over dribble spam and ball domination with regards to output and winning.

He scoffed at that, because first it was "no drubbling allowed" and goal post was soon shifted to allowed from the triple threat, because that's what -93 Jordan mostly did.

[sdot_thadon]

Why would you scoff at that?

https://i.postimg.cc/3xHFxpSg/Screenshot-20240825-163322-Chrome.jpg

Dribbling wasn't even in the official rule book at the inception of basketball.

And everybody knows ball movement and passing are truly king over dribble spam and ball domination with regards to output and winning.

To me it's a really stupid hypothetical to get to a pointless point. What if we remove this or that? What if we give 90s role players modern handles? What if we give any player what they're lacking? That's stupid.

And to your point about what style is king? It's a thing that's fluid and is going to change depending on players and era. Before Mike ever sniffed a finals you had to have a great big man to win, that was the narrative. West, Baylor and Robertson all failed until they got that big. Dr.J pulled it off in a league with a different style. Then you couldn't win with a scoring champ, until Mj did and broke that narrative along with the big man narrative that got him drafted 3rd. After that you couldnt win with ball dominant players many failed (Mj and Iverson to name a couple) until Lebron did it, several times and broke that narrative. It's just a silly thing at this point to say style X isn't winning basketball whenever a player has already won with that style.