Midgets can play basketball so can cripples. You're not getting me down the "PG grabs rebounds" road.
Then ask how they would perform without the FT line.Mid's axiom: When evaluating a player, ask yourself how they would perform without the 3 point line.
Parker broke down defenses by himself, off the dribble, during a time when Bruce Bowen was the only shooter on the court
Thomas needs shooters to create space.
I think you make an interesting argument, but to play devil's advocate...How do you quantify the difficulty of a task? Shooting a 3 might be easy for a portion of NBA players, but certainly not all of them! Even some really good scorers like Derozan find it hard in the context of a game (surely he can shoot better in a practice gym, but that doesn't matter). You might say, it's getting easier and the numbers show it. But can we quantify the exact percentage increase in difficulty to show there's an asymmetry in the points given?
2013 is nothing like 2017.
Average number of 3 point attempts per team in 2013: 20
Average number today: 27
And there's much more emphasis on the use of the pick-and-roll as the main offensive catalyst today than there was then, which translate into the game being more point-guard centric than ever before. Run pick-and-roll, get a crossmatch with Joe Ingels, score.
Parker was carving up defenders like Gary Payton in an era (mid-00s) when the game was much more congested.
Furthermore, I don't understand how NBA fans cannot see the 3 point line as a broken pile of ? No other sport is going to give you 50% more points for a score that's just a bit further out than a regular scoring opportunity. Football gives you 6 points if you score from the 1 yard line or the 50. Hockey: 1 goal from in front of the net or beyond the blue line. Soccer: Ditto.
I've said before, I finally understand why the NBA first thought the 3 point line as a silly gimmick from that "circus" league the ABA.
Something that is worth 50% more points should be "hard." I think Cleveland was 14-21 from 3 at one point the other night. Ludicrous.
I wouldn't be opposed to moving the 3 point line back (or changing its shape), but what if the league adapts to that and teams start designing offenses to take 40 foot shots?It could have the opposite effect of what you want, and it could just lead to furthering the "evolution" of basketball into midgetball/ gotball.
Blame the legalization of illegal defense for offenses looking to spread the floor more. Defenses can clog the lane a lot easier than before so you need shooters, regardless of a three point line or not, but without the three point line their would be less incentive to unclog the lane. Would lead to more guys being left to shoot horribly inefficient 25 footers.
But as I've said before, the Spurs created a lot their looks through an inside-out game, either through Duncan double teams or Parker/Manu penetration. Point is, they had to "work" for the look. Now you just create a switch against a slow footed big, cross him up, and get a look.
Not revisionist history at all. The Spurs ran their plodding 4-down offense for nearly all of the 00s and Parker would often work off Duncan doubles. See here.Revisionist history. Tony used the PnR every time down the floor or was off ball running through screens. Sure he could take guys 1-on-1, but it was far from his go to.
Look how the Lakers packed. Zero space. But Tony is able to split Fisher and George and then finish in traffic. The score was "earned" you can say. Today, guards have an ocean in comparison because defenders have to stay home on shooters and aren't as free to pack/sag.
Nah. Silver/The NBA has found its formula. The 3 point line being what it is guarantees an influx of new perimeter stars regularly. No way would Silver compromise that for game balance.I think we'll see the three point line get stretched out as the we get more and more shooters coming into the league. Right now, there's still a lot of teams chock full of guys who can't shoot. A lot of the good shooters are only on a handful of teams (Cavs/Dubs/Rockets).
Damn mid where do you get all these footage?
Can you hook me up with the confrence finals in 2005?
We'd likely see the game become midrange dominant. After thinking about this, I think basketball should be midrange dominant. Think about all the other goal sports (soccer, hockey, Lacrosse, etc). Creating a good look close to the goal is hard and the majority of play in those sports is usually centered around the sport's respective "midrange," with teams angling and trying to create a high percentage shot. If the 3 point line disappeared, I think post-play would be revived and rightfully valued as basketball's most important skill and only the best dribble-drive penetrators would flourish, those that have the ball handling, speed, and athleticism to break down defenses and finish in congestion. Shooters would also have their place as players who can protect post-players from double-teams and swarms. An open 18 footer is still more efficient than a low-post player trying to finish over a double team.
I would still be in favor of having a 3 point line, but I would move it back to 40 feet. It should only exist as a "desperation" shot for a team down by 3 in the last seconds. Basketball's Hail Mary, essentially.
Never will happen obviously. People love the "modern game" and Silver is satisfied. But like I said, the end result is the extinction of post-play, mid-range shooting, and the traditional big.
Youtube. I just typed in young Tony Parker.
NBA is pretty draconian about allowing full games on there. I don't think there is a full game from the classic Duncan era on the site.
The only way is through shooting percentages. In today's game, we're seeing more 3s than ever before taken off the dribble like normal jumpers rather than from spot up, like in years past, and the league wide 3 point percentage in 2017 was .358. The league wide percentage on shots from 3-10 feet (basically in the paint) was .415.I think you make an interesting argument, but to play devil's advocate...How do you quantify the difficulty of a task? Shooting a 3 might be easy for a portion of NBA players, but certainly not all of them! Even some really good scorers like Derozan find it hard in the context of a game (surely he can shoot better in a practice gym, but that doesn't matter). You might say, it's getting easier and the numbers show it. But can we quantify the exact percentage increase in difficulty to show there's an asymmetry in the points given?
I wouldn't be opposed to moving the 3 point line back (or changing its shape), but what if the league adapts to that and teams start designing offenses to take 40 foot shots?
I find that incredibly stupid. With the 3 point line the way it is, the game of basketball doesn't really "reward" you for creating a close shot. I don't blame teams, either. Why work for a shot in the paint that is only about 17% easier to make when you can make the 17% harder shot and get 50% more points?
Not really. Isiah Thomas is the most over-rated player in sports. His defense is total sh**; and he doesn't make his teammates better.
It's "Isaiah Thomas" as the one you mentioned retired years ago. So let's get that straight and stop ing it up because you sound like a re .
Also, if today's Isaiah Thomas isn't better than today's Tony Parker, why isn't Tony Parker in the MVP discussion?
There are a of a lot of PGs out there better than today's Tony Parker, not even considering Tony's injury. Tony is not the prime Tony. Even then, Prime Tony was considered great because of his scoring ability. Thomas has that in spades. Thomas scored 53 in a playoff game. Tony did many things well, scoring in transition was his forte and he was simply unstoppable in those days when he got out on the break. He's spent time getting better from 3 and time getting worse from 3. His game changed from quick, slashing drives to the rim to short pull up jumpers. Tony of today gets stuffed at the rim quite often. He's always lived on that .25 second speed difference on his layups, but he's slow now so the defender just snuffs him out at the rim. Memphis allowed Tony to get right to the front of the rim time and again, and there'd be nobody there to even contest his shot.
If Tony was ever the 3pt shooter Thomas is, Spurs would have more rings today, but because Tony was also a PG with so-so court vision, he might have just relied on his own outside shooting and not gotten anyone else involved. Tony is a paint by numbers guy, he runs Pop's plays but he's also craft as - it's just too bad his body doesn't play along.
We haven't seen enough of Thomas to get a solid idea of just how good he is, but the preliminary eyeball test says he's as good as sub-prime Tony. If Thomas can continue his output for as many years as Tony did, Thomas might be a HOFer as well. Tony benefits from having played with Tim though.
hero ball guy doesn't have a jumpshot, and u can always leave him open daring him to shoot knowing well he doesn't hit them efficiently
even when he shoots well, u know they are nothing more then fluke shots
never seen anyone shut down or taken a on steroid bjarmstrong, but Enrique is so easy to shut down whether its mental midget games, chuckin a taller player onto him or go the chalmers route by elbowing the kent to the chest and see him fall to the ground
it's not even close. Imagine Thomas playng with a prime Ginobli and Dunan. sheeeeeit. We would have had about 7 les.
But enough about Jimmer.
I'd rather have a 34 year old Parker than that midget that can't play defense.
I'm not saying Tony Parker is having a better season. I'm saying the question isn't stupid. IT is not in the MVP discussion. He has zero chance. And being a "great" individual scorer doesn't mean the team is a better scoring team. IT dribbles all over, and the defenders on the perimeter stay attached to their guys, and he gets a few points extra; and he often gets blocked at the rim in the process. I'd much rather go against IT than any other "superstar".
If I were to make a case for Parker it would be based on team chemistry and the fact that old Parker, who is not at all known for defense still would be better than IT, who is easy to post-up and who is sub par in every aspect of defense.
Wrong
108ppg this season vs 105ppg last season. Do you ever actually look at numbers or just use the eyeball test? So much of what you say is wrong. So you'd rather go against IT. What does that even mean? IT was in the top 5 in PPG. Tony was 123rd.And being a "great" individual scorer doesn't mean the team is a better scoring team. IT dribbles all over, and the defenders on the perimeter stay attached to their guys, and he gets a few points extra; and he often gets blocked at the rim in the process. I'd much rather go against IT than any other "superstar".
PER:
IT - 26.59 (7th overall)
Tony - 13.10 (202nd overall)
Are you mentally re ed?
Tony ed his teammate's wife. His value over replacement is in the negative (-0.4). IT's is >4.0.If I were to make a case for Parker it would be based on team chemistry and the fact that old Parker, who is not at all known for defense still would be better than IT, who is easy to post-up and who is sub par in every aspect of defense.
You should stick with your Jimmer felching schick, at least no one reads that.
Both are below average point guards today.
Tony is a better defender but still not great but Isiah is a far better offensive player but the single worst defensive player.
Still say Isiah is better. Neither are great.
IT is hot garbage. He's not a great player, and he never will be.
Wrong
108ppg this season vs 105ppg last season. Do you ever actually look at numbers or just use the eyeball test? So much of what you say is wrong. So you'd rather go against IT. What does that even mean? IT was in the top 5 in PPG. Tony was 123rd.
PER:
IT - 26.59 (7th overall)
Tony - 13.10 (202nd overall)
Are you mentally re ed?
Tony ed his teammate's wife. His value over replacement is in the negative (-0.4). IT's is >4.0.
You should stick with your Jimmer felching schick, at least no one reads that.
Great rebuttal. It will take me at least a week of intense research to come up with a retort.
Dude averages almost 30ppg in the RS, and his team finished 1st in the conference over the defending champs. Team is a fugazi, I am sure, but you're mentally deficient if you think today's TP is better than IT.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
