NBA Playoffs | Page 45 | The Boneyard

NBA Playoffs

The thing about a three point attempt is that you don't know you can't make it until you've already missed. Then, people on the boneyard can question you for not doing something else, despite the fact that launching threes takes less energy than barreling to the basket and despite the fact that Houston's ball-handler's were overtaxed to the nth degree. Also, for those of you who wanted Harden to attack the basket, you realize that's basically how three point shots are generated in the first place? Sure, Harden took some bad shots, but I'm willing to attribute that to fatigue more than anything else. The shots Ariza, Gordon, Green, and co. missed were mostly catch and shoot looks that Golden State had scouted and closed hard on. To the extent that they didn't adapt is a limitation of their personnel. Blaming D'Antoni and his "system" when his already overmatched team lost Chris Paul for games six and seven is crazy town, and that's without even considering the fact that attacking the basket leaves you more vulnerable to the sort of transition opportunities Golden State kills you with.

If you posted Shaq four times in a row without a bucket, would you stop posting him? No. So it doesn't make a ton of sense to try something you don't do as well just because you're predictably losing at your own game against one of the greatest teams ever. You can try telling James Harden that he's married to analytics but somehow I suspect that's not the case. As soon as you can tell me how well they shot on two point attempts in that game, I can tell you that was the result of the torque their commitment to the three ball put on Golden State's defense. True, nobody should be married to mathematical prophecy, but that goes both ways. You start taking more twos and those percentages are going to go down. It's still natural selection no matter how you slice it which is why the better team won.
 
I am not. I love rivalries. I just wish is was more balanced. If play 8 years in a row, and it is competitive, I will watch every second. Someone has to earn the right to take their spots. Isn't that the point of teams sports? I don't understand wanting new teams in the Finals just for the sake of having new teams.
 
MilliniumPrince said:
Three point shooting was more of a specialty until Bird came along. But he couldn't create the wide open looks players get today. I don't believe he ever hit more than 100 3s in a season.
Expand ...
I don't mean this negatively, but are you young? I mean, younger than about 30?
Because Larry Bird was six 9, had a quick release, had a high release point, and needed only a belly hair's width of space to get his shot off.
If you took Larry from the 80s and put him in today's NBA, he'd compete for the 3s title. If you raised him to shoot 3s, like today's kids, he'd lead the league.
I wasn't a huge Bird fan and the time, but he was a great shooter.
In the three years in the mid-eighties when he shot 2 or 3 threes a game, he averaged about .415. Curry is about .436 lifetime.
Bird didn't shoot 3s because it just wasn't considered good basketball - that simple. McHale on the block, Chief in the paint, Bird on a 15 footer. That's just the way it was.
Think about it. Guy was shot over 400 from 3 for three straight seasons, but only shot 2 or 3 a game. You're not actually suggesting that he could not have shot more if they game planned for it, are you?
Did I mention he was 6/9 with a lightning quick release and a very high release?
If he grew up around today's style, he'd have the highest 3% ever. Easily.
 
MadDogRevival said:
I don't mean this negatively, but are you young? I mean, younger than about 30?
Because Larry Bird was six 9, had a quick release, had a high release point, and needed only a belly hair's width of space to get his shot off.
If you took Larry from the 80s and put him in today's NBA, he'd compete for the 3s title. If you raised him to shoot 3s, like today's kids, he'd lead the league.
I wasn't a huge Bird fan and the time, but he was a great shooter.
In the three years in the mid-eighties when he shot 2 or 3 threes a game, he averaged about .415. Curry is about .436 lifetime.
Bird didn't shoot 3s because it just wasn't considered good basketball - that simple. McHale on the block, Chief in the paint, Bird on a 15 footer. That's just the way it was.
Think about it. Guy was shot over 400 from 3 for three straight seasons, but only shot 2 or 3 a game. You're not actually suggesting that he could not have shot more if they game planned for it, are you?
Did I mention he was 6/9 with a lightning quick release and a very high release?
If he grew up around today's style, he'd have the highest 3% ever. Easily.
Expand ...

I wish. And Bird was a phenom, but his overall lack of athleticism would have been a problem in today's game.

My point was, there weren't 10 shooters like Bird at that time. Therefore the strategies of today would not have worked then. You questioned why did it take this long for the 3 point era to take hold. My point, as stated previously, was the depth of shooting didn't exist then. It does now. Add the rules changes and you get the 3 Point or Bust League.

I agree. It would have bad basketball back then....which was the point. Read your earlier post.
 
.-.
champs99and04 said:
The thing about a three point attempt is that you don't know you can't make it until you've already missed. Then, people on the boneyard can question you for not doing something else, despite the fact that launching threes takes less energy than barreling to the basket and despite the fact that Houston's ball-handler's were overtaxed to the nth degree. Also, for those of you who wanted Harden to attack the basket, you realize that's basically how three point shots are generated in the first place? Sure, Harden took some bad shots, but I'm willing to attribute that to fatigue more than anything else. The shots Ariza, Gordon, Green, and co. missed were mostly catch and shoot looks that Golden State had scouted and closed hard on. To the extent that they didn't adapt is a limitation of their personnel. Blaming D'Antoni and his "system" when his already overmatched team lost Chris Paul for games six and seven is crazy town, and that's without even considering the fact that attacking the basket leaves you more vulnerable to the sort of transition opportunities Golden State kills you with.

If you posted Shaq four times in a row without a bucket, would you stop posting him? No. So it doesn't make a ton of sense to try something you don't do as well just because you're predictably losing at your own game against one of the greatest teams ever. You can try telling James Harden that he's married to analytics but somehow I suspect that's not the case. As soon as you can tell me how well they shot on two point attempts in that game, I can tell you that was the result of the torque their commitment to the three ball put on Golden State's defense. True, nobody should be married to mathematical prophecy, but that goes both ways. You start taking more twos and those percentages are going to go down. It's still natural selection no matter how you slice it which is why the better team won.
Expand ...
All great points. Yet there is something intrinsic to the game itself that necessitates taking the ball to the rim. The more aggressive nature of it, the higher margin for error, the increased odds of getting to the foul line (pts + getting confidence of seeing ball go in hoop) are all direct results of driving that make it a fundamental to basketball strategy.
And more anecdotally if you play pickup and miss a few jump shots when its 'point game' you simply know in your gut that its time to drive to the hoop.

There are lots of players that don't want the ball with the game on the line. I think shooting game 7 three-pointers is a microcosm of this - somehow these teams (especially the Celtics) should have figured out that reliance on the 3-ball in game 7 was a much more risky strategy than statistics might indicate.
 
MilliniumPrince said:
I am not. I love rivalries. I just wish is was more balanced. If play 8 years in a row, and it is competitive, I will watch every second. Someone has to earn the right to take their spots. Isn't that the point of teams sports? I don't understand wanting new teams in the Finals just for the sake of having new teams.
Expand ...

It's a rivalry? It sure doesn't feel like it. The Warriors and Cavs spent most of their existence as two of the least relevant franchises in the league. There is no history beyond a few years. The Warriors and Cavs have been to four straight finals now. Prior to that GS hadn't made it to the finals since 1974. The Cavs lost to the Spurs in 2007. Before that they had never made a finals appearance.

This isn't exactly Yankees-Red Sox.
 
MadDogRevival said:
I don't mean this negatively, but are you young? I mean, younger than about 30?
Because Larry Bird was six 9, had a quick release, had a high release point, and needed only a belly hair's width of space to get his shot off.
If you took Larry from the 80s and put him in today's NBA, he'd compete for the 3s title. If you raised him to shoot 3s, like today's kids, he'd lead the league.
I wasn't a huge Bird fan and the time, but he was a great shooter.
In the three years in the mid-eighties when he shot 2 or 3 threes a game, he averaged about .415. Curry is about .436 lifetime.
Bird didn't shoot 3s because it just wasn't considered good basketball - that simple. McHale on the block, Chief in the paint, Bird on a 15 footer. That's just the way it was.
Think about it. Guy was shot over 400 from 3 for three straight seasons, but only shot 2 or 3 a game. You're not actually suggesting that he could not have shot more if they game planned for it, are you?
Did I mention he was 6/9 with a lightning quick release and a very high release?
If he grew up around today's style, he'd have the highest 3% ever. Easily.
Expand ...

I don't think he'd beat Steph from 3. With the ball in his hand, Steph can create threes out of this air. He can go full speed down the court to pop up like nobody I've seen. Larry (who was a better athlete than people give him credit for) did not possess the intrinsic traits to match Steph in that regard; he couldn't get the shots that Steph gets. There's a reason Ray Allen can't compare with Steph either. Larry would be more akin to Ray or KD than to Steph. Just totally different players. I'm talking solely 3pt shooting mind you.
 
superjohn said:
Larry Bird couldn't create open looks for himself from three like the players today...I think this thread has hit peak boneyard.
Expand ...

I was a Sixers fan and despised Bird. But at 6'9" or taller he could easily create space with that jab step. He also had the mid-range runner and was strong enough to keep a defender at bay.

I think Bird would be an even more explosive offensive player in today's NBA. His defense today? That's an area for concern.
 
MilliniumPrince said:
I wish. And Bird was a phenom, but his overall lack of athleticism would have been a problem in today's game.

My point was, there weren't 10 shooters like Bird at that time. Therefore the strategies of today would not have worked then. You questioned why did it take this long for the 3 point era to take hold. My point, as stated previously, was the depth of shooting didn't exist then. It does now. Add the rules changes and you get the 3 Point or Bust League.

I agree. It would have bad basketball back then....which was the point. Read your earlier post.
Expand ...


When someone says Bird had an "overall lack of athleticism" you can correctly look at any further analysis by that poster skeptically.

Bird was a very good athlete before his back got hurt. My not have had top end speed, but he could jump, move laterally and had quick acceleration.
 
.-.
intlzncster said:
Larry would be more akin to Ray or KD than to Steph.
Expand ...
I don't think those are good comps. Both are more athletic than Bird (though your point about his athleticism being underrated is right), but Bird was a better passer than both, and his craftiness in that aspect--and his other moves with the ball--would make him almost unguardable. He had the range of Steph, the height to post people up, and the vision of someone like Steve Nash. I hate the comparison just because both are white and their games aren't that similar, but he's a better shooting, better passing, slightly shorter and less athletic Dirk.

In the league today he'd average 28-9-9 (at least) on 42/52/90 splits, and really only players like Durant, LeBron, or Davis would be able to guard him because of his quick trigger, craftiness, and passing ability.

He'd have had 2 more rings if he stayed healthy and Bias didn't die.

He won 3 straight MVPs and he's still underrated. He's the second best small forward of all time still.
 
Chin Diesel said:
I was a Sixers fan and despised Bird. But at 6'9" or taller he could easily create space with that jab step. He also had the mid-range runner and was strong enough to keep a defender at bay.

I think Bird would be an even more explosive offensive player in today's NBA. His defense today? That's an area for concern.
Expand ...
He was also tougher mentally and physically than most stars today.
 
intlzncster said:
This is actually amazing to watch:

Expand ...

tenor.gif
 
.-.
tzznandrew said:
I don't those are good comps. Both are more athletic than Bird (though your point about his athleticism being underrated is right), but Bird was a better passer than both, and his craftiness in that aspect--and his other moves with the ball--would make him almost unguardable. He had the range of Steph, the height to post people up, and the vision of someone like Steve Nash. I hate the comparison just because both are white and their games aren't that similar, but he's a better shooting, better passing, slightly short and less athletic Dirk.

In the league today he'd average 28-9-9 (at least) on 42/52/90 splits, and really only players like Durant, LeBron, or Davis would be able to guard him because of his quick trigger, craftiness, and passing ability.

He'd have had 2 more rings if he stayed healthy and Bias didn't die.

He won 3 straight MVPs and he's still underrated. He's the second best small forward of all time still.
Expand ...

That's fair, I admittedly didn't put any thought into my comps.

I just think Steph's volume is really, really hard to match. Guy can get a 3 damn near any time he wants it.

I was never speaking about overall game. Just pure 3pt shooting.
 
intlzncster said:
That's fair, I admittedly didn't put any thought into my comps.

I just think Steph's volume is really, really hard to match. Guy can get a 3 damn near any time he wants it.

I was never speaking about overall game. Just pure 3pt shooting.
Expand ...
Steph is a better shooter, and probably still would be if you brought Bird into this era; Bird is and would be a better player under those same parameters.
 
Why is Steph not mentally tough? Serious question.

Also, I think that, because of the way the world has evolved, we tend to overstate the mental toughness of older players and understate their athleticism. One of the reasons Bird wasn't a great athlete by today's standards is that the entire league wasn't very athletic by today's standards. But he wasn't Doug McDermott - he was a perfectly competent athlete, even relative to other players in the NBA, and I find the idea that he was less athletic than Dirk comparatively to be pretty unlikely.

It's also a lot easier to come across as mentally tough when people aren't scrutinizing your every move and you don't have every bad thing people have ever said about you at the tip of your fingers and you don't have Stephen A. Smith on ESPN every day questioning why you can't win the big game. One could reasonably argue that LeBron is the toughest player, mentally, to ever play the sport. Jordan could have wilted under half the pressure given the fact that, I don't know, he left to play baseball for two years. We shouldn't confuse being needlessly psychotic for mentally tough. That's not to say Bird wasn't tough as nails, but how much of that perception is enhanced by his notorious trash talking? Legends are often legends because they have the luxury of being a legend. Nobody remembers all the times that Bird or Jordan got mad and then didn't hit ten shots in a row.
 
Dogdeacon said:
All great points. Yet there is something intrinsic to the game itself that necessitates taking the ball to the rim. The more aggressive nature of it, the higher margin for error, the increased odds of getting to the foul line (pts + getting confidence of seeing ball go in hoop) are all direct results of driving that make it a fundamental to basketball strategy.
And more anecdotally if you play pickup and miss a few jump shots when its 'point game' you simply know in your gut that its time to drive to the hoop.

There are lots of players that don't want the ball with the game on the line. I think shooting game 7 three-pointers is a microcosm of this - somehow these teams (especially the Celtics) should have figured out that reliance on the 3-ball in game 7 was a much more risky strategy than statistics might indicate.
Expand ...

I agree, though it's hard to know whether the aggressive nature of doing so is what provides energy or if having more energy allows you to go to the rim more. I don't think anybody is saying Houston does't take the ball to the rim. If anything, the merit of the mid-range shot is what is up for debate. I feel like I value the mid-range shot more than most (Kyrie is probably the best example), but I'm also not necessarily sure taking more of those shots was the answer last night.
 
intlzncster said:
This is actually amazing to watch:

Expand ...


In the beginning almost all of the misses were pretty closely guarded. In the 3rd quarter, though, there was a stretch of 8 straight WIDE OPEN or lightly contested but corner 3s they missed.

From memory, a lot of those were off drives by Harden that he kicked out on.

We can debate strategy all day. But if you can't make at least 3 of those 8 from that stretch, you don't deserve to win.
 
HuskyHawk said:
It's a rivalry? It sure doesn't feel like it. The Warriors and Cavs spent most of their existence as two of the least relevant franchises in the league. There is no history beyond a few years. The Warriors and Cavs have been to four straight finals now. Prior to that GS hadn't made it to the finals since 1974. The Cavs lost to the Spurs in 2007. Before that they had never made a finals appearance.

How many rivalries are Yankees-Red Sox? Of course it is, but it is best the NBA currently has.
Expand ...
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
When someone says Bird had an "overall lack of athleticism" you can correctly look at any further analysis by that poster skeptically.

Bird was a very good athlete before his back got hurt. My not have had top end speed, but he could jump, move laterally and had quick acceleration.
Expand ...

He would disagree, but ok.
 
champs99and04 said:
Why is Steph not mentally tough? Serious question.
Expand ...
tzznandrew said:
You can look at his stats in the NBA Finals as an example, for instance. And this is coming from someone who really likes Steph as a player.
Expand ...

For me, it's just not a quality that comes to mind when discussing Steph.

Now Larry, that's one of his strongest qualities. And that's not because he played way back when. In the history of the NBA, he's up there with the best (MJ et al) in that department.
 
Anybody who thinks that Bird wouldn't be a stud in today's game never watched the man play. He's the best pure shooter I ever saw. Curry's a great shooter, but more streaky than Bird. Curry has to work fairly hard to get open looks. He uses his speed and craftiness. But, ultimately, Curry has a low release and requires a lot of energy to got to his spot and get a shot off. The classic example is when Kevin Love shut him down in the game 7 with under 3 minutes to play. Kevin Love.
Bird shot 3s like they were free throws, with very little elevation. If he were in today's game, he'd be a nightmare to guard.
Not sure about his defense, but Curry's D is garbage and that guy won the MVP, so . . .
 
MadDogRevival said:
Anybody who thinks that Bird wouldn't be a stud in today's game never watched the man play. He's the best pure shooter I ever saw. Curry's a great shooter, but more streaky than Bird. Curry has to work fairly hard to get open looks. He uses his speed and craftiness. But, ultimately, Curry has a low release and requires a lot of energy to got to his spot and get a shot off. The classic example is when Kevin Love shut him down in the game 7 with under 3 minutes to play. Kevin Love.
Bird shot 3s like they were free throws, with very little elevation. If he were in today's game, he'd be a nightmare to guard.
Not sure about his defense, but Curry's D is garbage and that guy won the MVP, so . . .
Expand ...
Some people in this thread don't seem to realize how amazing a player Bird was and how awesome he would be today. He's hands down one of the 4 best players I've ever seen but he's simply not a better three point shooter than Curry, you're letting your dislike of Curry cloud your judgement.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,327
Members
10,457
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom