| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/26/14 5:43 pm ::: Re: Hmmmm |
Reply  |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
So I see you want to pack everyone in the paint with no shooters to spread the defense, wouldn't that be pretty NOT! |
Since that never happened before the three pt shot was adopted I'm having a hard time understanding your point.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/26/14 7:06 pm ::: Re: Hmmmm |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
So I see you want to pack everyone in the paint with no shooters to spread the defense, wouldn't that be pretty NOT! |
Since that never happened before the three pt shot was adopted I'm having a hard time understanding your point. |
Yes, I found this comment to be unintelligble, so I didn't respond to it.
My third claim in the OP is that there were superior outside jump shooters in college prior to the 3pt line's degrading their shooting form as children.
Regardless of whether one accepts that claim or not, outside shooting to spread the defense was always part of basketball offenses. You don't need an outside threat from 20-24 feet to provide that threat, nor does the outside shot have to be worth three points to provide the defense-spreading threat.
There were plenty of great outside jump shooter shooters before 1986, all the way back to the famous Hank Luisetti of Stanford in the mid-30's. Prior to that, there were deadly two-hand set shooters who could hit from 25 feet. The defense had to go out and guard those players.
More of the outside shooting threats prior to 1986 shot from closer in than the current three-point lines, what we might now call the mid-range. However, even then, great outside shooters like Jerry West, Rick Mount, Bill Bradley, Cazzie Russell and Pete Maravich were often bombing from beyond what would become three-point range. The defense had to go out and guard those players.
The point is that basketball tactics always tried to spread and space defenders using outside shooting threats. But before the three-point line, the outside threat more often remained a threat back then, rather than becoming a consummated shot as compared to today. In other words, the outside threat, being worth only two points, was used more as a decoy to spread the defense in order that the offense could run sophisticated screening and two-man games to get a much higher percentage two point shot closer to the basket. Today, more of the outside shots are actually launched, often at very low percentages.
My primary point is that the sophisticated Jewish basketball techniques of the 30's and 40's, which developed to allow short, slow players to get close to the basket for high percentage shots, have been dying out since the three-point shot. In the men's game, sophisticated basketball was kept alive even into the three point era by fundamentalist coaches such as Bob Knight and Pete Carril.
In today's women's basketball one hardly ever sees sophisticated Jewish basketball -- surgical paint attacks with multiple screens, interior passing, and back cuts -- resulting in layup after layup after layup. When we do see it, from UConn or Notre Dame, we think it's something unusual, rare or mysterious.
Yet, it's what one used to see all over the place in NYC and Ivy League men's basketball from the 40's through the 60's. Now it's some secret thing known only to Geno Auriemma and Muffet McGraw, while other coaches focus more on dribble-dribble-dribble-dribble-dribble, isolation plays, and BOMBS AWAY. Well, that's not so far from the truth. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11170
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/27/14 1:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm interested ... exactly what were these offenses that were so effective in getting close-in shots? Do you have a link to any of them?
I'm familiar with more modern offenses (Flex, Passing Game, Shuffle, etc.) but it seems like you're referring to some other kinds. Or maybe these were the offenses.
One more point about the advantage of the three-point line:
Because the line puts players a certain distance from the court, further out the mid-range jumper, it spread the court and tended to minimize physical play.
I use to play pickup at a club that didn't use the three-point line, and close games with guys waiting were brutal. It was very physical with lots of contact. Now most clubs play with a three-point line, and there's less physicality because winning is less dependent on power.
I think the same would be true if you eliminated the three-point line now -- I think you'd see more of a premium on physical play and physical players, which is not necessarily a bad thing, though I prefer skill to strength in basketball.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
PeachBasket
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 768
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/27/14 1:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| As a kid I was a big fan of the old American Basketball Association (ABA) where the 3-point line got its first widespread introduction. It's funny to see the old arguments still being rehashed nearly half a century later.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/27/14 3:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
I'm interested ... exactly what were these offenses that were so effective in getting close-in shots? Do you have a link to any of them?
|
Sure:
http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Basketball-Nat-Holman/dp/B001LIULCW
The offenses I'm talking about are all old. Nothing much is new in basketball offense except terminology.
I'm just referring to old-fashioned working the ball as close to the basket as possible in the half court offense, using on-ball screens, off-ball screens, double off-ball (stagger) screens, pick & rolls, backdoor cuts, and other variations on two-and three man games.
I call it Jewish basketball, because it was the "city game" style of basketball developed in the Jewish ghettos of NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Buffalo from the teens through the 40's. Many of the innovations were developed by the Original Celtics of Nat Holman and Joe Lapchick. I'm sure a similar game was evolved by Phog Allen in the midwest and other top coaches around the country in early 20th century. But I was in the northeast.
The closest thing I have in mind with modern terminology would be Pete Carril's Princeton offense before the three-point line. He changed it, of course, to take advantage of the line.
My historical point, at least in my perception, is that men's basketball evolved away from sophisticated work-it-close-to-the-basket offenses as the players became gigantic leapers, as the dunk was re-legalized, and then the three-point line was adopted. Many men's offenses became much more focused on isolation plays, alley oops and and three-point shooting, especially in the pros where zone defenses were illegal.
In the women's game, which originated out of 6x6 half court basketball, I don't think there was ever any sophisticated "Jewish basketball" coaching until very late -- the 90's perhaps. The female coaches simply never played the men's game.
Sorry, but any sort of sophisticated teamwork at the high school level, even today, is seriously lacking. The coaching knowledge and athletic skills are simply not there.
The women's game can't rely on a height, strength, above-the-rim, power game. It needs the old fashioned Jewish tactics more frequently and elegantly employed to get high percentage shots. Muffet does it the best, in my opinion. Geno does it. Tara does it with a so-called triangle offense. Brian Giorgis and Kelly Graves do it. Tennessee, UNC, Maryland and many other top schools don't employ the Jewish techniques enough. They are dribble-dribble-dribble-dribble-dribble, pass-the-ball-around-the-perimeter-again-and-again, isolate, self-create, and BOMBS, BOMBS away. I don't know the modern name for these offenses other than .... U-G-L-Y.
Peachbasket, I don't think anyone is re-arguing the case against the three-point line any more, except me. I am one of 37 remaining basketball fans worldwide who preferred the game without it.
This topic was mainly an excuse to post videos of the ethereal Molly Bolin, who was a much better shooter than Diamond DeShields. |
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/27/14 6:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| <iframe src="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/media/embed/83479601" width="567" height="345" frameborder="0"></iframe>
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/27/14 7:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Thank you, Mr. Swanson, for that historical documentary proving that neither the the original white Globetrotters nor their later black imposters needed a three-point line to attract millions. In fact, if all the Trotters did was shoot three-point shots, everyone would always have rooted for Red Klotz's (Jewish) Washington Generals.
The black ghetto teams, like the New York Rens, operated in parallel universe to the white-Jewish ghetto teams.
Here's a photo of the Cleveland Rosenblums with their owner, Max Rosenblum, on the right. The Rosenblums were one of the Original Celtics' greatest rivals.
Early games of basketball were played inside a net, known as a "cage." Professional basketball teams stopped the use of the net in the late 1920s. Usually surrounding the court was a cage made first of wire, and later of rope. This was intended to keep the ball in continuous play at all times and to give the players another surface besides the floor for bouncing passes. The net also protected the players from unruly fans that might throw objects onto the court or deflect the ball to favor the home team.
No cage would have ever been necessary if all players ever did was shoot wussy three-point shots from 22 feet . . . instead of beating the tar out of each other near the keyhole and the fans near the sidelines. |
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9713
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/27/14 8:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| I'm interested ... exactly what were these offenses that were so effective in getting close-in shots? Do you have a link to any of them? |
The Game Changer: How Hank Luisetti
Revolutionized America's Great Indoor Game
Hank Luisetti did not invent the running one-hander, though his version of the shot, with the Rose McGreevy-inspired release point above his eyes, was revolutionary. The running one-handed push shot had been in use on the West Coast and in the Midwest during the early 1930s, but was not taken seriously in the East, particularly in New York, where a number of powerful college teams were situated.
Coaches such as Joe Lapchick of St. John's, Nat Holman of City College, and Neil Colahan of Manhattan College had come from the professional ranks, and no one questioned their authority in teaching that the ball was shot with two hands. These men opposed the idea of any player leaving his feet prior to releasing the ball, unless for a lay-up.
In a way, history was to bear these New York coaches out. The modern jump shot is a two-handed shot, requiring the player to set his or her feet, square off the shoulders to the basket, and take the ball up with two hands, guiding with one hand and releasing with the other. There is more emphasis on form and technique with the modern jump shot than Luisetti or his contemporaries used with their running one-handers. Classic jump shooters of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Oscar Robertson, Jack Twyman, and Bill Bradley, were more accurate outside shooters than was Luisetti, who on successive victories over UCLA in his senior season went nine for 41 and six for 40.
For Luisetti, these were off-nights, as his season field goal percentage was slightly above 30 percent (his foul shooting percentage stood at 85 percent). But Luisetti's shots were invariably more difficult than those taken by the jump shooters because his were taken on the run. The modern jump shot is released at the height of a vertical jump, while Luisetti's shot was taken from a forward-moving skip. The classic jump shooter will hold on to the ball longer, keep the hand underneath the ball instead of behind it, and release the ball from above the head, instead of in front of the head.
[...]
The January 25, 1936 game took place in the primordial era of college basketball. Shooting was less of an art then, and shooting percentages, including Luisetti's, would not bear up to comparison with those of the decades to come. In one respect, basketball offensive tactics in 1936 more closely resembled those of ice hockey. It was not uncommon to see a player fire up a long two-handed set shot at the basket in the hopes that a teammate could pick up the rebound for a "set-up" shot. This was a tactic similar to a hockey player firing the puck up against the boards and then rushing in to battle for control of the puck close to the goal. The idea in both cases would be to take a low percentage shot that would lead to a good chance for a higher percentage shot.
The art of shooting a basketball was still developing in 1936, and the physical ball itself was primitive. The thought of using clear vertical space to spring up with the ball and gain an open look at the basket -- the principal behind the jump shot -- was a concept not being taught by any coaches, though the idea was not long in coming. The jump shot would open up the area 10 to 20 feet from the basket. In 1936, teams would regularly take 35-foot set shots and try for the rebound. Basketball players shooting on the run, shooting running one-handers, were among players who were trying to get open shots in the area 10 to 20 feet from the basket.
Hank Luisetti applied a more surgical approach. With his exceptional dribbling ability, he was able to maneuver close in to an open area within 20 feet from the hoop and take dead aim with a soft touch, feathery one-handed push shot from above and in front of his forehead facing the basket straight on. It was the forerunner to the jump shot, which would emphasize vertical space. Luisetti's shot still emphasized horizontal space, for he was moving forward, a few inches off the ground, as he released the ball.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15753
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15753
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/28/14 1:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
 |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/28/14 1:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Her uniform is in the WBHOF but Molly's not. A travesty.
 |
|
HistoryWomensBasketball
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/28/14 7:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
That looks like her uniform in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.
I don't remember seeing anything on her in Knoxville when I was there.
When it comes to the history of Women's basketball it still isnt documented thorough enough although many times better than just a mere decade ago.
I was given a tour thru Springfield and remember clicking a video on the All American Red Heads. turned out it was the Arkansas Travelers. even picked up on somethings wrong on uniforms.
Then again women weren't even inducted until 80s so it is taking a while to catch up |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11170
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/28/14 10:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
| Sorry, but any sort of sophisticated teamwork at the high school level, even today, is seriously lacking. The coaching knowledge and athletic skills are simply not there. |
I'm unclear on this ...
Is your claim that high school basketball was better in the old days, and players were more athletic and coaches had more knowledge?
That may be true in specific, but I find it hard to credit that in times before clinics, before the Internet, before TV with constant analysis, that coaches had more knowledge. There are many more coaches today, of course, and many of them are not particularly knowledgeable, but to make the blanket statement that coaches are less knowledgeable now seems way off the mark.
To me, this is a variation on the "good old days" argument, which says that pretty much everything in the past was better than it is today, starting with kids being respectful and proceeding throughout society. (And the "good old days" argument is prevalent in every generation, even the ones being referred to in a future time as the "good old days.")
Let's just take defensive rotations in a man-to-man as an example. Through TV, through excellent reporters like Zach Lowe of Grantland, through coaching clinics that bring together people from all over the country, the level of understanding of rotations, and variations off those rotations, is much, much higher than it was in the '70s, and I have to believe in the '30s when the key was smaller and so many things were different.
You could pretty much talk about every aspect of the game and find much more sophistication in basic concepts for coaches and even players (those that care about such things, and there are no more now than there were in those halcyon "good old days.")
Now, there's a big step between having coaching knowledge and employing it wisely, and in fact I would argue that too many coaches, young ones especially, try to do much in terms of running offenses and playing multiple defenses. On the girls' side, I've found doing a few things well is much more effective than doing a lot of things at an average basis.
In terms of athletic ability, the game has changed enormously, and I don't think many would claim the athletes were better in the "good old days," and that athleticism has also changed what offenses work and don't work. A dunk is a very high-percentage shot, and so is a shot close to the basket by a 6-3 player who can jump well, which changes what you have to do defensively. And though the Princeton offense can, obviously, be very successful, there are reasons it is not widely used -- it's very hard to teach and very hard to learn, and can be countered if the team running it can't handle the ball well against defensive pressure.
In general, people tend to believe the "good old days" coincide with the time they were around 21, and they harken back to that time as an example of how things were so much better. I'm not claiming Glenn is doing this, as those old-time motion offenses might work just fine in today's game (what goes around comes around ...), but I do react strongly to all those things about how great the '50s were, for example, because they ignore the weekly lynchings in Louisiana, the widespread prejudice against anyone not white and male, and so on.
But in terms of coaching girls' high school basketball today, the opposing coaches are much more sophisticated now than they were 30 years ago, and more sophisticated now than they were 10 years ago. It used to be, for example, that my 1-3-1 halfcourt trap would confuse almost every other team and coach; now, the percentage of success is much lower because opposing coaches are much more likely to make the adjustment they need to make. Whether the players can execute is another story ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/28/14 10:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| HistoryWomensBasketball wrote: |
That looks like her uniform in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.
I don't remember seeing anything on her in Knoxville when I was there.
|
The picture photo just says "Hall of Fame", but I would certainly take your experience as being more definitive.
Here's another photo I found:
 |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/28/14 10:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Clay, I'll respond to you later tonight or tomorrow when I finish my research on Wilt Chamberlain, Iowa 6x6 basketball, the Oregon Tall Firs, and fix my old Mustang convertible. |
|
StevenHW
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10983
Location: Sacramento, California
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/28/14 10:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| p_d_swanson wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| I'm interested ... exactly what were these offenses that were so effective in getting close-in shots? Do you have a link to any of them? |
The Game Changer: How Hank Luisetti
Revolutionized America's Great Indoor Game
Hank Luisetti did not invent the running one-hander, though his version of the shot, with the Rose McGreevy-inspired release point above his eyes, was revolutionary. The running one-handed push shot had been in use on the West Coast and in the Midwest during the early 1930s, but was not taken seriously in the East, particularly in New York, where a number of powerful college teams were situated.
Coaches such as Joe Lapchick of St. John's, Nat Holman of City College, and Neil Colahan of Manhattan College had come from the professional ranks, and no one questioned their authority in teaching that the ball was shot with two hands. These men opposed the idea of any player leaving his feet prior to releasing the ball, unless for a lay-up.
In a way, history was to bear these New York coaches out. The modern jump shot is a two-handed shot, requiring the player to set his or her feet, square off the shoulders to the basket, and take the ball up with two hands, guiding with one hand and releasing with the other. There is more emphasis on form and technique with the modern jump shot than Luisetti or his contemporaries used with their running one-handers. Classic jump shooters of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Oscar Robertson, Jack Twyman, and Bill Bradley, were more accurate outside shooters than was Luisetti, who on successive victories over UCLA in his senior season went nine for 41 and six for 40.
For Luisetti, these were off-nights, as his season field goal percentage was slightly above 30 percent (his foul shooting percentage stood at 85 percent). But Luisetti's shots were invariably more difficult than those taken by the jump shooters because his were taken on the run. The modern jump shot is released at the height of a vertical jump, while Luisetti's shot was taken from a forward-moving skip. The classic jump shooter will hold on to the ball longer, keep the hand underneath the ball instead of behind it, and release the ball from above the head, instead of in front of the head.
[...]
The January 25, 1936 game took place in the primordial era of college basketball. Shooting was less of an art then, and shooting percentages, including Luisetti's, would not bear up to comparison with those of the decades to come. In one respect, basketball offensive tactics in 1936 more closely resembled those of ice hockey. It was not uncommon to see a player fire up a long two-handed set shot at the basket in the hopes that a teammate could pick up the rebound for a "set-up" shot. This was a tactic similar to a hockey player firing the puck up against the boards and then rushing in to battle for control of the puck close to the goal. The idea in both cases would be to take a low percentage shot that would lead to a good chance for a higher percentage shot.
The art of shooting a basketball was still developing in 1936, and the physical ball itself was primitive. The thought of using clear vertical space to spring up with the ball and gain an open look at the basket -- the principal behind the jump shot -- was a concept not being taught by any coaches, though the idea was not long in coming. The jump shot would open up the area 10 to 20 feet from the basket. In 1936, teams would regularly take 35-foot set shots and try for the rebound. Basketball players shooting on the run, shooting running one-handers, were among players who were trying to get open shots in the area 10 to 20 feet from the basket.
Hank Luisetti applied a more surgical approach. With his exceptional dribbling ability, he was able to maneuver close in to an open area within 20 feet from the hoop and take dead aim with a soft touch, feathery one-handed push shot from above and in front of his forehead facing the basket straight on. It was the forerunner to the jump shot, which would emphasize vertical space. Luisetti's shot still emphasized horizontal space, for he was moving forward, a few inches off the ground, as he released the ball. |
Luisetti is interesting, but is sort of the opposite of working the ball inside close to the basket for a high percentage shot. He gained fame for a running one handed outside shots, of debated accuracy. A lot of historians nevertheless credit Luisetti with changing the game with a sort of proto-jump shot, mainly because of Stanford's amazing defeat of LIU at Madison Square Garden on December 30, 1936, and his 50 point outburst (a college basketball first) against Duquesne on January 1, 1938.
I suppose Mr. Swanson's unstated implication is that the outside college shooting of the 30's may not have been accurate enough to compel uber-elastic stretches of the defense. That's probably true, as some other video I'll post will show, but it doesn't logically or empirically invalidate the classic techniques to work the ball close to the basket employed by the Original Celtics and other pro teams of the era.
The origin of the actual leave-the-floor, above-the-head jump shot is disputed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/sports/basketball/03jumper.html?pagewanted=all
It may have been John Miller Cooper of the University of Missouri in the early 30's:
Belus van Smawley of Applachian State certainly had one by this picture in 1945:
Kenny Sailors of Wyoming was regularly astounding crowds in the early 40's with his high-leaping jumper.
Both Smawley and Sailors are said to have developed their shots in the 30's.
Jumpin Joe Fulks, who had the NBA scoring record of 63 points from 1949 until Elgin Baylor broke it by one point in 1959, seemed to have had a one-handed shot that he launched while standing, running or jumping:
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JkxCrtdPNSc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bDzfNbS_LbU?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
|
TheLoneGranger
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 87
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/29/14 12:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Yea verily! The three pointer adds to the game's strategy. If we were talking men's B-ball I would advocate dunks being valued as one point due to the lack of skill required.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11170
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/29/14 9:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TheLoneGranger wrote: |
| Yea verily! The three pointer adds to the game's strategy. If we were talking men's B-ball I would advocate dunks being valued as one point due to the lack of skill required. |
The dunk is such a high-percentage shot, though, and is difficult to set up, so it's not that bad.
The main thing about the dunk isn't the difficulty of the shot itself, but rather the action that set up the opportunity, which is usually either a steal or a nice offensive sequence that gets a big man open right next to the rim.
I think one reason women do not do as well around the basket as men is that women can't dunk, and the percentage on layups is significantly lower than on dunks.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/29/14 10:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| TheLoneGranger wrote: |
| Yea verily! The three pointer adds to the game's strategy. If we were talking men's B-ball I would advocate dunks being valued as one point due to the lack of skill required. |
The dunk is such a high-percentage shot, though, and is difficult to set up, so it's not that bad.
The main thing about the dunk isn't the difficulty of the shot itself, but rather the action that set up the opportunity, which is usually either a steal or a nice offensive sequence that gets a big man open right next to the rim.
I think one reason women do not do as well around the basket as men is that women can't dunk, and the percentage on layups is significantly lower than on dunks. |
Dunks used to be worth zero points for about 10 years. One can still debate the efficacy of that rule. One thing it surely did was to increase the sophistication and popularity of the non-dunk Alley Oop play, particularly as practiced by Monty Towe to David "44 inch" Thompson on Norm Sloan's Wolfpack.
I've always thought a much more interesting three-point shot would be one awarded for a shot within about 10 feet of the basket by a player below some minimal height -- say, 6-0 for college men and 5-9 for college women. I believe this would make offense more exciting by rewarding (i) Jewish basketball cuts to the basket in the half court, (ii) Jewish basketball screening and passing to get short jump shots in the half court, (iii) opportunistic fast break layups off aggressive defenses, and (iv) tactical fast break layups after made baskets. |
|
TheLoneGranger
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 87
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/29/14 11:54 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| TheLoneGranger wrote: |
| Yea verily! The three pointer adds to the game's strategy. If we were talking men's B-ball I would advocate dunks being valued as one point due to the lack of skill required. |
The dunk is such a high-percentage shot, though, and is difficult to set up, so it's not that bad.
The main thing about the dunk isn't the difficulty of the shot itself, but rather the action that set up the opportunity, which is usually either a steal or a nice offensive sequence that gets a big man open right next to the rim.
I think one reason women do not do as well around the basket as men is that women can't dunk, and the percentage on layups is significantly lower than on dunks. |
Women do have significant difficulty with layups. I used to be amazed how 6'4" Tina Charles would miss so many layups. Geno once said Charles had so many offensive rebounds because she was rebounding so many of her missed layups.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/29/14 1:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| TheLoneGranger wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| TheLoneGranger wrote: |
| Yea verily! The three pointer adds to the game's strategy. If we were talking men's B-ball I would advocate dunks being valued as one point due to the lack of skill required. |
The dunk is such a high-percentage shot, though, and is difficult to set up, so it's not that bad.
The main thing about the dunk isn't the difficulty of the shot itself, but rather the action that set up the opportunity, which is usually either a steal or a nice offensive sequence that gets a big man open right next to the rim.
I think one reason women do not do as well around the basket as men is that women can't dunk, and the percentage on layups is significantly lower than on dunks. |
Women do have significant difficulty with layups. |
"Women" don't have problems with layups. Players who don't practice layups, practice the wrong things, never learned or don't work on fundamentals, try to be too fancy, think they can rely on raw "athleticism" to be succesful, or who just aren't that good, struggle with layups. I'd like to hear any explanation whatsoever for the notion that there is some sex based distinction relative to whether a player can or cannot make a layup.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11170
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/29/14 3:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| TheLoneGranger wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| TheLoneGranger wrote: |
| Yea verily! The three pointer adds to the game's strategy. If we were talking men's B-ball I would advocate dunks being valued as one point due to the lack of skill required. |
The dunk is such a high-percentage shot, though, and is difficult to set up, so it's not that bad.
The main thing about the dunk isn't the difficulty of the shot itself, but rather the action that set up the opportunity, which is usually either a steal or a nice offensive sequence that gets a big man open right next to the rim.
I think one reason women do not do as well around the basket as men is that women can't dunk, and the percentage on layups is significantly lower than on dunks. |
Women do have significant difficulty with layups. |
"Women" don't have problems with layups. Players who don't practice layups, practice the wrong things, never learned or don't work on fundamentals, try to be too fancy, think they can rely on raw "athleticism" to be succesful, or who just aren't that good, struggle with layups. I'd like to hear any explanation whatsoever for the notion that there is some sex based distinction relative to whether a player can or cannot make a layup. |
Simple: The further you are from the rim, the harder any shot is.
Women are generally six inches shorter, across a roster, so that puts them six inches further away.
Women don't jump as well as men, so that puts them even further away when they release the ball.
Women aren't as strong as men in the upper body, and thus contact is more liable to throw off their shot than with a man. I don't think officials protect the shooter close to the basket enough in the women's game.
And finally, I think the lighter women's ball is more likely to bounce away than the men's ball, though I know people disagree.
It's not women don't have the coordination men do, but they are smaller, they don't jump as well, and they don't handle contact as well.
That means they are further from the basket when they release the ball, and less likely to power through contact.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|
