RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

3pt Evils and Machine Gun Molly
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/14 3:56 pm    ::: 3pt Evils and Machine Gun Molly Reply Reply with quote

I propose three claims as to why the 3pt shot has worsened basketball. I invite discussion, pro or con, on any or all of the claims.

1. The three-point shot has rendered the entire tactical game of basketball less interesting and more individualistic because it pulls coaches and players away from the classic strategy of getting the highest percentage shot via sophisticated teamwork to work shots as close to the basket as possible.

2. The three-point shot has caused the dying-out of the mid-range game.

3. The three-point line ineluctably seduces young children to practice contorted heaves from 20' away when they should be practicing much shorter shots to perfect outside shooting form. The basket can only be reached by children from this distance by shotput-like heaves from the chest. Even as they mature, many female players retain this infantile shooting form: using a sort of set shot from their chests or in front of their faces instead of a more effective and faster-releasing above-the-head jump shot form.

As evidence, I offer the terrific above-the-head jump shot form of 5-9 Machine Gun Molly Bolin, who shot mainly from the mid-range and was unstoppable. Here's a picture of her form:



Even better, here's an entire highlight video of the great Molly in a 1980 game hitting 54 points to set a pro record.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BGIIsJHbgRA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Surely, we must agree that Molly had great form. Note also that this game occurred before basketball players began wearing ludicrous long clown pantaloons -- or bloomers, as John Wooden anachronistically called them -- in the early 1990's.

The initial claim of this post -- which some of you may have forgotten while ogling, er, watching Machine Gun Molly -- is that she likely would never have developed her jump shooting form if the arc of evil had been etched on courts when she was growing up in the 60's and 70's.

Thoughts.




Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 04/24/14 10:37 am; edited 2 times in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/14 6:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Molly vs. Nancy Lieberman in 1984. Nancy also has a "real" jump shot, but Molly does a good job of face guarding and denying her the ball. Paula McGee has a real jump shot. I'm not sure Molly was even 5-9.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JBZ0fawTxo0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66774
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/14 8:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Points 2 & 3 are unquestionably true. Part of point three is bad coaching/teaching for kids. They should be working with a shorter line and a shorter goal until they are fully grown.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/23/14 9:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Points 2 & 3 are unquestionably true. Part of point three is bad coaching/teaching for kids. They should be working with a shorter line and a shorter goal until they are fully grown.


On point 2, Rutgers has a bunch of players who shoot mid-range jumpers, more or less to the exclusion of the 3. Most RU fans would like them to shoot a few more 3s.


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1350



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 1:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Point 1 is a matter of taste. I think there is definitely a strategy to mixing 3-point shots into the mix of high-percentage shots, and I personally love watching shooters shoot. Remember, a 3-point basket IS worth 50% more than a 2-point basket. A 40% 3-point shooter scores as any points shot-for-shot as a 60% 3-point shooter. Also consider, as far as point 2 goes, a long range 2-point jump shot is the single least efficient shot in all of basketball.

That's not to say I don't practice that shot all the time. The most effective scorers are the ones that can pull up any time anywhere, that's why I have so much confidence in McBride's potential. It's not that most good players lack the ability to hit a jump shot - I'm not sure it's even possible to be a significantly better 3-point shooter than jump-shooter; but from a coaching standpoint, taking a long 2 is a less efficient play than a layup or a 3.


HistoryWomensBasketball



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 6:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If the 3 point had existed and Molly took all the same shots her games of 54,55 & 56 would have been higher.

One of the most overlooked players for induction into the WBHOF. awesome high school stats... although it was in Iowa and they were still 6 on 6. it was a transition for her to go to full court and learning defensive part of game took a bit.

She has highest season avg and career avg for anyone with 3 or more years. she ended up playing a little in waba but had been hurt and hurt her play.
The most amazing to me is she was battling her own prejudices at the time. Her husband filed to take away her son and say she was unfit mother because she was on the road playing hoops

Sorry. .. off topic a bit but Molly is my fav from the Wbl



_________________
Author of: "Barnstorming America, Stories from the Pioneers of Women's Basketball"

www.barnstormingamerica.net
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11106



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 10:00 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I much prefer the game with a three-point line, for a variety of reasons.

1) It lessens the advantage of the tall. Tall people don't do anything to be tall except be born that way. With no three-point line, the highest percentage tactic to winning is to play tall people close to the basket and give them the ball as often as possible. The three-pointer allows skill to be a bigger part of the sport.

2) It adds to the strategy of the game. With size the determining factor, and inside shots the primary goal, offenses and defenses alike have a more limited focus. The offensive team always wants the ball inside, and the defense always wants to keep it from going inside.

3) It forces teams to play man-to-man. At the lower levels of play, the three-pointer opens up the game dramatically. Without a three-point threat, the best defense is a 2-3 zone with hands in the air and a tall person camped in the paint. There's no penalty for not defending the perimeter unless teams can shoot ... and at the lower levels, they often can't.

4) Why is a mid-range jumper more impressive than a three-pointer? It's a jump shot, and is especially difficult for girls, who lack the strength of boys and young men. The set shot three is much more makeable for females, and why that shot is less valued than the mid-range jumper is a mystery to me. (Now it could be people are saying it is just as valuable, but the mid-range jumper has disappeared with the advent of the three. By the same token, though, the longer-range shots disappear if there's no three-point line.)

5) It allows for more upsets. The three-pointer, especially in the women's game, is the great equalizer. Without a three-pointer, the team with more size is much, much harder to beat. With a three-pointer, a team can get hot -- and every team that spends time working on threes has a puncher's chance in almost every game. (That team also can misfire horribly and get upset by a team considered not as good.)

6) It increases the athleticism of the game. It's harder to hide a tall stiff with the three-point shot because it's harder to play zone. Without the three, a trio of tall, slow post players can play the bottom of a 2-3 zone, and then go down to the other end and focus on rebounding and inside play.

7) It allows for a different kind of player to succeed. With the three-pointer, a whole new category of players can be effective. There's more room for pure shooters (and less room for tall, slow players).

Cool The chance for rallies and dramatic comebacks is much greater. Three-pointers, obviously, can cut the margin much more quickly than two-pointers, and without them, a five-point lead in the last minute is a much, much higher mountain to climb. Games are more exciting.

9) In the women's game, the three-pointer is the most exciting play. Without the dunk, what gets crowds and players fired up is the three-pointer. If there were no three-pointers, and teams focused on jamming the ball in the paint, presumably the most exciting sequence would be several good passes and then a tall female makes a two-footer.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
purduefanatic



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 10:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree...I much prefer the game with the 3-point shot but I admit it has affected the game as well.

That said, Katie Gearlds was one helluva jump shooter that could shoot off the pass or the dribble and could also drill the '3'.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 10:30 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I much prefer the game with the 3-point shot. Old as I am, I am *not* a purist as some seem to be. Between this thread and the comments on the Olympics in another, I swear there are those who would have us back in bloomers or those tight shorts, playing the half-court two-dribble game!



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
HistoryWomensBasketball



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 10:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I like the three very much although not a big fan of the dunk

Would like to go back to the full size ball

As far as uniforms. maybe not as bloomers but the mid riffs were pretty radical only a few years after WWII



_________________
Author of: "Barnstorming America, Stories from the Pioneers of Women's Basketball"

www.barnstormingamerica.net
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 11:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I also like the 3 pt shot, but I disagree about the "advantage of the tall."

Good players with skills and technique didn't suffer any "disadvantage." Pete Maravich, Austin Carr, Jerry West, Walt Frazer, Oscar Robertson, etc all played before the 3 pt shot but none of them struggled to score. Carr averaged 34.5 pts/gm over his college career. He still holds the record (61) and three of the top 5 single game scores in NCAA tournament history. The other two are also guards - Bill Bradley and Robertson.

Those guys worked to develop skills to score. I tend to agree that the 3 pt shot encourages lazy offense. But because the 3 pt shot helps make games more competitive, and helps teams make comebacks, I like it. But it's also a crutch for bad coaches.


RP



Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Posts: 1299



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 2:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The WNBA extended its 3-point line from 20 feet, 6 1/4 inches to 22 feet, 1 3/4 inches, and the only difference we saw in 2013 from 2012 was a lot fewer 3-point attempts and more long 2-pointers, which I'm not sure why anyone would prefer.

2013 Shot Distribution:

1-5 feet 35.4%
6-10 feet 10.6%
11-15 feet 10.2%
16-21 feet 22.2%
3-point: 21.6%

2012 Shot Distribution:

1-5 feet 35.0%
6-10 feet 10.4%
11-15 feet 11.6%
16-20 feet 16.4%
3-point: 26.6%

Defenses will always aim to limit shots at the rim. Eliminating the 3-point line would only mean a lot more long 2-point attempts.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/24/14 2:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RP wrote:
The WNBA extended its 3-point line from 20 feet, 6 1/4 inches to 22 feet, 1 3/4 inches, and the only difference we saw in 2013 from 2012 was a lot fewer 3-point attempts and more long 2-pointers, which I'm not sure why anyone would prefer.


I would prefer it. I like the 3 pt shot but the 3 should reward a difficult shot, not be routine.

When there are people making close to 50% of their 3s, I'd say the shot is too easy. There should be high risk for the high reward. Moving the line back doesn't bother me at all.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 12:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

HistoryWomensBasketball wrote:
If the 3 point had existed and Molly took all the same shots her games of 54,55 & 56 would have been higher.

One of the most overlooked players for induction into the WBHOF.


HWB, to what would you attribute that fact? And also, Molly never competed in any Olympics, did she?



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
HistoryWomensBasketball



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 6:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think there are a few reasons.

She played in Iowa 6 on 6 in high school

Went to small local college as opposed to a Queens, delta state etc.

Even maybe a small part that she was not only a great player but also a sex symbol and was promoted as such.

She was on 84 team but late cut.

Also hall's of fame are political imo. I know there are inductees that have less than her but have strong backing.

Yet I think her time is coming. When I talked with her her name is going through the process again with apparently more support. I think that what she did while being a mom going through court battle even adds to what she did.

Imo I wish hall's would look at people and what they did when they did it and where society was at the time. if you look at Molly and what she did during that time she was right there with Nancy and others minus the big name college.

Her uniform does hang in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame and she was so popular she even did a commercial with Larry Bird.



_________________
Author of: "Barnstorming America, Stories from the Pioneers of Women's Basketball"

www.barnstormingamerica.net
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 9:25 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The three-point discussion is a 30-year old one for me, ever since the issue was being debated for college basketball in the 80's, and my anti-3pt view has never changed. I bring it up occaisonally because there is now more than an entire generation that has never seen a game without the arc of indolence and evil.

Some good arguments have been made in favor of the 3pt shot, but I don't buy them. The game to me is no more exciting with it. In fact, there's nothing more I despise than arc-hanging players who do nothing but literally loiter on the perimeter waiting for a pass for a three-point shot. The offenses based on the three are superficial and almost brain-dead in their sophistication. Even UConn sometimes takes 35%-40% of its shots from the arc. Boring.

Without the three-point luck shot, I doubt that tall players ever dominated or would now dominate the women's game. The entire point of off-ball screens and two- and three-man games is to free up the shorter players for drives, perimeter cuts, backdoor cuts, and short pull-up jumpers. Besides, there are hardly any coordinated BIG players in GHSBB or WCBB to dominate the inside.

Actually, the Molly Bolin videos I've been finding are much more interesting to me for purposes of this thread. From what I've been watching on these videos, the vast majority of Mollie's jump shots were within two-point range. That's not surprising, since anyone who shot from 20 feet away during the halcyon days would soon find himself or herself on the bench.

Mollie's Spalding commercial with Larry Bird is at the end of the second video I posted.

Here is a third video, an interview around 1984 in which she has become a house painter and for a while lost custody of her child because of her "unfitness" as a mother, having to travel a lot for basketball and posing for cheesecake advertising posters.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7s526WvHUKc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One thing seems clear. If Machine Gun Molly Bolin, the blond bomber, were playing today, her skill, vivaciousness and general appeal would reduce many of the current fan favorites to chopped liver, and the Twitter following would be something like:

Molly Bolin - 987,000
Becky Hammon - 39
Skylar Diggins - 13


HistoryWomensBasketball



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 10:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I became friends with Molly back in the late 90s.

I got a bunch of info from her and it is on my website at

http://allamericanredheads.com/id9.html

I do think she will get her due. even if it is very overdue.



_________________
Author of: "Barnstorming America, Stories from the Pioneers of Women's Basketball"

www.barnstormingamerica.net
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 10:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

HistoryWomensBasketball wrote:
I became friends with Molly back in the late 90s.

I got a bunch of info from her and it is on my website at

http://allamericanredheads.com/id9.html

I do think she will get her due. even if it is very overdue.


Thanks. I hadn't looked at your site in a couple of years, and see you have the same videos I posted plus a lot more information about Molly.

I wish I could find some decent shooting videos of Carol Blazejowski.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 10:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:

there's nothing more I despise than arc-hanging players who do nothing but literally loiter on the perimeter waiting for a pass for a three-point shot. The offenses based on the three are superficial and almost brain-dead in their sophistication. Even UConn sometimes takes 35%-40% of its shots from the arc. Boring.


I certainly ever agree with this, but I still come down on the side of keeping the 3 pt shot. I'd be happy though if they moved it back another couple of feet. Increase the risk required to obtain the extra point. And hopefully diminish the routine use of it as a crutch for the inability to work for an open high percentage shot.

GlennMacGrady wrote:

Without the three-point luck shot, I doubt that tall players ever dominated or would now dominate the women's game.


As someone who did in fact grow up as a fan of the game long before the 3 pt shot hit the colleges, I don't believe tall players ever dominated the men's game either. Take a look at the AP Players of the year. Sure, Alcindor, Walton, Sampson, Hayes, Ewing and Lucas are on that list in the pre-1986 period, but so are Pete Maravich, David Thompson, Austin Carr, Cazzie Russell, Bill Bradley, Art Heyman, Scott May, Mark Aguirre, Michael Jordon, Walter Berry, Larry Bird, and Butch Lee. The common denominator among these players is not their height, it's that every one of them was an incredibly skilled basketball player who dominated their games regardless of their height.

There have always been tall players, both before and after the 3 pt line was instituted. I don't believe that tall players were any more dominant pre-1986 than they are today. Britney Griner was dominant notwithstanding the 3 pt shot. UConn beat ND in the finals this year primarily because they were significantly taller and those tall players were talented. But ND also beat other taller teams (this year and the last several years) because the tall opposing players were less talented. There have been plenty of 7 footers in the men's game and most of them amounted to nothing. A talented tall player is always going to be an advantage. And a tall stiff is still just a stiff. I don't think the 3 pt shot changes that.


HistoryWomensBasketball



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 10:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I haven't updated in a bit since all the work on the All American Red Heads. I know this has gotten way off topic.

Molly would have benefited from the 3pt. most shots were within the arc but she could drain them from pretty far out.



_________________
Author of: "Barnstorming America, Stories from the Pioneers of Women's Basketball"

www.barnstormingamerica.net
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 9:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

HistoryWomensBasketball wrote:
Molly would have benefited from the 3pt. most shots were within the arc but she could drain them from pretty far out.


Another thing I noticed about Molly in the videos is that she had a REMARKABLE vertical leap on many of her shots, a la Tweety Nolan. Thanks again for all the videos....I enjoyed them!



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 10:19 pm    ::: Hmmmm Reply Reply with quote

So let me get this straight, you prefer a shot within the arc that is probably a lower % than a shooter who can knock it down from anywhere in the gym at a higher %! Boy that makes sense NOT!

So I see you want to pack everyone in the paint with no shooters to spread the defense, wouldn't that be pretty NOT!


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/25/14 11:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The Blaze had a real jump shot. No arc of evil shot-put heave.



Carol refused to play in the WBL during 1977-80 because she wanted to maintain her amateur standing to play in the 1980 Olympics, in which the USA ultimately refused to play. Jimmy Carter chose to play politics instead.

Too bad for the Blaze. The shootouts with Molly would have been historic.


HistoryWomensBasketball



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1435
Location: CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/26/14 6:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Blaze played in the Wbl 80-81. In fact in the last all star game for the league Molly would score 29 pts while Blaze and Nancy would each score 20.

Not bad for a kid from Moravia iowa



_________________
Author of: "Barnstorming America, Stories from the Pioneers of Women's Basketball"

www.barnstormingamerica.net
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8152
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/26/14 11:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Columbia was the first to try a three-point line on February 7, 1945 in a game against Fordham.

http://archives.ivyleaguesports.com/article.asp?intID=3801
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin