Author Topic: Let's build the Warriors Eastside  (Read 23708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2015, 12:00:58 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
It's like saying Avery bradley is a better shooter than Jerry West because his percentages from the 3 point line and 3 point shooting is so much better.



Here's an honest question: do you think it is harder to make a three point shot or a two point shot?

No one takes 2s, anymore, remember, lol ;D?

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2015, 12:01:56 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
It's like saying Avery bradley is a better shooter than Jerry West because his percentages from the 3 point line and 3 point shooting is so much better.



Here's an honest question: do you think it is harder to make a three point shot or a two point shot?

I think Birds fadeaway impresses me more than Curry jacking 3's yes. Much more unstoppable.  Much more difficult shot to make and much more difficult to stop.

They just give bird the ball on the block and let him work and teams could not stop that shot.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2015, 12:05:00 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #78 on: May 29, 2015, 12:05:02 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."




If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.

And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.

You're still not listening.  I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.

Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here.  If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird?  She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level.  I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).

That weak ass conference though ;)

Haha, but couldn't so say the same for Curry in college?  Both guys did great in the NCAA tournament, as well, iirc, with Bird going 16/19 :o for 35 points against Depaul with Mark Aguirre.  Wow.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #79 on: May 29, 2015, 12:09:27 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical. But it is entirely possible I could be misunderstanding your point, and apologies if that is the case.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.  :) )

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #80 on: May 29, 2015, 12:09:53 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
That does not mean I eat unborn fetuses for breakfast with pints of virgin's blood.

Really?  My respect for you just took a serious hit.  I guess this is why they say you shouldn't meet your heroes.  The man can never live up to the myth.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #81 on: May 29, 2015, 12:10:50 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
That does not mean I eat unborn fetuses for breakfast with pints of virgin's blood.

Really?  My respect for you just took a serious hit.

I have to say that for legal reasons.

Allegedly.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #82 on: May 29, 2015, 12:12:05 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
If you look at overall shooting and numbers it's not close anyways... and it makes the case that Curry is a better shooter. Instead of just throwing out unsupported statements, use the real numbers. We have the actual data. It's right here:

http://bkref.com/tiny/JF4T3

Knock yourselves out.

Curry is:
0-Better from three.
-Negligably worse from 2 (unless you really want to debate the merit of 49% versus 51%, in which case you do you and don't let anyone stop you 'cause you're a special snowflake indeed.).
-Has a higher true shooting percentage despite taking more of his shots from further away from the basket.
-posts a slightly lower usage rate.

These are the things that make me say "you could make an argument, looking at the numbers, that Curry is a better shooter than Bird." That is what I would call evidence.

That does not mean I don't think Bird was a great player. That does not mean **** all about Bird's broken hand in college. That does not mean I eat unborn fetuses for breakfast with pints of virgin's blood. It doesn't mean anything except "on paper, using all the resources at hand, the evidence favors Curry over Bird when it comes to shooting." Jesus. Christ.

Well, sure, if you don't factor in the significant rule changes that allowed perimeter players significantly more leeway, but go ahead, keep ignoring that crucial factor ::). Jesus. Christ.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #83 on: May 29, 2015, 12:13:01 AM »

Offline walker834

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tommy Points: 238
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." That's not about you, Beat LA.

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse though. I'm just saying.  That was Bird's signature shot. Curry is the 3 ball.  Bird shot better percentages overall in a very different era.  If the shot Curry takes the most is the 3.  That was Bird's signature shot. That's the best comparison I can come up with.

My opinion is that fadeaway is more difficult to make.  Some might argue. Different players.  Different body types.  But that fadeaway was ridiculous.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2015, 12:16:41 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
That deliberately obtuse wasn't directed at you, sorry for the confusion!

I will absolutely agree with you that a contested fadeaway jumpshot is harder than a wide open three, but I think that's a bit of a simplified way to look at it.

Quote
Well, sure, if you don't factor in the significant rule changes that allowed perimeter players significantly more leeway, but go ahead, keep ignoring that crucial factor ::). Jesus. Christ.
But, again, this isn't actually evidence. This is a circumstantial thing that happened. Reggie Miller played with the Hand Check rule, and he was a better shooter than Larry Bird (on paper put the pitchforks down). Same for Ray Allen (and the tar + feathers, please).

Effortlessness, ease, and trash talking awesomeness are not a data points. Larry Bird was unmatched in his scoring acumen and his swagger, but that does not make him an irrefutably better shooter.

Miller Link:http://bkref.com/tiny/NmI3D
Ray-Ray Link: http://bkref.com/tiny/aJJNv
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2015, 12:23:21 AM »

Offline GC003332

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 804
  • Tommy Points: 62
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."




If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.

And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.

You're still not listening.  I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.

Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here.  If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird?  She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level.  I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).

That weak ass conference though ;)

Haha, but couldn't so say the same for Curry in college?  Both guys did great in the NCAA tournament, as well, iirc, with Bird going 16/19 :o for 35 points against Depaul with Mark Aguirre.  Wow.
I was adding some levity in a nice friendly debate between yourself and D.o.s.

One thing that people who use stats as evidence in these debates (I am not saying that this is the situation here by the way) don't factor in is the quality of the shots that each guy gets on their respective teams.Some guys raw numbers get deflated by having their team mates look for them to take those last second shorts when a possession breaks down, screws up their percentage big time that way.Some guys don't take those long end of quarter heaves for this reason.
Stats can be twisted to make your case stronger. I think comparing each player to their respective era and judging their numbers compared to the top guys they played with and against is a better way of judging a guys worth.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2015, 12:25:59 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.  :) )

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.

I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know).  How many people move better after they hurt their ankle?  How does that not make sense to you?  If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred?  Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out?  Again, it's just common sense.

As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you.  I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #87 on: May 29, 2015, 12:29:45 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
What evidence did you post? Nostalgia tinted interviews about subjects people remember fondly? Anecdotal recollections of a time long past, cast in a favorable light?That's exactly what romanticizing is. "Larry woulda been so much better if only.... You shoulda seen him in college.... etc."




If you look at page two, you can see how DarkAcuza attempted to quantify what makes one player a better shooter than another. That is what's called evidence: not a Jackie Mack interview where she gushes about how great Bird was.

And, again, I think Bird was an incredible basketball player. I never said he wasn't. Curry's still an empirically better shooter.

You're still not listening.  I never compared the two in terms of player vs. player (and I never said that you did, either), I compared them as shooters, which you would know if you were actually paying attention.

Go back and look at his college fg% and then tell me how I'm romanticizing anything, here.  If anything, you're the one using hyperbole when you say that Curry is 'an empirically better shooter' ::), and in what way was Jackie 'gushing' about Bird?  She talked about his college shooting, his injury, and how that impacted Bird at the next level.  I don't think that that's what gushing means ;).

That weak ass conference though ;)

Haha, but couldn't so say the same for Curry in college?  Both guys did great in the NCAA tournament, as well, iirc, with Bird going 16/19 :o for 35 points against Depaul with Mark Aguirre.  Wow.
I was adding some levity in a nice friendly debate between yourself and D.o.s.

One thing that people who use stats as evidence in these debates (I am not saying that this is the situation here by the way) don't factor in is the quality of the shots that each guy gets on their respective teams.Some guys raw numbers get deflated by having their team mates look for them to take those last second shorts when a possession breaks down, screws up their percentage big time that way.Some guys don't take those long end of quarter heaves for this reason.
Stats can be twisted to make your case stronger. I think comparing each player to their respective era and judging their numbers compared to the top guys they played with and against is a better way of judging a guys worth.

Sorry about that.  I had a feeling that you were trying to lighten the mood, although I would hardly call this a friendly debate, lol ;D. TP for the last emboldened part, btw.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2015, 12:35:42 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I'm going to settle on you being deliberately obtuse. However:

What you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that Bird broke his hand in college, shot worse after he broke it, and is therefore a better shooter than Curry. Ok. That is 110% nonsensical.

Regardless, I will stand by the statement that Curry is an empirically better shooter. To prove my point, I gave a link. With numbers. I can't change what the numbers say, unless you think B-R is lying on my behalf.  Not a story about a broken hand -- although, since I've broken my shooting hand before, I could provide an anecdotal story about how badly/not badly it affected my game, come to think of it.


How the game has changed is an interesting discussion that I find infinitely more fun (and generally worthwile), but I'm definitely not going to sit here and read refutations that consist of "sorry, I'm making no effort to understand what you've said in the slightest, but I know you're wrong because I said so." (That's not about you, Beat LA.  :) )

Play basketball sometime and shoot 3's.  Then try to do that fadeaway and tell me which is more impressive and more difficult.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the NBA's three point numbers exploded when they shortened the three in 1995-1996? Do you think it was a coincidence that Carmelo Anthony set the international three point record on a FIBA court with a shorter three point line?

Since you seem to want it nice and simple: It is harder to shoot a ball into a basket the further away from the basket you are. That is a fact. Therefore, a three point shot is a fundamentally harder shot to make than a 16 footer. There are easy 25 foot shots and easy 16 foot shots and fadeaway 16 footers of the wrong foot and fadeaway 25 footers off the wrong foot -- everything else being equal, the shot that is closer to the rim will be easier to make.

I am not at all being deliberately obtuse, and it's just common sense in regards to Bird's injury, which you, yourself, pointed out (intentionally or not I don't know).  How many people move better after they hurt their ankle?  How does that not make sense to you?  If he was better than Curry before the injury (and for the record, I look up a lot on basketball reference.com, so I hardly think their information is anecdotal or tinted with nostalgia ;)), would he not be better if it had never occurred?  Does a car stop just as well as it normally does if any of its brakes are worn out?  Again, it's just common sense.

As for the NBA shortening the 3-point line, you're only serving to make my point, so thank you.  I know that Curry can hit 3s from the parking lot, lol ;D, but if he played in Bird's era with more physical defense and a longer distance from 3, do you not think that his numbers would be altered, and perhaps, drastically, because saying no is completely nonsensical.

The shortened three point line was only in effect from 1994-'97. It has no bearing on Curry vs. Bird in that regard: the point was that the league, as a whole, shot better from three during that span, because closer shots are easier to make than longer ones.



You still haven't offered up any actual proof that Bird was a better shooter than Curry before he broke his hand, by the way. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. I'll ne more than happy to admit that I'm wrong if you can actually show me that this is the case, but you haven't, you've just said it.

Also, I would say this is friendly. It's the internet, so maybe that's being lost.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Let's build the Warriors Eastside
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2015, 12:47:08 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
That deliberately obtuse wasn't directed at you, sorry for the confusion!

I will absolutely agree with you that a contested fadeaway jumpshot is harder than a wide open three, but I think that's a bit of a simplified way to look at it.

Quote
Well, sure, if you don't factor in the significant rule changes that allowed perimeter players significantly more leeway, but go ahead, keep ignoring that crucial factor ::). Jesus. Christ.
But, again, this isn't actually evidence. This is a circumstantial thing that happened. Reggie Miller played with the Hand Check rule, and he was a better shooter than Larry Bird (on paper put the pitchforks down). Same for Ray Allen (and the tar + feathers, please).

Effortlessness, ease, and trash talking awesomeness are not a data points. Larry Bird was unmatched in his scoring acumen and his swagger, but that does not make him an irrefutably better shooter.

Miller Link:http://bkref.com/tiny/NmI3D
Ray-Ray Link: http://bkref.com/tiny/aJJNv

Oh man ::).

Anyway, I'm not incensed that you think that Reggie and Ray are at least right there with Bird, because I would largely agree.  That's fair, even though I'll always be in Bird's corner ;D.

What I said about rule changes is not circumstantial, though.  In an article written by sports illustrated concerning the added emphasis on defense over the last 25+ years or so, it said that the rule changes were made in an effort to increase offensive output.  I just can't remember what the darn thing was called, but it had numbers and everything, and they also pointed to the increase in the use of the 3-point shot, iirc, which is one reason why teams today score less, not to mention the huge gap in the skill level of players between the eras.

Either way, can we at least wait until Curry's career is over before we proclaim him the best of all time?  The guy hasn't even been in the league for 10 years, yet, so just give it time.  Just because there's more of an emphasis on 3s today doesn't mean that Curry is the better shooter, and it's interesting that his midrange numbers are worse than Bird's (not by much, but still), and I never cited swagger, etc., as an argument, btw.