PDA

View Full Version : Length vs Height + Hand Size?



Chronz
08-03-2009, 04:57 AM
Been thinking about how a players talent and physical attributes effect a players career. Aside from height and length, hand size seems to be a dominant trait but for what players? I had a discussion with a friend about MJ's hands. Its well documented that they allowed him to pretty much create any trick shot in the paint but he mentioned that it was MJ's ability to shoot despite having gargantuan hands that truly made him unique and ultimately unrivaled from an athletic to skill standpoint.

So I thought about players I know to have big hands and they tend to be "bigmen", go figure. It could help explain why the FT% are always low, but its not the case for everyone. What do you guys think, would it be harder to shoot if your hands were bigger, or is it all a crock.


Also would you rather be long for your size, or tall with T-Rex arms? Like would you rather be 6"8 with a 7"3 Wingspan, or 7"1 with a 6"11 wingspan?

ARMIN12NBA
08-03-2009, 05:04 AM
It is actually harder to shoot if your hands are extremely large. Have you ever tried shooting with a small ball? It is a totally different feel.


Also would you rather be long for your size, or tall with T-Rex arms? Like would you rather be 6"8 with a 7"3 Wingspan, or 7"1 with a 6"11 wingspan?

I would definitely rather be 6 feet 8 inches with the 7 foot 3 inches wingspan. Not only would that make somebody a dominant defender because the length would allow the player to catch up despite speed differences, but that would make a player extremely versatile. They would be able to play anywhere from the 2-4.

Not to mention the fact that having a wingspan shorter than your height is pretty abnormal. It would make your arms pretty tiny and I would imagine it would be hard to get a shot off despite the height advantage and that disadvantage would probably pose problems for you defensively.