PDA

View Full Version : Point Guards who can't shoot: Do they have a place in today's league?



Meth
08-24-2015, 03:48 AM
Point guards who can't shoot and are terribly inefficient such as Rondo and Carter-Williams get exploited on offense in today's league. It seems like pass first point guards need to be somewhat average in shooting threes, need to be efficient under the basket, and of course need to be good free throw shooters- at the core, point guards today must at least have developed a decent jumper. Even if these point guards carry good intangibles on the court and play good defense, do they have a place in this league despite having a broken jumper from mid range and three? Can you build a contending team with them?

goingfor28
08-24-2015, 03:54 AM
They certainly can't be your first option but a guy who is a dime dropper and plays a little D absolutely has a place in the NBA

PhillyFaninLA
08-24-2015, 06:46 AM
I'd take Gary Payton or John Stockton over any great shooting pg.

Give me a PG that can run and offense, pass the ball well, and play good defense and I don't need much more.

I compare it to a QB when someone says thats a great QB he can run really well (when his job requires him to throw).....

LakersIn5
08-24-2015, 07:33 AM
Rondo was one of the best PGs in the league before he became injury prone

RLundi
08-24-2015, 07:55 AM
I'd take Gary Payton or John Stockton over any great shooting pg.

Give me a PG that can run and offense, pass the ball well, and play good defense and I don't need much more.

I compare it to a QB when someone says thats a great QB he can run really well (when his job requires him to throw).....

That's a little different though. Payton and Stockton weren't non-shooters. They both could spread the floor some, Stockton much better than Payton but still. I think OP is talking about PGs that generally WON'T shoot when open because they're so poor, like Rondo or Elfrid Payton, MCW, etc. Not to mention the league was different than when Stockton and Payton played. Position-less players and floor-spacing seems much more important today than it did 20 years ago.

PhillyFaninLA
08-24-2015, 08:03 AM
That's a little different though. Payton and Stockton weren't non-shooters. They both could spread the floor some, Stockton much better than Payton but still. I think OP is talking about PGs that generally WON'T shoot when open because they're so poor, like Rondo or Elfrid Payton, MCW, etc. Not to mention the league was different than when Stockton and Payton played. Position-less players and floor-spacing seems much more important today than it did 20 years ago.

Good points....the primary job is defense and running an offense....anything on top of that is icing. A PG's job is to run an offense not be a threat scoring. Granted it adds value but I don't want a SG playing point for me.

IndyRealist
08-24-2015, 08:20 AM
Russel Westbrook and John Wall are both career 30% 3pt shooters. The question is not necessarily "can non shooting PGs thrive" but rather "can non shooting PGs still find ways to be effective"? Obviously some can.

ewing
08-24-2015, 08:31 AM
I'd take Gary Payton or John Stockton over any great shooting pg.

Give me a PG that can run and offense, pass the ball well, and play good defense and I don't need much more.

I compare it to a QB when someone says thats a great QB he can run really well (when his job requires him to throw).....

John Stockton was a great shooter and always an offensive threat. he shoot 38% from downtown for his career, over 50% from the floor, and over 80% from the line while scoring around 17 a night in his prime.

ewing
08-24-2015, 08:36 AM
Good points....the primary job is defense and running an offense....anything on top of that is icing. A PG's job is to run an offense not be a threat scoring. Granted it adds value but I don't want a SG playing point for me.


it is always your job to be a scoring threat. That doesn't mean you have to be looking to shoot but if part of your job is having the ball on the perimeter and the defense doesn't pick you up outside the paint you are a liability.

ewing
08-24-2015, 08:37 AM
Russel Westbrook and John Wall are both career 30% 3pt shooters. The question is not necessarily "can non shooting PGs thrive" but rather "can non shooting PGs still find ways to be effective"? Obviously some can.


You still cant leave Russ alone. Wall on the other hand is just another overrated Memphis goon

IndyRealist
08-24-2015, 09:36 AM
You still cant leave Russ alone. Wall on the other hand is just another overrated Memphis goon

That's my point. Russ found ways to be an offensive threat without being a paricularly good shooter. In his case it's hyper athleticism and aggression. Players are not defined by their limitations, instead by what they do to justify floor time in spite of their limitations.

Not sure what you mean about Wall.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
08-24-2015, 09:45 AM
MCW hopefully improves on his shooting. Since this will be his first offseason with the Bucks and healthy to work on his jumper. Figure previous season he was injured in the offseason so he didn't get a chance to improve his jumper. I know Giannis been working on his shooting all offseason.

ewing
08-24-2015, 10:06 AM
That's my point. Russ found ways to be an offensive threat without being a paricularly good shooter. In his case it's hyper athleticism and aggression. Players are not defined by their limitations, instead by what they do to justify floor time in spite of their limitations.

Not sure what you mean about Wall.


i agree. You cant leave Russ so his not being a greater shooter doesn't hurt you. like you said he makes up for it. As for Wall you can leave him and he hurts your offensive b/c of it. Like i said he is just another overrated Calipari PG.

ewing
08-24-2015, 10:07 AM
That's my point. Russ found ways to be an offensive threat without being a paricularly good shooter. In his case it's hyper athleticism and aggression. Players are not defined by their limitations, instead by what they do to justify floor time in spite of their limitations.

Not sure what you mean about Wall.



the fact that MCW can play off the ball and out of the post helps him as well. I hope he does improve some but worse case he reminds me of what Livingston is now and is still an asset

hugepatsfan
08-24-2015, 10:31 AM
IMO it's about on-ball/off-ball. If you can't shoot, you're a liability off the ball unless you develop a terrific post game (few PGs can) or are a terrific cutter. Rondo, for example, never developed enough of an off-ball game to not be a liability when someone else had the rock. The problem with that was that he just wasn't a good enough scorer to be the guy who handles the ball all the time, even with his terrific playmaking.

So in conclusion, I think a PG can make it w/out shooting but he needs to have the right skills in the rest of his game. He has to be able to play off the ball in ways other than floor spacing OR be enough of a scorer w/out shooting that an offense can run through him at a high usage rate.

Colts_4_life
08-24-2015, 10:59 AM
You still cant leave Russ alone. Wall on the other hand is just another overrated Memphis goon

Memphis goon? Coming from a Knicks fan :clap:

SportsFanatic10
08-24-2015, 11:11 AM
Yes...on the bench.

ewing
08-24-2015, 11:15 AM
Memphis goon? Coming from a Knicks fan :clap:


Wall is an all star like Rose is an MVP like Evans is a quality starting PG.

JasonJohnHorn
08-24-2015, 11:41 AM
I'd take... John Stockton over any great shooting pg.

John Stockton was one of the best shooters at the point guard position ever.

JasonJohnHorn
08-24-2015, 11:46 AM
It is easier for a point guard to break a guy down one-on-one to create space when he has a shot, because then the guy has to play him honest. It opens things up. So it is important to have that skill.

that said, you can succeed without it if your teammates have the right skill set, as demonstrated by Rondo.

Kidd also struggled with his shot until later in his career and was among the best point guards in the league.

The bottom line is if a point guard is fast enough to drive and/or knows how to use a pick, he can get to the basket, and so long as he can from that point distribute the ball effectively, both when passing out to the open man, and when setting up plays at the top of the key, then he can help to run an effective offense, and even a championship offense.

The thing is, in order to be valuable to his team, he ALSO has to be a great defender and ideally a strong rebounder as well (like young Kidd and Rondo). If he's not, and he can't shoot, then he has a lot less to offer on the court.

Stinkyoutsider
08-24-2015, 12:07 PM
As long as you're a good passer and have a tear drop or a runner, you can be effective. Put up some runners unless the defense starts closing you down when you get close to the paint. This should open up a passing lane to find an open teammate.

Also, I think a great offensive scheme can hide a PG who can't consistently shoot from the perimeter. Keep your players moving and catch the ball in spots that make the defense adjust.

FlashBolt
08-24-2015, 02:22 PM
John Stockton was one of the best shooters at the point guard position ever.

No he isn't... The quantity of shots is way too low to even judge that. Plus, the NBA three point line was shorter coincidentally as Stockton took more threes at his best % (94-97). When the NBA put the three point line back to it's original length, you can see Stockton's % and FGA dropped. He's far from being the best three point shooting PG... and he should be disqualified just because the three isn't as prominent before as it is now.

To the original question, I don't think it's possible unless you have a distinct advantage in another area. By that, I mean having Magic's skillset or just being an absolute athlete (Russell Westbrook). Other than that, I don't see how you can survive and be a top PG. Rondo survived only because he had KG, Pierce, and Allen on his side. He hasn't done well since.

5ass
08-24-2015, 03:27 PM
Yes, and Elfrid Payton will prove that. Can get you triple doubles and shut down the opposing PG.

JasonJohnHorn
08-24-2015, 07:22 PM
No he isn't... The quantity of shots is way too low to even judge that. Plus, the NBA three point line was shorter coincidentally as Stockton took more threes at his best % (94-97). When the NBA put the three point line back to it's original length, you can see Stockton's % and FGA dropped. He's far from being the best three point shooting PG... and he should be disqualified just because the three isn't as prominent before as it is now.

To the original question, I don't think it's possible unless you have a distinct advantage in another area. By that, I mean having Magic's skillset or just being an absolute athlete (Russell Westbrook). Other than that, I don't see how you can survive and be a top PG. Rondo survived only because he had KG, Pierce, and Allen on his side. He hasn't done well since.

All I have to say is: Seriously, WTF?


The guy played like 19 seasons, and you don't think he shot enough to know if he was a good shooter?

He shot OVER .500 on his career, taking double-digit FGs for about half those seasons and averaging 9 shots per game on his career. He shot .384 from beyond the arc, and posted .400+ seasons SEVEN times (his first few seasons were slow in that respect because the 3-point line had just been introduced and coaches didn't use it much).

He took a total of 13658 shots and made over 7000 of them, and you don't think that's enough to gauge whether or not he was a great shooter?

WOW!!

Here's what a great shooting point guard does: he creates shots. If he has the best shot, he takes, if somebody else has it, he gives the ball to that person. Half of being a 'good' shooter is knowing when to take a shot and when not to. Stockton knew when to take the shot and when to pass it. And you are going to say because he wasn't a ball hog that he wasn't a good shooter? I don't even fawking understand that logic. Basically, you are saying if he jacked up more $#!TTY shot, then he might be a good shooter?



please...

Stockton averaged over .500 from the floor, and outside of his first couple of seasons, over .400 from behind the arc. If that isn't good shooting, then I know absolutely fawking nothing about basketball.

I;m curious as to how you measure good shooting. I suppose Kyle Korver is $#!Te because he's only averaged 7.8 shots a game and never has to create his own shot like Stockton, he just waits for somebody to kick it to him when the defense breaks down and then buries the three.

WOW!! Just wow.

TheNumber37
08-24-2015, 07:36 PM
Yeah. The bench

Seriously though, everything else has to be well above average, rebounding, defense. Assist, health

If you can't shoot, be an a walking triple double threat. Gotta average like 12, 9 and 6 with great D and be surrounded by shooters.

THE MTL
08-24-2015, 07:45 PM
We are in the golden age of the point guard. Its not that the Rondos and Rubios have no place in the league. The problem is that we easily have 15 other pgs in the league that can score, pass, defend, run an offense. And today's game is about spacing, your pgs that are at least a 3pt threat will get a significant amount of more space to operate an offense.

You don't have to be a shooting threat, but a scoring threat is starting to become very important at the PG position.

flea
08-24-2015, 07:50 PM
Lebron can't shoot and he's done a fine job playing PG for most of his teams' possessions. Same with Westbrook, Rose, etc. There is nothing new in league - you always needed shooting off the ball to win anything. The only difference is teams are trying to get shooting from their forwards and bigs so that their slashing guards work. In the hand-check era someone like Derek Harper would just shove him arm into Westbrick's chest and watch him chuck contested 15 footers all day.

ManRam
08-24-2015, 07:55 PM
They have a place in the league, it's just always better to have a more complete player over a less complete player :shrug: A PG that can handle all the stereotypical (see: archaic) PG duties AND help with floor spacing is obviously much more of a weapon than one that can't. Plus, NBA offenses that are overly reliant on a one-dimensional PGs to do the bulk of the handling and creating are just too simple and predictable.

I love Elfrid Payton...I'd love him so much more if he could shoot at all. It will severely limit his ceiling if he can't, but at the same time it doesn't mean he won't make it. Just gotta find the right pieces to fit with a player like that. Why just be content with the scoring-deficient "pass-first" PG? That never made sense to me. Give me dynamic.

JasonJohnHorn
08-24-2015, 09:16 PM
Lebron can't shoot and he's done a fine job playing PG for most of his teams' possessions.

A guy who shot .406 from behidn the arc, shot .354 this past season (at a clip of 5 a game with defense focused on him), and has shot .348 on his career can't shoot?

Am I in some bizaro world right now? I realize his mid-range jumper isn't as great as it could be, but it solid, and his ability to finish at the basket is amazing, and his has a stellar long-range game, specially when you consider the attention he gts from defenses.

flea
08-24-2015, 09:27 PM
A guy who shot .406 from behidn the arc, shot .354 this past season (at a clip of 5 a game with defense focused on him), and has shot .348 on his career can't shoot?

Am I in some bizaro world right now? I realize his mid-range jumper isn't as great as it could be, but it solid, and his ability to finish at the basket is amazing, and his has a stellar long-range game, specially when you consider the attention he gts from defenses.

Lebron developed a few spots on the court he can consistently hit open shots. He's a very smart player, Magic did the same thing (he became a serious set shot threat from the elbows). But no, he is not a good shooter. You'll rarely see him take shots with his body moving except at close range, and the long range shots he take generally are wide open.

He shot 40% in a 5-out offense that made defenses have no inside resistance, and most of his shots come from the same place on the court. That doesn't make you a good shooter, it makes you an effective one for a high-usage slasher. If teams gladly give you an open jumpshot in the NBA playoffs, you are not a good shooter.

Chronz
08-24-2015, 10:11 PM
If teams gladly give you an open jumpshot in the NBA playoffs, you are not a good shooter.
They do if you're the preeminent slasher and have no choice. Also, Bron eventually figured them out and torched them from long range. They didn't give him the same treatment in their rematch and just shut everyone else down.

flea
08-24-2015, 10:19 PM
Won't argue that Lebron's the best slasher at least since MJ, and maybe 2nd best all time. But there are other non-shooting guards that can cut into defenses as well as he can (though certainly scoring in the process) that will remain effective NBA starters even now. Someone else mentioned Kidd, yeah he became a pretty effective shooters into his career like Lebron. But nobody ever called him a "good shooter" unless they were speaking very loosely.

JasonJohnHorn
08-24-2015, 10:34 PM
Won't argue that Lebron's the best slasher at least since MJ, and maybe 2nd best all time. But there are other non-shooting guards that can cut into defenses as well as he can (though certainly scoring in the process) that will remain effective NBA starters even now. Someone else mentioned Kidd, yeah he became a pretty effective shooters into his career like Lebron. But nobody ever called him a "good shooter" unless they were speaking very loosely.

I mentioned Kidd myself; he was a bad shooter likely until the end of his tenure in NJ. NJ put a lot on his shoulders; teams before that let other guys do the scoring. By the time he left NJ, he developed a 3-point shot (I think because he knew he needed a shot if he was going to stay in the league much past the age of 32).

But yeah... whether LBJ is a good shooter or not, the point remains that a point guard who isn't a good shooter has a place in the league if he is also a great defender and playmaker, and as long as he can put pressure on defenders with his drive and/or the pick-and-roll.

Kidd proved it. Rondo proved it. You can win a championship with that kind of point guard. I mean, I remember watching the Celtics with Rondo and people were literally giving Rondo five feet of space when he was at the 3-point line, and he still made it work and was a huge part of their success in preceding playoff runs.

Chronz
08-24-2015, 10:55 PM
I mentioned Kidd myself; he was a bad shooter likely until the end of his tenure in NJ. NJ put a lot on his shoulders; teams before that let other guys do the scoring. By the time he left NJ, he developed a 3-point shot (I think because he knew he needed a shot if he was going to stay in the league much past the age of 32).

But yeah... whether LBJ is a good shooter or not, the point remains that a point guard who isn't a good shooter has a place in the league if he is also a great defender and playmaker, and as long as he can put pressure on defenders with his drive and/or the pick-and-roll.

Kidd proved it. Rondo proved it. You can win a championship with that kind of point guard. I mean, I remember watching the Celtics with Rondo and people were literally giving Rondo five feet of space when he was at the 3-point line, and he still made it work and was a huge part of their success in preceding playoff runs.

I think the fact that you can only win with them playing such minor roles in their teams success kind of proves how important shooting is. Tony Parker would be a better hallmark for success with non-shooting PG's and even he became a deadly mid range scorer.

Chronz
08-24-2015, 10:58 PM
Also I think we exaggerate how much Kidd improved as a shooter. He did get better but he took alot more set shots in Dallas. Their scouts already knew he was very good when set, he became a better shooter at some point in Jersey.

Sadds The Gr8
08-24-2015, 10:58 PM
Yes they do if they're great slashers like wall and Westbrook

Rondo and Rubio can't drive or shoot that's why they kill offenses

ewing
08-24-2015, 11:52 PM
They do if you're the preeminent slasher and have no choice. Also, Bron eventually figured them out and torched them from long range. They didn't give him the same treatment in their rematch and just shut everyone else down.

no they do if you don't make it. If you start making it they get out :shrug:

IndyRealist
08-25-2015, 09:17 PM
We are in the golden age of the point guard. Its not that the Rondos and Rubios have no place in the league. The problem is that we easily have 15 other pgs in the league that can score, pass, defend, run an offense. And today's game is about spacing, your pgs that are at least a 3pt threat will get a significant amount of more space to operate an offense.

You don't have to be a shooting threat, but a scoring threat is starting to become very important at the PG position.

I would disagree that there are 15 PGs that can do ALL of those at a high level, specifically defend.

Jeffy25
08-26-2015, 04:01 AM
I guess it depends on your roster. But I think you can get by with a defensive first PG who dime drops as long as you have enough other shooters and scorers.

But being at least average at shooting if you are a starting PG, seems really important. But you can get away with it as long as you have the right set up.

Rondo with Pierce and Garnett wasn't a bad setup. Rondo without other good scorers is useless.

kingsdelez24
08-26-2015, 07:49 AM
Everyone also forgets how Rondo dropped 44 on the Heat after they gave him a couple of opwn jumpers that got him into a good rhythm, which got him knocking down threes late in the game.

They're all pro's out there.

Rondo benefited the big three early on, but their later schemes had the big three being the benefactor of a high I.Q player like Rondo.

His defense was much improved while he was on Dallas, even doing a decent job on Harden in game 1 until he and Carlisle blew up a final time, his offense just suffered because their offense was set around pace and space, with Carlisle directing the offense. (something probably get accustomed to if you had to start Mike James over Darren Collison or Roddy Beaubois over their inability to listen lol). That basically eliminated Rondo's ability to drive and create for others.

Rondo now has a lenient, "do anything for his job" Karl, with plenty of added shooters and ample vets that can somewhat defend, let alone Boogie Cousins. Rondo will thrive again

Chronz
08-26-2015, 02:29 PM
I never felt the Big-3 really benefited much from Rondo, aside from him saving their legs for the playoffs. Rondo clearly stunted their offense IMO, whenever he was gone they just ran more Post ups for KG (which they couldn't with Rondo) and more PnR with Paul Pierce (his assists skyrocketed without Rondo). Their offense was in many games better without Rondo around but that prolly isn't sustainable given their age, so that was his biggest contribution but on a younger team, the Celtics were at their best when Rondo wasn't siphoning their stats.

Tony_Starks
08-26-2015, 03:15 PM
They certainly can't be your first option but a guy who is a dime dropper and plays a little D absolutely has a place in the NBA


My first thought as well. If you can be a lock down defender and distribute, that's still a very effective starting pg. Even somebody like Beverly who doesn't even really drop dimes is a very effective pg next to a volume scorer.

Hawkeye15
08-26-2015, 05:54 PM
I think the fact that you can only win with them playing such minor roles in their teams success kind of proves how important shooting is. Tony Parker would be a better hallmark for success with non-shooting PG's and even he became a deadly mid range scorer.

non-shooting PG's can thrive if they are elite finishers, but outside that, need scorers on their team to really help. Rubio is a weird case study, the team is obviously better with him playing, but he can't score from anywhere. Defense/rebounding/distributing maybe

Scoots
08-27-2015, 01:00 AM
In limited minutes Shaun Livingston was very successful running the Warriors offense. Good D, and the Warriors best post scorer. I think it worked with him because usually when he was out there everyone else on the floor were slashers or shooters and the pace was being pushed fairly hard against opponents backups and Livingston was just focusing on moving the ball side to side and high to low ... but he was generally very effective but not as a scorer most of the time.

slashsnake
08-27-2015, 02:31 AM
In the right situation.... Rondo a few years ago before the injuries and head issues. sure. But needed shooters and scorers around him. Just like a great shooter may need defenders and distributors around him.

Yeah Rondo might go all world and go 10-12 outside the paint for 44 points one night. But the next couple games he shot 0-6 outside the paint, and defensively you still didn't have to press him. Outside of that game he shot 28% in the series outside the paint. So if he pulls one out where he torches you, you hope for the best and figure that's it. And it usually is. But his defense, rebounding, driving, distributing make him a + that's good enough with other talent to win.

hugepatsfan
08-28-2015, 10:24 AM
To win with a PG like Rondo you need a team full of players that can excel off the ball. BOS had guys who could do that. The Big 3 shot career bests from the field as they were aging because they knew how to adjust their games to let Rondo have the ball and not be an offensive liability. Not all players can do that and TBH, I think most can't. I think league-wide playing off the ball is a lacking skill. Guys like Rondo can thrive with that type of team but it's smashing your head into a wall trying to build like that. The way to do it IMO is to run a balanced attack where everyone gets their touches within the flow of the offense. Unless you have a guy like Lebron or a few other guys that are just so good you let them go to work and tell everyone else to just shoot if you're open.

M.I.A.
08-28-2015, 10:48 AM
A PG these days needs to be able to drive to the basket to create passing lanes and either score himself or pass the ball to someone else who can score. 3 point accuracy is super but not necessary if someone else on the team is good at the 3 pt shot. Also, a PG has to be able to hit the mid range jumpers. Sometimes nobody gets open for a good shot in 24 seconds so a PG needs to make things happen himself. Force the defense to commit however possible to do so.

FlashBolt
08-28-2015, 04:22 PM
All I have to say is: Seriously, WTF?


The guy played like 19 seasons, and you don't think he shot enough to know if he was a good shooter?

He shot OVER .500 on his career, taking double-digit FGs for about half those seasons and averaging 9 shots per game on his career. He shot .384 from beyond the arc, and posted .400+ seasons SEVEN times (his first few seasons were slow in that respect because the 3-point line had just been introduced and coaches didn't use it much).

He took a total of 13658 shots and made over 7000 of them, and you don't think that's enough to gauge whether or not he was a great shooter?

WOW!!

Here's what a great shooting point guard does: he creates shots. If he has the best shot, he takes, if somebody else has it, he gives the ball to that person. Half of being a 'good' shooter is knowing when to take a shot and when not to. Stockton knew when to take the shot and when to pass it. And you are going to say because he wasn't a ball hog that he wasn't a good shooter? I don't even fawking understand that logic. Basically, you are saying if he jacked up more $#!TTY shot, then he might be a good shooter?



please...

Stockton averaged over .500 from the floor, and outside of his first couple of seasons, over .400 from behind the arc. If that isn't good shooting, then I know absolutely fawking nothing about basketball.

I;m curious as to how you measure good shooting. I suppose Kyle Korver is $#!Te because he's only averaged 7.8 shots a game and never has to create his own shot like Stockton, he just waits for somebody to kick it to him when the defense breaks down and then buries the three.

WOW!! Just wow.

I was purely talking about the three P%. If you meant long range shots, I agree with you. If you read my post, you would see that I was talking about three point shooting.

JAZZNC
08-29-2015, 04:06 PM
All I have to say is: Seriously, WTF?


The guy played like 19 seasons, and you don't think he shot enough to know if he was a good shooter?

He shot OVER .500 on his career, taking double-digit FGs for about half those seasons and averaging 9 shots per game on his career. He shot .384 from beyond the arc, and posted .400+ seasons SEVEN times (his first few seasons were slow in that respect because the 3-point line had just been introduced and coaches didn't use it much).

He took a total of 13658 shots and made over 7000 of them, and you don't think that's enough to gauge whether or not he was a great shooter?

WOW!!

Here's what a great shooting point guard does: he creates shots. If he has the best shot, he takes, if somebody else has it, he gives the ball to that person. Half of being a 'good' shooter is knowing when to take a shot and when not to. Stockton knew when to take the shot and when to pass it. And you are going to say because he wasn't a ball hog that he wasn't a good shooter? I don't even fawking understand that logic. Basically, you are saying if he jacked up more $#!TTY shot, then he might be a good shooter?



please...

Stockton averaged over .500 from the floor, and outside of his first couple of seasons, over .400 from behind the arc. If that isn't good shooting, then I know absolutely fawking nothing about basketball.

I;m curious as to how you measure good shooting. I suppose Kyle Korver is $#!Te because he's only averaged 7.8 shots a game and never has to create his own shot like Stockton, he just waits for somebody to kick it to him when the defense breaks down and then buries the three.

WOW!! Just wow.

Yes!!!!! JasonJohnHorn for the win!

JAZZNC
08-29-2015, 04:09 PM
I was purely talking about the three P%. If you meant long range shots, I agree with you. If you read my post, you would see that I was talking about three point shooting.

Even 3pt% it's ridiculous to say he didn't shoot enough to tell if he was a good shooter. He was an excellent shooter, deadly on the pull up 3 in transition. Just because he didn't Jack up stupid shots all the time doesn't make him a poor shooter, that's actually what you want in a PG is elite decision making.