PDA

View Full Version : Shooting - Ridiculous Opinions And Underrated Shooting - Jordan



NetsPaint
03-02-2016, 09:40 PM
One of the most dubious opinions is the "pure shooter" opinion. On ESPN First Take recently one of the guests or non-regulars said Klay is the best shooter in the NBA when talking about the Warriors. I don't get this "pure" crap, and Steph is the best, period. Creating his own, being created for, spotting up, insanely deep threes, mid-range, lay-ups, circus shots, can do it all. You'd THINK with how much ahead Curry is with his shooting compared to other players that this would lay the "pure shooter" thing to rest.

Also, to me, shooting is more than just about the three ball. If somebody's amazing inside the arc, they should be in the discussion of greatest shooters of all-time. Difficult lay-ups could be much harder than three pointers. It all depends. Lay-ups are still shots. I put Jordan in the title, not because it's specifically about him, I'm using him as an example. His mid-range fadeway was money. A lot of work and confidence goes into those shots. Could Jordan have been one of the greatest shooters of all-time? Players who were great inside-the-arc shooters and also players who were versatile on offense shouldn't be excluded from the greatest shooters list.

Any players who you think should be up there with there among the shooters elite who weren't great three point shooters?

Any other ridiculous opinions people have like the "pure shooter" opinion?

JasonJohnHorn
03-03-2016, 09:26 PM
Jordan was a great shooter, but not among the greats. The mid-range/fadaway was his signature move, but he had a strong pull-up jumper as well that he doesn't get as much credit for. He was also great at shooting with significant pressure on him. You put the kind of one-on-one pressure (or two-on-one pressure) that Jordan had on Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, and Klay, they would struggle to even get a shot off, let alone hit it. However, Jordan never had consistency when it came to range. He was over .400 one year, and under .300 two years later, and would go up and down from .370 to .270 and back to .370. It wasn't a shot that could be counted on from season to season.


When you talk about shooters, you have to create categories. There are guys who are great three-point shooters, but they have a measured, rhythmic shot. You put them a foot inside the arc, or a foot behind the arc, you you give them something othe than a corner three (I'm thinking of Bruce Bowen here) and they will struggle.

Like LBJ: in Miami he was getting a lot of 3's in a specific spot and hitting them, but elsewhere his shooting was embarrassing.

There are catch-and-shoot guys who come off screens. Pull up jumpers. Guy who create a shot while making space between them and the defender. Each of these is a different skill set.


Who had a combination of all of them? Ray Allen could create his own shot, but he was sweet coming off screens, and could shot inside or outside the arc.

If you are looking at each of those skills, the guys that come to mind are Larry Bird, Kevin Durant, and Steph Curry. You are talking about guys who can create space and put up a shot , guys with a killer three, guys with killer FTs, guys who could come off screen, and guy who could put a dagger in on a pull up jumper (though I don't remember Bird doing that often).

Jordan is better than anybody I've seen at creating space and drilling a jumper home, but I don't remember him being a catch-and-shoot kind of guy, and his long-range shot was inconsistent.


Still, nobody I saw had a better mid-range jumper.

Scoots
03-03-2016, 09:39 PM
"Pure shooter" I think often just means "That dude is good at outside shooting, but that's pretty much ALL HE DOES". It's like damning with faint praise.

Klay's shot mechanics is one of the more "perfect" in the NBA in that it's the textbook example of how to shoot a jump shot. Steph's criticized for his shot mechanics and that he shoots "from the hip".

Steph is crazy effective but Klay's is "prettier" and "perfect".

To me, Steph's works better and leaves faster and higher ... Steph's is the new "perfect" but chances are most shot coaches are not teaching Steph's style ... yet.

tredigs
03-03-2016, 09:46 PM
^Just to bring up MJ's 3pt shooting looking inconsistent, frankly it's because he wasn't a great 3pt shooter until the line was brought in closer for 3 seasons (his best 3pt seasons by far). He shot 40.4% from 3 during that span (Kerr shot almost 50% from three in that span. Also career high volume/%'s for him). When it got moved back the following year, MJ shot 23.8% from 3.

As you said though, he was absurdly good from mid-range and could do so in a variety of ways and against essentially any type of defense. He was also incredible around the basket with his ability to double clutch + change his shot mid air and still nail them at a high percentage. Also, a solid but not great foul shooter. He wouldn't be somebody I would bring up in a "greatest shooters ever" discussion, though. That belongs to guys like Bird/Dirk/West/Miller/Curry. Guys who could score from both varying distances at an ultra high percentage under intense defense. The three ball is far from the end-all, but it's certainly a huge distinction that has to be elite for that player to be among the "greatest shooters of all time" discussion (West gets a bye here).

Gander13SM
03-03-2016, 10:00 PM
Sorry but if you can't shoot threes you're not a good shooter. You need to be able to shoot from a variety of distances at good %

I think you're confusing shooter with scorer.

Jordan was never a great shooter. He had a nice mid range game but he couldn't shoot beyond the arc with much consistency (for the most part). He was, however, one of the greatest scorers ever.

Being a pure shooter and a pure scorer are not the same thing.

As for Klay, it's probably because his shot is absolutely text book. It is by far the prettiest shot I've seen in over a decade.

effen5
03-03-2016, 10:11 PM
"Nice mid game range"

:laugh:

And Jordan purposely did not want to shoot 3s.

Kush McDaniels
03-03-2016, 10:22 PM
Sorry but if you can't shoot threes you're not a good shooter. You need to be able to shoot from a variety of distances at good %

I think you're confusing shooter with scorer.

Jordan was never a great shooter. He had a nice mid range game but he couldn't shoot beyond the arc with much consistency (for the most part). He was, however, one of the greatest scorers ever.

Being a pure shooter and a pure scorer are not the same thing.

As for Klay, it's probably because his shot is absolutely text book. It is by far the prettiest shot I've seen in over a decade.

I wouldn't say that. Threes were a novelty for much of the NBA's history, but that doesn't mean that Jerry West, Alex English, MJ, etc weren't shooters. The long ball has a greater importance in today's game, but being able to shoot long 2's in the past were important, and it's not an easy shot to make. Bruce Bowen could make a corner 3, but he's not any more of a shooter than MJ.

Gander13SM
03-03-2016, 10:38 PM
I wouldn't say that. Threes were a novelty for much of the NBA's history, but that doesn't mean that Jerry West, Alex English, MJ, etc weren't shooters. The long ball has a greater importance in today's game, but being able to shoot long 2's in the past were important, and it's not an easy shot to make. Bruce Bowen could make a corner 3, but he's not any more of a shooter than MJ.

Obviously when you go back to before the 3pt line existed you have to make a judgement call.

But after it was introduced it's clear to see. I mean we know guys like Bird could shoot 3s at a deadly % even if they didn't do it a lot, just look at the all star weekends.

There's nobody in history you will find as a consensous "GOAT shooter" that didn't display ridiculous range at some point.

Jordan is no more of a "shooter" than LeBron is.

MJ was a scorer.

Gander13SM
03-03-2016, 10:39 PM
"Nice mid game range"

:laugh:

And Jordan purposely did not want to shoot 3s.

Because he couldn't.

Everyone avoids shots they can't make on purpose.

And he did have a really nice mid range game, I don't see what's funny about that. Are you too young to remember him? He was a great mid range shooter.

tredigs
03-03-2016, 10:46 PM
"Nice mid game range"

:laugh:

And Jordan purposely did not want to shoot 3s.
Did he also purposely miss the 1500 he attempted that did not fall?

Would you include him among the great shooters of All Time? Do you put his shooting ability above Birds?

tredigs
03-03-2016, 10:52 PM
The three seasons the 3pt line was brought in, Jordan attempted his most 3's per game and made them at his highest clip. It became a part of his game that he could trust. When they moved the line back out, he backed off his attempts and couldn't hit the side of the backboard again.

Don't believe Jordan himself, he wanted to take 3's, he was just not good at them from the regular distance (30.1% career from three before the line was moved in).

Stunner
03-03-2016, 10:55 PM
"Nice mid game range"

:laugh:

And Jordan purposely did not want to shoot 3s.

He was quoted " I wasn't a great 3 point shooter because he chose not to be " [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

ewing
03-04-2016, 12:12 AM
you go to the courts and see Ray Allen or Klay Thompson pick up the ball shoot a jump shot you think "**** that homie can shoot". You think this even if he misses. That's "pure". That's all it means.

ewing
03-04-2016, 12:18 AM
Look at JJ and Reggie Miller. JJ is pure. He looks like he was born that way or drilled form to death. Reggie not so much but JJ is still VJ compared to Miller. He just has a funny looking shot. Pure is about shooting the ball the way its supposed to be shot

Scoots
03-04-2016, 12:32 AM
Reggie hit his arms together and scissor kicked half the time but still managed a reasonable percentage. Do everything wrong and have it work anyhow.

NetsPaint
03-04-2016, 03:42 AM
Sorry but if you can't shoot threes you're not a good shooter. You need to be able to shoot from a variety of distances at good %

I think you're confusing shooter with scorer.

Jordan was never a great shooter. He had a nice mid range game but he couldn't shoot beyond the arc with much consistency (for the most part). He was, however, one of the greatest scorers ever.

Being a pure shooter and a pure scorer are not the same thing.

As for Klay, it's probably because his shot is absolutely text book. It is by far the prettiest shot I've seen in over a decade.
Here we go again. This doesn't make sense. This is just you saying he can do a variety of types of scoring so he's not a good shooter. I saw some of Jordan as a kid, not a lot, and I've seen him on YouTube, so help me out here. Didn't he does a lot of mid-range in a lot of games? What does is it matter if he mixed it up a lot? The reverse lay-up SHOTS he took and made were more difficult than a lot of three point attempts. A few years ago a lot of people said Melo was a better scorer than LeBron, and I don't think Melo even averaged as many points as LeBron. It doesn't matter how you get it, as long as you get it. And in this instance, LeBron was the better player so I don't even see how the argument is made.

tredigs
03-04-2016, 04:59 AM
Here we go again. This doesn't make sense. This is just you saying he can do a variety of types of scoring so he's not a good shooter. I saw some of Jordan as a kid, not a lot, and I've seen him on YouTube, so help me out here. Didn't he does a lot of mid-range in a lot of games? What does is it matter if he mixed it up a lot? The reverse lay-up SHOTS he took and made were more difficult than a lot of three point attempts. A few years ago a lot of people said Melo was a better scorer than LeBron, and I don't think Melo even averaged as many points as LeBron. It doesn't matter how you get it, as long as you get it. And in this instance, LeBron was the better player so I don't even see how the argument is made.

By your argument, Shaq and Wilt were two of the greatest shooters in NBA history.

Suffice to say, you do not see this in the same light as most other people do. Scoring and shooting are not the same thing, but to be among the greatest shooters of all time, obviously you also have to be among the leagues greatest scorers of all time. The same is not necessarily the case for the games greatest scorers of all time (yes, a dunk is a "shot", but you're missing the point of the debate).

NetsPaint
03-04-2016, 06:09 AM
By your argument, Shaq and Wilt were two of the greatest shooters in NBA history.

Suffice to say, you do not see this in the same light as most other people do. Scoring and shooting are not the same thing, but to be among the greatest shooters of all time, obviously you also have to be among the leagues greatest scorers of all time. The same is not necessarily the case for the games greatest scorers of all time (yes, a dunk is a "shot", but you're missing the point of the debate).
Shaq for example is different though. He was great at using his size and force to get his points in. Now, yes, it does count as shooting, but a big guy that close to the basket I wouldn't consider a great shooting, unless he was hitting crazy circus shots. Also they weren't good free throw shooters.

So what's the definition of scorer then? Jordan and Kobe sure as heck aren't like Shaq and Wilt, but you can't find guys at your local park nailing mid-range shots like them. If a great scorer, such as Jordan, primarily hit mid-range shots set-up by another player, then yes, he could shoot, but that would have to do more with the playmaker. Jordan created on his own, and could do it with high difficulty. If the fadeaway was almost all that he was doing, would you then consider him a great shooter? Is him being a versatile scorer what makes him not a great shooter? I'm not making an argument of him being an all-time top shooter, but I think he could be.

Kyle Korver is a shooter, right? Aside from some nice passes, that's pretty much his offense. Running around and hitting threes. He's still a scorer. Doesn't score a lot, but he is. He's not an elite scorer, but, he's there to score, not to shoot, well he is there to shoot, but he's not there to shoot at someone's head in the fifteenth row. Are you gonna run with the ABC crew saying Rondo's "quarterback" thing as being something actually different than a PG who assists? Yes, there are different types of PGs, but there are different types of shooters.

effen5
03-04-2016, 08:48 AM
Because he couldn't.

Everyone avoids shots they can't make on purpose.

And he did have a really nice mid range game, I don't see what's funny about that. Are you too young to remember him? He was a great mid range shooter.

He's said he didn't want to excel from 3s.
https://youtu.be/c2CyJdCq-zU

And no he didn't have just a nice mid range...he had a dominant mid range game.

I guess you're too young to remember how unstoppable his fade away was.

Gander13SM
03-04-2016, 03:06 PM
He's said he didn't want to excel from 3s.
https://youtu.be/c2CyJdCq-zU

And no he didn't have just a nice mid range...he had a dominant mid range game.

I guess you're too young to remember how unstoppable his fade away was.

Lmao. You're mad because of my choice of adjective? Gtfo.

And who cares what he said? If you're old enough to remember watching him play you know he wasn't a good 3pt shooter.

Jordan was not a GOAT shooter. He had a nice mid range game but that's it. And that's not enough to be a GOAT shooter.

If Curry came out and said "I just didn't want to excel in poster dunks" would you be stupid enough to believe him?

Take the homer glasses off. Jordan was never a shooter. He was a scorer.

effen5
03-04-2016, 03:11 PM
Lmao. You're mad because of my choice of adjective? Gtfo.

And who cares what he said? If you're old enough to remember watching him play you know he wasn't a good 3pt shooter.

Jordan was not a GOAT shooter. He had a nice mid range game but that's it. And that's not enough to be a GOAT shooter.

If Curry came out and said "I just didn't want to excel in poster dunks" would you be stupid enough to believe him?

Take the homer glasses off. Jordan was never a shooter. He was a scorer.

So fadeaway jumpers are now only considered as scoring and not shooting? Are you out of your ****ing mind.

And when Jordan said he doesn't want to excel at threes, that means he doesn't practice that shot. If he practiced it as much as he practiced in his mid game, he would be a good shooter. Do you doubt that? And his mid game range was a little better than "nice"

SLY WILLIAMS
03-04-2016, 03:19 PM
Jordan was a great in game shooter. By that I mean he could shoot as well as anyone while having 1-3 guys hacking him or hanging all over him. He was strong and had the fundamentals to fight through the contact and still convert. Jordan would not be the best shooter if you had him shoot a lot of wide open shots from 3 point. That is a totally different category of shooter. Guys like Kerr or even Curry were better from the 3 point line while Jordan would likely shoot better than them from 2 point range.

Gander13SM
03-04-2016, 03:21 PM
So fadeaway jumpers are now only considered as scoring and not shooting? Are you out of your ****ing mind.

And when Jordan said he doesn't want to excel at threes, that means he doesn't practice that shot. If he practiced it as much as he practiced in his mid game, he would be a good shooter. Do you doubt that? And his mid game range was a little better than "nice"

I don't see why you're so offended by my word choice. He had a nice mid range game. That's a compliment. Just like Olajuwon had a nice post game or Pippen was a nice defender. Don't know why you have an issue with this.

And please read my posts before replying. I already stated to be a great shooter you need to be making shots from. A variety of distances and areas at a high %

MJ didn't do that.

What is it with Jordan lovers that need people to say he's the greatest at everything? He wasn't perfect. I've been trying to keep the peace by saying he didn't excel as a shooter but the truth is he was a TERRIBLE three point shooter. He was vastly overrated in that sense. Mostly by youngsters who weren't around to see him play or homers who think he was perfect at everything.

And yes. I doubt everything you're saying. He couldn't shoot 3s. That's why he didn't. Simple.

One of the greatest scorers ever. Nowhere near one of the greatest shooters though. Not even one of the greatest of his time never mind all time.

effen5
03-04-2016, 03:25 PM
I don't see why you're so offended by my word choice. He had a nice mid range game. That's a compliment. Just like Olajuwon had a nice post game or Pippen was a nice defender. Don't know why you have an issue with this.

And please read my posts before replying. I already stated to be a great shooter you need to be making shots from. A variety of distances and areas at a high %

MJ didn't do that.

What is it with Jordan lovers that need people to say he's the greatest at everything? He wasn't perfect. I've been trying to keep the peace by saying he didn't excel as a shooter but the truth is he was a TERRIBLE three point shooter. He was vastly overrated in that sense. Mostly by youngsters who weren't around to see him play or homers who think he was perfect at everything.

And yes. I doubt everything you're saying. He couldn't shoot 3s. That's why he didn't. Simple.

One of the greatest scorers ever. Nowhere near one of the greatest shooters though. Not even one of the greatest of his time never mind all time.

Um did you just make that up? Rip Hamilton was a great jump shooter, especially off the screen, but he didn't shoot the 3 ball much, does that make him not a great jump shooter? Your definition is flawed.

And guess what, you shouldn't doubt that. Jordan's mid game jumper wasn't great when he first joined the league. But he worked on it which became extremely dominant and unstoppable. If he worked on the 3, he would have been a good 3 point shooter.

and most of the youngesters on this board haven't seen Jordan play. I did. I was at the 70th win in the 95/96 game up in Milwaukee. I know he wasn't a great 3 point shooter but again, that wasn't part of his game and he didn't work on it. But that doesn't mean he isn't a good shooter.

MassoDio
03-04-2016, 04:30 PM
I don't see why you're so offended by my word choice. He had a nice mid range game. That's a compliment. Just like Olajuwon had a nice post game or Pippen was a nice defender. Don't know why you have an issue with this.

And please read my posts before replying. I already stated to be a great shooter you need to be making shots from. A variety of distances and areas at a high %

MJ didn't do that.

What is it with Jordan lovers that need people to say he's the greatest at everything? He wasn't perfect. I've been trying to keep the peace by saying he didn't excel as a shooter but the truth is he was a TERRIBLE three point shooter. He was vastly overrated in that sense. Mostly by youngsters who weren't around to see him play or homers who think he was perfect at everything.

And yes. I doubt everything you're saying. He couldn't shoot 3s. That's why he didn't. Simple.

One of the greatest scorers ever. Nowhere near one of the greatest shooters though. Not even one of the greatest of his time never mind all time.

Wait...wait...wait.

So based on what you are saying about Jordan, the only thing that kept him from being a great shooter was his 'inability" to shoot 3's. But your definition states that in order to be a great shooter, you need to be able to make shots from a variety of distances at a high percentage. There are a "variety" of distances all inside the 3 point line. Jordan shot high percentages in all of them. The 3 was the only place that he didn't shoot a high percentage. So by your own definition, he would be considered a great shooter. You are faulting him for one area, trying to condemn him, and then giving a definition that doesn't hold up to your own argument.

As far as the topic goes....

The term "pure shooter" is a generic term that is used to describe a guy who has a pretty shot and can shoot from three. It really means nothing in an overall context. It does not correlate to whether or not a guy is actually a good player.

Was Jordan a "pure shooter"? No
Was Jordan a great shooter? Yes
Was Jordan one of the best shooters of all time? No
Was he one of the best scorers of all time? Yes

Just because he wasn't one of the best shooters of all time, and just because he could not shoot 3's, does not mean that he was not a great shooter. That is ridiculous. There are many, many areas of the court inside the 3 point line that is still a jump shot. Jordan excelled at all of them. To say that shooting a high percentage from 30 feet makes you a great shooter, but if you can make 50% or more of the shots inside of that distance, but just not once you get past that distance...then you aren't a great shooter....is...well....sort of short sighted.

Gander13SM
03-04-2016, 04:57 PM
Wait...wait...wait.

So based on what you are saying about Jordan, the only thing that kept him from being a great shooter was his 'inability" to shoot 3's.

Yes. Absolutely.

I take the Kevin McHale stance on this, if you can shoot long 2s but you can't take one step out and knock down a three you're not an elite shooter.

FOXHOUND
03-04-2016, 04:58 PM
To me, the term pure shooting is just about that. If you're wide open, how often are you going to knock it down? From how many different places? How far a distance? How consistently? In that sense, you have guys like Klay, Ray Allen etc who are great pure shooters. Guys like Jordan and Kobe, I wouldn't classify that way. Obviously very good shooters in their own right, but more great scorers than anything. In an NBA game you're not going to get many wide open set shots so you have to be able to shoot in the flow of an actual game.

That's something that separates the shooting between an incredible pure shooter like Steve Novak and someone like Dwyane Wade. In a jump shooting game of horse, Novak would destroy Wade. In a game of actual basketball, obviously Wade is going to shoot more successfully because Novak would barely be able to get a shot off vs Wade lol.

Guys like Jordan and Kobe, you'll never see them in a 3 point shooting contest, where as someone like Steve Novak has participated. That's what the term means, to me.

FOXHOUND
03-04-2016, 05:07 PM
Yes. Absolutely.

I take the Kevin McHale stance on this, if you can shoot long 2s but you can't take one step out and knock down a three you're not an elite shooter.

I think what the modern NBA has proven about shooting, more than anything, is that NBA players and their abilities can easily be underestimated by us fans. Look around the NBA, look how many bigs are shooting good from 3.

Pau Gasol is a career 30% shooter from 3 who has shot 38% this year and 46% last year, albeit on small volume. Compare Luis Scola of old, who never averaged a good % or more than 0.2 attempts ever, to him this year taking 1.8 a game at a 38% clip. DeMarcus Cousins is shooting 35% from 3 on the season on 3.3 attempts overall, but an astonishing 41% on 3 attempts since the turn of the new year.

Between Jordan's work ethic and shooting ability displayed elsewhere, there is no doubt that he could have become a good shooter from 3 if he focused on it. In the 92 and 93 Finals Jordan shot 12-28 (.429) in 6 games and 10-25 (.400) in 6 games from 3. Small sample sizes, of course, but it's not like he never showed any ability to hit a 3 beyond those seasons with the shortened line.

Gander13SM
03-04-2016, 05:16 PM
I think what the modern NBA has proven about shooting, more than anything, is that NBA players and their abilities can easily be underestimated by us fans. Look around the NBA, look how many bigs are shooting good from 3.

Pau Gasol is a career 30% shooter from 3 who has shot 38% this year and 46% last year, albeit on small volume. Compare Luis Scola of old, who never averaged a good % or more than 0.2 attempts ever, to him this year taking 1.8 a game at a 38% clip. DeMarcus Cousins is shooting 35% from 3 on the season on 3.3 attempts overall, but an astonishing 41% on 3 attempts since the turn of the new year.

Between Jordan's work ethic and shooting ability displayed elsewhere, there is no doubt that he could have become a good shooter from 3 if he focused on it. In the 92 and 93 Finals Jordan shot 12-28 (.429) in 6 games and 10-25 (.400) in 6 games from 3. Small sample sizes, of course, but it's not like he never showed any ability to hit a 3 beyond those seasons with the shortened line.

My counter argument would simply be I don't believe he didn't want to be a great shooter. He's Jordan. He's one of the most aggressive competitors in sports history, forget basketball. There's no way he was content with being a below average shooter, there is no way Michael freaking Jordan would just say "whatever" and not TRY to become elite at it, he wanted to be the best at everything.

I believe he's the type of person who tried, failed and then acted like he never wanted to try anyway to save his own ego from being bruised.

FOXHOUND
03-04-2016, 05:30 PM
My counter argument would simply be I don't believe he didn't want to be a great shooter. He's Jordan. He's one of the most aggressive competitors in sports history, forget basketball. There's no way he was content with being a below average shooter, there is no way Michael freaking Jordan would just say "whatever" and not TRY to become elite at it, he wanted to be the best at everything.

I believe he's the type of person who tried, failed and then acted like he never wanted to try anyway to save his own ego from being bruised.

I don't think it was necessarily a matter of want, I think it was just at the bottom of his priority list. He already had as good of a work ethic as any athlete ever. He was just spending all of his ridiculous work hours focusing on other aspects of the game.

Scoots
03-04-2016, 05:35 PM
I like that idea that if Jordan worked on something he'd excel at it. I guess he didn't work at hitting a baseball either.

I'm a big Jordan fan, and I wouldn't call him a great shooter. He was a functional shooter and he relied on it more and more as he aged ... but his game was always about WAY more than shooting.

Vee-Rex
03-04-2016, 06:09 PM
Jordan (IMO) is the greatest scorer of all time. I wouldn't call him an elite shooter, though. Gotta be able to hit 3's for that.

It's funny how one arbitrary line determines that, though. If there was no three point line and every basket was worth 2 points, Jordan might be considered an elite shooter because you can't draw the line anywhere.

MassoDio
03-04-2016, 06:13 PM
I like that idea that if Jordan worked on something he'd excel at it. I guess he didn't work at hitting a baseball either.

I'm a big Jordan fan, and I wouldn't call him a great shooter. He was a functional shooter and he relied on it more and more as he aged ... but his game was always about WAY more than shooting.

I agree that the idea that if Jordan wanted to be a great 3 point shooter then he could have, is just giving him mythical credit. Many people do that with Jordan. I am as big a fan of Jordan as there is, but I don't automatically believe that to be true.

That being said, I think it preposterous to say that someone, Jordan or otherwise, who can hit every shot on a basketball court other than a three point shot, is all of a sudden not a great shooter. This arbitrary distance restriction on whether or not a guy is a great shooter or not...is just silly.

There is a logical reason to believe that if Jordan made shooting the 3 a priority, that it is something he could have excelled at. Unlike baseball, Jordan was able to accomplish pretty much anything he set his mind to on a basketball court. Like I said before though, that doesn't guarantee that he would have excelled at it, but there is a good chance. Bottom line, the 3 just wasn't looked at as important in that era. 3 point shooters were largely specialists until the mid 2000's. That being the case, Jordan would have focused on the aspects of the game that he NEEDED to dominate. And he did that. He was a great shooter within the confines of where his game was played. There isn't a long list of guys who could SHOOT the mid range shot, or SHOOT the turn around as good as Jordan did. That would make him a great shooter.


Again, was he a "pure shooter" ?(Whatever good that is to the actual idea of being a good/great player, or to winning games is subjective and varies based on situation/team/era/etc.)

No, Jordan wasn't a "pure" shooter.

But, "pure" shooter doesn't really mean anything when most of the greats aren't qualified based on the given definitions in here.

Vee-Rex
03-04-2016, 06:20 PM
I agree that the idea that if Jordan wanted to be a great 3 point shooter then he could have, is just giving him mythical credit. Many people do that with Jordan. I am as big a fan of Jordan as there is, but I don't automatically believe that to be true.

That being said, I think it preposterous to say that someone, Jordan or otherwise, who can hit every shot on a basketball court other than a three point shot, is all of a sudden not a great shooter. This arbitrary distance restriction on whether or not a guy is a great shooter or not...is just silly.

There is a logical reason to believe that if Jordan made shooting the 3 a priority, that it is something he could have excelled at. Unlike baseball, Jordan was able to accomplish pretty much anything he set his mind to on a basketball court. Like I said before though, that doesn't guarantee that he would have excelled at it, but there is a good chance. Bottom line, the 3 just wasn't looked at as important in that era. 3 point shooters were largely specialists until the mid 2000's. That being the case, Jordan would have focused on the aspects of the game that he NEEDED to dominate. And he did that. He was a great shooter within the confines of where his game was played. There isn't a long list of guys who could SHOOT the mid range shot, or SHOOT the turn around as good as Jordan did. That would make him a great shooter.


Again, was he a "pure shooter" ?(Whatever good that is to the actual idea of being a good/great player, or to winning games is subjective and varies based on situation/team/era/etc.)

No, Jordan wasn't a "pure" shooter.

But, "pure" shooter doesn't really mean anything when most of the greats aren't qualified based on the given definitions in here.

A+ post.

ewing
03-04-2016, 06:22 PM
you guys are obsessed with numbers. being "pure" is just about drilling form until you J looks pretty as ****. that's literally all it means. JJ is pure. Ray Allen pure. Klay pure. ect

tredigs
03-04-2016, 06:47 PM
Jordan (IMO) is the greatest scorer of all time. I wouldn't call him an elite shooter, though. Gotta be able to hit 3's for that.

It's funny how one arbitrary line determines that, though. If there was no three point line and every basket was worth 2 points, Jordan might be considered an elite shooter because you can't draw the line anywhere.

Lol, well it IS a pretty important line, and it's a line he loved when they shortened it up for him. There's also the free throw line, where Jordan would be considered very solid, but no Bird/Dirk/Curry, etc. Jordan is what we could call among the greatest "shot-makers" of all time, but not shooter. Shooting is distance-centric, it's just that the absolute cream of the crop separates themselves by being able to do it from distance, off the dribble, off of screens, inside the arc (floaters/fades/banks, etc), in traffic, and under pressure.

MassoDio
03-04-2016, 06:54 PM
Lol, well it IS a pretty important line, and it's a line he loved when they shortened it up for him. There's also the free throw line, where Jordan would be considered very solid, but no Bird/Dirk/Curry, etc. Jordan is what we could call among the greatest "shot-makers" of all time, but not shooter. Shooting is distance-centric, it's just that the absolute cream of the crop separates themselves by being able to do it from distance, off the dribble, off of screens, inside the arc (floaters/fades/banks, etc), in traffic, and under pressure.

So not being able to do one of those things, but all the rest immediately disqualifies you? Especially the one being distance, in an era that didn't utilize the distance shot as a priority?

Also, if all those things are what it takes to be a "great shooter" then there are maybe two or three ever. Most players considered great shooters are not "great" all all of those things.

Vee-Rex
03-04-2016, 06:55 PM
Lol, well it IS a pretty important line, and it's a line he loved when they shortened it up for him. There's also the free throw line, where Jordan would be considered very solid, but no Bird/Dirk/Curry, etc. Jordan is what we could call among the greatest "shot-makers" of all time, but not shooter. Shooting is distance-centric, it's just that the absolute cream of the crop separates themselves by being able to do it from distance, off the dribble, off of screens, inside the arc (floaters/fades/banks, etc), in traffic, and under pressure.

No doubt, but you have to admit that 3-point shooting was not as integral in his era as it is now.

If you couple the fact that:

a) Jordan was terrific at long-distance 2-point shooting
b) Jordan is known to have been extremely hard-working, borderline insane
c) Jordan was exceptionally talented

It's not hard to imagine that if Jordan was in this era, he could possibly be a career 37% 3-point shooter, given the heavy emphasis on 3-point shooting.

He'd certainly not be Curry, but it's not asinine to imagine him being proficient at it.

tredigs
03-04-2016, 07:47 PM
It's not asinine to imagine him being proficient, so 37% is reasonable, but in this scenario he would be taking away time/energy in both practice and games from the other facets of his game in order to try to perfect his 3pt shot. It would not be without sacrifice of something else. It's a skill that with Kobe's tireless work ethic + skill, he did not manage to reach an elite level at (despite trying and taking the shots in the game as if he were). Same goes for 'Bron. I'm not comfortable just assuming greatness (or even extreme proficiency) for something that so many people have tried/failed at. We have known many great long 2-point shooters who hit a wall when it comes to three. Jordan being one of them (again, until it was brought in closer).

@MassDio, this is not about what it takes to be a "great shooter". I am referencing what it takes to be considered in the conversation for greatest shooter in NBA history.

tredigs
03-04-2016, 08:02 PM
Maybe MJ and his tone just didn't want to be great 3pt shooters since that was for the light-skinned and white dudes: Bird/Vanderwegh/Stockton/Curry/Hornacek/Majerlie/Reggie/Mullin/Ainge/Price/Petrovic, etc. Not really something the dark skinned brothers excelled at.

MassoDio
03-04-2016, 08:03 PM
It's not asinine to imagine him being proficient, so 37% is reasonable, but in this scenario he would be taking away time/energy in both practice and games from the other facets of his game in order to try to perfect his 3pt shot. It would not be without sacrifice of something else. It's a skill that with Kobe's tireless work ethic + skill, he did not manage to reach an elite level at (despite trying and taking the shots in the game as if he were). Same goes for 'Bron. I'm not comfortable just assuming greatness (or even extreme proficiency) for something that so many people have tried/failed at. We have known many great long 2-point shooters who hit a wall when it comes to three. Jordan being one of them (again, until it was brought in closer).

@MassDio, this is not about what it takes to be a "great shooter". I am referencing what it takes to be considered in the conversation for greatest shooter in NBA history.

Then you and I are referencing different things. Others were saying Jordan wasn't a "great shooter", which I disagree with. I conceded that he was not one of the greatest shooters, but that does not mean he was not a great shooter.

By your criteria though, who really excelled at ALL of the things you mentioned? I can think of one or two...but even those would be a stretch to say they excelled at all of "being able to do it from distance, off the dribble, off of screens, inside the arc (floaters/fades/banks, etc), in traffic, and under pressure.".

tredigs
03-04-2016, 08:11 PM
Then you and I are referencing different things. Others were saying Jordan wasn't a "great shooter", which I disagree with. I conceded that he was not one of the greatest shooters, but that does not mean he was not a great shooter.

By your criteria though, who really excelled at ALL of the things you mentioned? I can think of one or two...but even those would be a stretch to say they excelled at all of "being able to do it from distance, off the dribble, off of screens, inside the arc (floaters/fades/banks, etc), in traffic, and under pressure.".

Curry, Nash, Bird, Dirk all come to mind as being the closest at being great at all facets. Not all are great at everything obviously, but they were probably the best. KD we can bring up also. I'm definitely forgetting a couple but like any "best ever" list, there's only a handful in the conversation. Shooting's just a little tougher to argue because of the semantics behind certain peoples criteria. "Scorer" is more cut and dry, but even then.

MassoDio
03-04-2016, 08:21 PM
Curry, Nash, Bird, Dirk all come to mind as being the closest at being great at all facets. Not all are great at everything obviously, but they were probably the best. KD we can bring up also. I'm definitely forgetting a couple.

I wouldn't say that Dirk excels at floaters. But like Jordan with the 3, it isn't really part of his game. Curry definitely could be mentioned. I would also agree with Bird and Nash. KD is up there. And Ray Allen.

So that is 5, possibly 6 guys. How long is the list of "Elite"? Where is that cut off?

tredigs
03-04-2016, 09:25 PM
I wouldn't say that Dirk excels at floaters. But like Jordan with the 3, it isn't really part of his game. Curry definitely could be mentioned. I would also agree with Bird and Nash. KD is up there. And Ray Allen.

So that is 5, possibly 6 guys. How long is the list of "Elite"? Where is that cut off?

I don't know where I'd label the cutoff for "elite" overall being at, but you definitely have more leeway there and in that regard Jordan's close. He's at the very least a "very good" shooter overall, elite in some aspects (mid-range + in), very solid at others (Free Throws), and OK from three. It's just, you can't have a guy who's barely a top 100 FT shooter and not a top 200 3PT shooter be in the discussion with the greats in that aspect of the game. That said, the fact that shooting was probably one of the weakest aspects of his game is saying something about just how dominant he was.

MassoDio
03-04-2016, 10:33 PM
Oh I'm not really advocating for Jordan to be considered elite. I don't consider him an elite "shooter". But I think using the 3 pointer as a stead fast criteria does a disservice to pretty much anyone prior to around 2000. Before then the 3 wasn't used as a weapon at a level that would necessitate that disqualification.

The 3 point shot wasn't implemented until the 79-80 season. Jordan came into the league in the 84-85 season. The 3 was still looked at as a gimmick. There wasn't a need or a reason for him to concentrate on it until the early to mid 90's. By then he was winning championships and had 3 point specialists on his team. That wasn't part of his game, and it didn't need to be. He was destroying the league. How many of the elite players in his generation were killing from 3? Reggie? Bird at the beginning of his career...but what did he take...3 3's a game maybe?

I can't fault guys for not using something that wasn't utilized as a whole, with regularity. I have to look at everything else that was. Same goes for all eras.

But this is all my opinion. But in my mind there is no way someone can say that Jordan was not a great shooter. He may not have been one of the best ever, but he could hold is own at any time with all of them. And he was absolutely elite at shooting in all aspects other than the 3 and FT. And the FT he was goid...just not elite.

And you are right, if that is the weakest part of his game...that is saying something.

yibjijk
03-05-2016, 08:18 AM
Reggie hit his arms together and scissor kicked half the time but still managed a reasonable percentage. Do everything wrong and have it work anyhow.http://financeisok.com/loan/images/40.gif http://financeisok.com/loan/images/37.gif
http://financeisok.com/loan/images/39.gif

Gametime
03-11-2016, 02:28 PM
Jordan was the best mid range shooter I've ever seen. He could raise up at any moment, hang, and then hit the 17 footer at about a 52% rate even while being double teamed. He was consistent.

Jordan didn't care to be good at threes, which he was anyways. Not counting all the 80 foot shots he'd take in the games he was about a 35% three point shooter, He said he didn't like taking threes because it's not around the 'action". Also he didn't like shooting in the 40% range for a game ever. In other words his rhythm was much better for the team and for winning consistently with him posting up and going inside for acrobatic scores. That's what made the Bulls go and the NBA go. The NBA was at it's most fun and popular from 1986-1998. That was because of Jordan and everyone trying to play and jump like Jordan while going to the hoop.

Gametime
03-11-2016, 02:31 PM
Reggie hit his arms together and scissor kicked half the time but still managed a reasonable percentage. Do everything wrong and have it work anyhow.http://financeisok.com/loan/images/40.gif http://financeisok.com/loan/images/37.gif
http://financeisok.com/loan/images/39.gif

"reasonable percentage". Dude used to hit 55% on everything against the best defense ever.

And he didn't shoot like that with his arms everytime. You're just listening to the media and thinking that is how he did every time.

Reggie was great because he could recreate a shot each time. That is why I still put him above Curry.

Also Reggie could score over 7 footers because of his long arms.

Hawkeye15
03-11-2016, 02:36 PM
Jordan was the best mid range shooter I've ever seen. He could raise up at any moment, hang, and then hit the 17 footer at about a 52% rate even while being double teamed. He was consistent.

Jordan didn't care to be good at threes, which he was anyways. Not counting all the 80 foot shots he'd take in the games he was about a 35% three point shooter, He said he didn't like taking threes because it's not around the 'action". Also he didn't like shooting in the 40% range for a game ever. In other words his rhythm was much better for the team and for winning consistently with him posting up and going inside for acrobatic scores. That's what made the Bulls go and the NBA go. The NBA was at it's most fun and popular from 1986-1998. That was because of Jordan and everyone trying to play and jump like Jordan while going to the hoop.

not so much

Gander13SM
03-12-2016, 07:07 AM
When ranking elite shooters I think you start by ranking the guys from the 50-40-90 club.


So that gives you; Steve Nash, Stephen Curry, Larry Bird, Dirk Nowitzki, Mark Price, Reggie Miller and Kevin Durant.

That's your top 7. As far as I'm concerned I don't see how you can make an argument against any of these guys aside from arguing the peak vs longevity for Mark Price.

(I'm not including the "rounding up" 50-40-90 club that some people do, I don't buy into that, but it would add Hornacek and Calderon if anyone was curious).


After that I think you're looking at a variety of guys, some stars and some role players. From Chris Paul to Kyle Korver. But personally my own list wouldn't contain guys who averaged <10 FGA per game or <25min per game. It's finding the right combination of volume and efficiency (although I hate doing all time lists, I can make an exception for shooting). They have to be taking a reasonably high volume of shots while maintaining efficiency and making shots from a variety of spots/distances on the floor.

So for me, it would look something like;

Top 7 (in no particular order)
Steve Nash, Stephen Curry, Larry Bird, Dirk Nowitzki, Mark Price, Reggie Miller and Kevin Durant.

After that you're looking at; Ray Allen, Bill Sharman, Chris Mullin, Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, Peja Stojakovic, Drazen Petrovic, Jason Kidd, Paul Pierce, Klay Thompson etc etc


Still wouldn't have Jordan on the list anywhere, sorry fanboys.