PDA

View Full Version : Art of the midrange



mrblisterdundee
10-12-2016, 12:00 PM
The Ringer had a story recently about Evan Turner and his focus on the midrange shot.

“A lot of people say the highest percentage is a 3 or a layup, and I definitely comprehend why,” Turner told me. “But sometimes you gotta read the game for what it’s worth.” He plays to preserve what might yet be lost to time.
“The future is in the midrange,” Turner famously told Complex in June. It was a proclamation that ran so contrary to today’s notions of basketball that it felt like a prophecy meant for children of the Singularity. Perhaps there will come a time when we transcend the limitations of advanced metrics, and when we do reach the other end of the pace-and-space wormhole, Turner’s words as the Midrange Nostradamus will be there to greet us once more. “The midrange is where the money’s at, man.”
- Danny Chau, The Ringer (https://theringer.com/evan-turner-midrange-game-portland-trail-blazers-2017-nba-preview-cb94cf28b77a#.676g0e6jn)
There's been a shift to threes and layups as the most effective shots. But that also means a defensive shift over time to better cut off those shots. As that happens, will the midrange shot take on a new importance, being the shot defenses give up? Will shooters need the ability to shoot off the dribble to remain effective?

5ass
10-12-2016, 01:45 PM
Possible, but they're still going to have to shoot at a very high percentage. Something like 50-60%.

Hawkeye15
10-12-2016, 01:56 PM
designing plays for a mid range shot has decreased by the year. Nothing will change that. If anything, having a capable mid range shooter (50+%) will just make life easier on your offense.

mrblisterdundee
10-12-2016, 03:12 PM
I certainly hope Evan Turner is right, considering the Blazers just paid $17.5 million a season for that wisdom — and no outside shot.:sigh:

Scoots
10-12-2016, 10:11 PM
Shaun Livingston killed some teams last year just be being a 6'7" guy who could dribble to space and hit at a high percentage. If you've got 3 point shooters on the floor ANY threat away from the 3 point line helps the offense. You can't just be good at one thing as a team and expect to win with offense.

IndyRealist
10-12-2016, 10:34 PM
No.

There is nothing wrong with taking a long 2 if that's what the defense gives you. The problem is when you choose the long 2 over moving the ball to a 3pt shooter or to a cutter. The problem is when you settle for the long 2, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's simply a worse value. And when you build your entire skillset on only taking long 2s, or even worse are INCAPABLE of taking 3s or getting to the rim, you're f'ing easy to guard. I will let you take a single coverage long 2 all day over giving up a 3 or an and-1 at the rim.

ewing
10-12-2016, 10:51 PM
maybe if there was some massive shift in rules that allowed defenders to maintain contact with perimiter players footwork and the ability to create mid range shots would have greater value. IDK, it's kind of a mad scientist type idea.

D-Leethal
10-13-2016, 12:06 AM
That's where the game was designed to be played. I have a fondness for great fundamental play in the mid range - jabs, fakes, spins, pivots, footwork. Naismith would be rolling in his grave watching this redundant, north/south, stationary support 3 point bombing basketball where perimeter defense and resistance has been all but been banned from the game in favor of flashy downhill PG play, alley oops and 3 point kickouts. Fundamentals have been traded in for flash and entertainment value.

D-Leethal
10-13-2016, 12:08 AM
Whether it's via rule changes, player skillset evolution or coaching adjustments over the long term, the game is going to continue to change. It's silly and naiive to think that we're here now and this is how the game will stay until the end of time.

IndyRealist
10-13-2016, 08:20 AM
^ these two posts contradict each other.

Hawkeye15
10-13-2016, 09:40 AM
No.

There is nothing wrong with taking a long 2 if that's what the defense gives you. The problem is when you choose the long 2 over moving the ball to a 3pt shooter or to a cutter. The problem is when you settle for the long 2, and that's exactly what he's saying. It's simply a worse value. And when you build your entire skillset on only taking long 2s, or even worse are INCAPABLE of taking 3s or getting to the rim, you're f'ing easy to guard. I will let you take a single coverage long 2 all day over giving up a 3 or an and-1 at the rim.

exactly right

Hawkeye15
10-13-2016, 09:42 AM
That's where the game was designed to be played. I have a fondness for great fundamental play in the mid range - jabs, fakes, spins, pivots, footwork. Naismith would be rolling in his grave watching this redundant, north/south, stationary support 3 point bombing basketball where perimeter defense and resistance has been all but been banned from the game in favor of flashy downhill PG play, alley oops and 3 point kickouts. Fundamentals have been traded in for flash and entertainment value.

the NBA would have died had it not evolved as well. You are underestimating the attention span of the human population....

score more points, they will watch.

Hawkeye15
10-13-2016, 09:44 AM
Whether it's via rule changes, player skillset evolution or coaching adjustments over the long term, the game is going to continue to change. It's silly and naiive to think that we're here now and this is how the game will stay until the end of time.

well which is it? Do you want to watch the Mikan drill, or Harden flailing like a dead fish on his way to supreme efficiency?

Sorry, your posts were back to back, and kinda opposed each other

LoveCaliFan
10-13-2016, 09:57 AM
That's where the game was designed to be played. I have a fondness for great fundamental play in the mid range - jabs, fakes, spins, pivots, footwork. Naismith would be rolling in his grave watching this redundant, north/south, stationary support 3 point bombing basketball where perimeter defense and resistance has been all but been banned from the game in favor of flashy downhill PG play, alley oops and 3 point kickouts. Fundamentals have been traded in for flash and entertainment value.

True. The same for football. Imho, it's to make the rigged games not look so obvious. It's easier to rig games when you can't play defense like you used to.

D-Leethal
10-13-2016, 10:01 AM
well which is it? Do you want to watch the Mikan drill, or Harden flailing like a dead fish on his way to supreme efficiency?

Sorry, your posts were back to back, and kinda opposed each other

How do they contradict each other? The game was designed to be played a certain way. The NBA has turned the game of basketball from a fundamental sport into the entertainment business, thus, they continue to tinker with and change rules in their league for entertainment value and will continue to do so.

The game of basketball and the NBA are not one in the same. Basketball was designed to be played a certain way. Naismith, the inventor of basketball, not the NBA, is rolling in his grave watching how the NBA sold out the game in favor of flash and TV ratings.

I probably should have said "the NBA game" in the second post, but that is what I meant. Me? I'd rather watch Tim Duncan all day over James Harden. I love half court, mid range and post execution coupled with supreme defense.

LoveCaliFan
10-13-2016, 10:08 AM
I even in this day and age tell these kids do not be just a three point shooter or a slasher. Be a playmaker with multiple skill sets. I tell them that the money maker is hitting those midrange shots. If you can be a midrange ranger, you will go far. It will never die, but has been lost. I tell kids, if they can be a consistent midrange shooter, they then could go further out and improve thier 3's. But midrange will always be the money maker.

D-Leethal
10-13-2016, 10:10 AM
Now, I do think the NBA evolution has done good for the game with a lot of its evolution of the sport including the 3 point line but I think we've gone a little too far to where it's evolved now. No more post game, mid range game, or ability to defend the perimeter 1v1 has made the game and it's current stock of skills way to predictable and redundant.

I do think there is a happy medium somewhere between where the NBA is now and where the game was designed to be played. Neither extreme is the perfect answer. But where we sit right now is not the best we can do if were talking about maximizing more than just ratings for casual fans with short attention spans. Some of the best players in our history would be shunned in today's league because it's not conducive for virtually anyone who wants to play half court ball, mid range specialists, post up big men, perimeter defense - it's become way to redundant and predictable from a skills standpoint from its stock of talent and a strategy standpoint.

LoveCaliFan
10-13-2016, 10:13 AM
How do they contradict each other? The game was designed to be played a certain way. The NBA has turned the game of basketball from a fundamental sport into the entertainment business, thus, they continue to tinker with and change rules in their league for entertainment value and will continue to do so.

The game of basketball and the NBA are not one in the same. Basketball was designed to be played a certain way. Naismith, the inventor of basketball, not the NBA, is rolling in his grave watching how the NBA sold out the game in favor of flash and TV ratings.

I probably should have said "the NBA game" in the second post, but that is what I meant. Me? I'd rather watch Tim Duncan all day over James Harden. I love half court, mid range and post execution coupled with supreme defense.

It's about ratings? True indeed. But it's also easier for the rig. I'd rather see all around game as well, but i noticed that the fix is and has been real. And if you don't want it to be obvious you make it more offensive. It's all entertainment as you stated. And it is also about the fix. Same with football....

Heediot
10-13-2016, 10:15 AM
I don't have a problem with coaches telling players to shoot threes and make high percentage shots. I agree with D-Leethal though, the league tinkering with rules in order to appease fans is a turn off to me. I love watching Euro and fiba ball where the emphasis is on 3's and high percentage shots, but those rules also allow for real defense and doesn't favor one skill set over another.

Scoots
10-13-2016, 10:25 AM
That's where the game was designed to be played. I have a fondness for great fundamental play in the mid range - jabs, fakes, spins, pivots, footwork. Naismith would be rolling in his grave watching this redundant, north/south, stationary support 3 point bombing basketball where perimeter defense and resistance has been all but been banned from the game in favor of flashy downhill PG play, alley oops and 3 point kickouts. Fundamentals have been traded in for flash and entertainment value.

That happened in the 60s when the dunk was allowed in basketball. It's entertainment and the NBA has always known that.

Schemes come and go, this style will change over time. And the idea that there is no perimeter defense is silly ... they play more/better defense now, it's just less of a wrestling match than it used to be.

Scoots
10-13-2016, 10:26 AM
I don't have a problem with coaches telling players to shoot threes and make high percentage shots. I agree with D-Leethal though, the league tinkering with rules in order to appease fans is a turn off to me. I love watching Euro and fiba ball where the emphasis is on 3's and high percentage shots, but those rules also allow for real defense and doesn't favor one skill set over another.

Just out of curiosity, do you dislike the changes in the rules for the last 2 minutes of a half and the off-the-ball foul rules changes too?

Hawkeye15
10-13-2016, 10:33 AM
How do they contradict each other? The game was designed to be played a certain way. The NBA has turned the game of basketball from a fundamental sport into the entertainment business, thus, they continue to tinker with and change rules in their league for entertainment value and will continue to do so.

The game of basketball and the NBA are not one in the same. Basketball was designed to be played a certain way. Naismith, the inventor of basketball, not the NBA, is rolling in his grave watching how the NBA sold out the game in favor of flash and TV ratings.

I probably should have said "the NBA game" in the second post, but that is what I meant. Me? I'd rather watch Tim Duncan all day over James Harden. I love half court, mid range and post execution coupled with supreme defense.

but the game has only gotten more analytical, as has everything. Rule changes would never have stopped smart people from realizing shots at the rim, or from 3, have more value than a 19 footer.

The game needed to change. The average fan (the ones who are the large majority paying for the sport), didn't want to watch fat Barkley in pin stripes back down a defender for 15 seconds, than kick it out for a 3. You claim fundamentals have evaporated, yet we have players with more basketball skill than ever before.

Everything evolves. Basketball is no different. I can only assume you love the style you watched growing up, and guessing by the average age here, that would be 90's Knicks basketball. I grew up watching the same era, I simply understand that in order for me to love basketball as much as I always have, I need to keep my mind open to changes. What we are watching now is different than 1990. In 2035, it will be different than today. Better? Idk. But different, and I will still love it.

You unfortunately like what most fans don't. Slow, inside-outside, grind out basketball. So I get where you are coming from.


btw, I was benched by my 9th grade coach for a few minutes for shooting a shot 8 inches inside the 3 point line. In 1991. So this theory of long 2's being stupid aren't new.

Heediot
10-13-2016, 10:33 AM
Just out of curiosity, do you dislike the changes in the rules for the last 2 minutes of a half and the off-the-ball foul rules changes too?

I like the Euro and FIBA rules in regards to fouling a player away from the ball. If you don't make a play on the ball the refs should enforce an intentional/unsportsmanlike foul. The victim team gets two free throws and the possession. I don't know why the nba doesn't just change the rules with how fiba operates it in this regard. If it's not a basketball play it should be punished regardless of time.

Heediot
10-13-2016, 10:43 AM
but the game has only gotten more analytical, as has everything. Rule changes would never have stopped smart people from realizing shots at the rim, or from 3, have more value than a 19 footer.

The game needed to change. The average fan (the ones who are the large majority paying for the sport), didn't want to watch fat Barkley in pin stripes back down a defender for 15 seconds, than kick it out for a 3. You claim fundamentals have evaporated, yet we have players with more basketball skill than ever before.

Everything evolves. Basketball is no different. I can only assume you love the style you watched growing up, and guessing by the average age here, that would be 90's Knicks basketball. I grew up watching the same era, I simply understand that in order for me to love basketball as much as I always have, I need to keep my mind open to changes. What we are watching now is different than 1990. In 2035, it will be different than today. Better? Idk. But different, and I will still love it.

You unfortunately like what most fans don't. Slow, inside-outside, grind out basketball. So I get where you are coming from.


btw, I was benched by my 9th grade coach for a few minutes for shooting a shot 8 inches inside the 3 point line. In 1991. So this theory of long 2's being stupid aren't new.

It doesn't necessarily have to be inside out. In Europe teams still aim for ball movement and 3's. It's just tougher to score in Europe with more physical perimeter d. The league changed the rules because teams were hovering in the low and mid 90's at the end of the 90's/turn of the millennium.

Heediot
10-13-2016, 11:16 AM
Ironically, the Eurostep is harder to execute in Europe because of the hand checking element vs. how it is more commonly executed in the NBA.

Scoots
10-13-2016, 12:39 PM
I like the Euro and FIBA rules in regards to fouling a player away from the ball. If you don't make a play on the ball the refs should enforce an intentional/unsportsmanlike foul. The victim team gets two free throws and the possession. I don't know why the nba doesn't just change the rules with how fiba operates it in this regard. If it's not a basketball play it should be punished regardless of time.

But isn't that changing rules to appease fans?

By the way, I agree that the FIBA rules are superior in some areas. I like the way FIBA handles timeouts for instance, and I like that all fouls are equal (live or not, personal or technical) and players foul out after 5, there is no reason for the NBA to call a ball behind the backboard a dead ball and I seldom see it but the rule is there. But, the FIBA 3 point line in the NBA would be terrible. The wider key at the basket does nothing for me. The shorter game I don't like. I don't like the clock to stop on made shots, FIBA increasing the window that happens in is a negative to me.

Chronz
10-13-2016, 12:48 PM
Naismith would've rolled in his grave watching the 90's Knicks, early Bad Boys. Basketball was never meant to be THAT physical

valade16
10-13-2016, 01:08 PM
I think the players today have different skills than players back then, not necessarily more skills. Phil Jackson even mentioned that players simply lack the basic fundamentals of footwork to run the triangle offense. Hornacek even mentioned that, players today struggle to play the triangle compared to players in the 90's because they have been taught different things.

ewing
10-13-2016, 01:13 PM
Naismith would've rolled in his grave watching the 90's Knicks, early Bad Boys. Basketball was never meant to be THAT physical

But what would Thomas Jefferson say?

Hawkeye15
10-13-2016, 01:36 PM
I think the players today have different skills than players back then, not necessarily more skills. Phil Jackson even mentioned that players simply lack the basic fundamentals of footwork to run the triangle offense. Hornacek even mentioned that, players today struggle to play the triangle compared to players in the 90's because they have been taught different things.

hell, I haven't seen the picket fence in years. Game is going to ****

Chronz
10-13-2016, 01:59 PM
But what would Thomas Jefferson say?

Four score and trey scored?

KnicksorBust
10-13-2016, 02:08 PM
But what would Thomas Jefferson say?

:laugh:

It seems like people are blurring the argument. A long 2 and midrange are different. Long 2's have long been mocked. They were bad shots in the 60s and 70s and when Hawkeye was in 9th grade. The big transition is the overwhelming popularity of the 3pt shot which is fine by me. Being able to shoot off the dribble or pull-up are challenging skills and take years of practice. Can you honestly imagine a player like Steph Curry being an MVP in the 90s?

D-Leethal
10-13-2016, 03:38 PM
That happened in the 60s when the dunk was allowed in basketball. It's entertainment and the NBA has always known that.

Schemes come and go, this style will change over time. And the idea that there is no perimeter defense is silly ... they play more/better defense now, it's just less of a wrestling match than it used to be.

The rules don't allow for 1v1 perimeter defense. You cannot stay in front of guards or keep them on the perimeter without big man help. That's why damn near every small guard is known as a **** defender today - because they don't let you guard these guys 1 on 1. They want speedy guards barreling into the paint and kicking it out for 3.

D-Leethal
10-13-2016, 03:54 PM
but the game has only gotten more analytical, as has everything. Rule changes would never have stopped smart people from realizing shots at the rim, or from 3, have more value than a 19 footer.

The game needed to change. The average fan (the ones who are the large majority paying for the sport), didn't want to watch fat Barkley in pin stripes back down a defender for 15 seconds, than kick it out for a 3. You claim fundamentals have evaporated, yet we have players with more basketball skill than ever before.

Everything evolves. Basketball is no different. I can only assume you love the style you watched growing up, and guessing by the average age here, that would be 90's Knicks basketball. I grew up watching the same era, I simply understand that in order for me to love basketball as much as I always have, I need to keep my mind open to changes. What we are watching now is different than 1990. In 2035, it will be different than today. Better? Idk. But different, and I will still love it.

You unfortunately like what most fans don't. Slow, inside-outside, grind out basketball. So I get where you are coming from.


btw, I was benched by my 9th grade coach for a few minutes for shooting a shot 8 inches inside the 3 point line. In 1991. So this theory of long 2's being stupid aren't new.

No necessarily slow grind it out ball but ball where you can operate in the posts and utilize fundamentals to get buckets. There are no fundamentals anymore. MJ and Kobe are two of the best examples of how to utilize fundamentals in the mid range and are arguably the two most beloved and popular players ever so I'm not sure I buy that fans wouldn't accept that.

I'm not sure where mid range basketball became eqivalent to long 2s. I'm talking utilizing the high post, mid post, low post. I'm talking cutters on and off the ball. I'm talking 5 guys on a string moving the rock inside, out and around and cutting to open space. Utilizing fakes, footwork, jabs, dropsteps, up and unders, to draw doubles and get swing swing movement. I'm talking NOT the redundant 1-5 pick and roll with stand still 3 point shooters on rinse, repeat for 48 minutes. That **** is whack.

It's a watered down version of the game and waters down the skills that get featured and utilized. Skills are not as important as athleticism anymore. Well rounded skillsets are at an all time low at every position across the board. It's a league of specialists because all you need to do is fit a certain mold to thrive today - think DeAndre Jordan for bigs and Danny Green for wings. Guards are talented as hell today but I would still like to see them allowed to defend the perimeter 1v1 like Kidd, Frazier, Glove used to do. I wouldn't mind seeing them create from the post either like those guys.

D-Leethal
10-13-2016, 03:59 PM
:laugh:

It seems like people are blurring the argument. A long 2 and midrange are different. Long 2's have long been mocked. They were bad shots in the 60s and 70s and when Hawkeye was in 9th grade. The big transition is the overwhelming popularity of the 3pt shot which is fine by me. Being able to shoot off the dribble or pull-up are challenging skills and take years of practice. Can you honestly imagine a player like Steph Curry being an MVP in the 90s?

I think Curry could thrive like Reggie did. He is actually one of the few who can shoot off the bounce. Its a game where one small guy dribbles one big guy dives and the rest stand still on the perimeter.

Hawkeye15
10-13-2016, 04:12 PM
No necessarily slow grind it out ball but ball where you can operate in the posts and utilize fundamentals to get buckets. There are no fundamentals anymore. MJ and Kobe are two of the best examples of how to utilize fundamentals in the mid range and are arguably the two most beloved and popular players ever so I'm not sure I buy that fans wouldn't accept that.

I'm not sure where mid range basketball became eqivalent to long 2s. I'm talking utilizing the high post, mid post, low post. I'm talking cutters on and off the ball. I'm talking 5 guys on a string moving the rock inside, out and around and cutting to open space. Utilizing fakes, footwork, jabs, dropsteps, up and unders, to draw doubles and get swing swing movement. I'm talking NOT the redundant 1-5 pick and roll with stand still 3 point shooters on rinse, repeat for 48 minutes. That **** is whack.

It's a watered down version of the game and waters down the skills that get featured and utilized. Skills are not as important as athleticism anymore. Well rounded skillsets are at an all time low at every position across the board. It's a league of specialists because all you need to do is fit a certain mold to thrive today - think DeAndre Jordan for bigs and Danny Green for wings. Guards are talented as hell today but I would still like to see them allowed to defend the perimeter 1v1 like Kidd, Frazier, Glove used to do. I wouldn't mind seeing them create from the post either like those guys.

sure, some of that is due to rule changes. The current system rewards pure floor spacing, so running the offense through the paint isn't used as much. And I do agree, that skill sets have changed to suit play. Guys like Duncan bridged the gap for instance. You still see high/pinch post play, and the ball running through it. Thib's used it in Chicago, probably will again with Towns now. A team like GS, with all those shooters, of course they prefer to keep the defense totally spread out, creating easy passing/dribble lanes.

The NBA had plenty of one tool players yesterday as well. What skills did Dale Davis really have? Or Bill Cartwright? Players like Nique got away with pure athleticism, what skill level did he really have?

The players haven't changed that much. The game has some, and it will adjust if the league continues to trend up on certain things.

Hawkeye15
10-13-2016, 04:12 PM
I think Curry could thrive like Reggie did. He is actually one of the few who can shoot off the bounce. Its a game where one small guy dribbles one big guy dives and the rest stand still on the perimeter.

imagine Chris Jackson today, or Mark Price.

Scoots
10-14-2016, 08:04 AM
imagine Chris Jackson today, or Mark Price.

The thing that has thus far made Curry such an aberration is that the more he shoots the better he shoots. That's not supposed to happen, so I don't think we can draw conclusions on what other players would do with his freedom. It was Luke Walton last year who was pushing Curry to shoot more ... he wanted Curry to put up 15 3s a game. I don't think it's ever happened before where a coach told a player they want him to target 15 3s a game, but I don't think any of Mahmoud's coaches would have told him to do that either. And, for what it's worth, Steve Kerr wouldn't ever have said that either ... the Warriors offense was wildly open under Walton and got restricted with Kerr.

IndyRealist
10-14-2016, 08:36 AM
The thing that has thus far made Curry such an aberration is that the more he shoots the better he shoots. That's not supposed to happen, so I don't think we can draw conclusions on what other players would do with his freedom. It was Luke Walton last year who was pushing Curry to shoot more ... he wanted Curry to put up 15 3s a game. I don't think it's ever happened before where a coach told a player they want him to target 15 3s a game, but I don't think any of Mahmoud's coaches would have told him to do that either. And, for what it's worth, Steve Kerr wouldn't ever have said that either ... the Warriors offense was wildly open under Walton and got restricted with Kerr.

*gasp* Usage curves don't fit EVERYONE? Dean Oliver is rolling over in his grave....ok, he's not dead. But still.

Hawkeye15
10-14-2016, 09:16 AM
The thing that has thus far made Curry such an aberration is that the more he shoots the better he shoots. That's not supposed to happen, so I don't think we can draw conclusions on what other players would do with his freedom. It was Luke Walton last year who was pushing Curry to shoot more ... he wanted Curry to put up 15 3s a game. I don't think it's ever happened before where a coach told a player they want him to target 15 3s a game, but I don't think any of Mahmoud's coaches would have told him to do that either. And, for what it's worth, Steve Kerr wouldn't ever have said that either ... the Warriors offense was wildly open under Walton and got restricted with Kerr.

what I mean is, guys who were great off the dribble, and catch and shoot, all from distance, would thrive today with all this spacing.

Scoots
10-14-2016, 10:21 AM
what I mean is, guys who were great off the dribble, and catch and shoot, all from distance, would thrive today with all this spacing.

That is true, and Chris Jackson really was amazing, and I never thought any of those 80s/90s PGs shot the ball as much as they should have. Stockton shot .515 for his career and never took even 12 FGA per game ... Malone shot a near identical .516 for his career and took 50% more shots ... and yeah, I know Stockton was getting those shots for Malone ... but still, there were plenty of wide open shots Stock passed up that he should have taken. Then there is Jason Kidd who shot more than Stockton and FAR worse :).

Hawkeye15
10-14-2016, 11:23 AM
That is true, and Chris Jackson really was amazing, and I never thought any of those 80s/90s PGs shot the ball as much as they should have. Stockton shot .515 for his career and never took even 12 FGA per game ... Malone shot a near identical .516 for his career and took 50% more shots ... and yeah, I know Stockton was getting those shots for Malone ... but still, there were plenty of wide open shots Stock passed up that he should have taken. Then there is Jason Kidd who shot more than Stockton and FAR worse :).

well, Stockton was basically Rubio with scoring ability. Still had the pass first, second, and third disposition.

Scoots
10-14-2016, 12:17 PM
Chris Mullin shot well enough in the mid-range to make it a good shot. :)

Chronz
10-14-2016, 12:38 PM
Just when do you guys think the midrange game died
?

Scoots
10-14-2016, 07:52 PM
Just when do you guys think the midrange game died
?

Interesting question ... I'd say it faded after the MJ retired and the 3 gained popularity. Overall league efficiency peaked in the early 90s and I think bad shooters shooting 3s is a big reason it's gone down. The mid-range has never really lost value with the elite offensive guys in the NBA all having good mid-range games. It's just that regular season scoring favors the 3 lately.

Chronz
10-14-2016, 11:42 PM
Interesting question ... I'd say it faded after the MJ retired and the 3 gained popularity. Overall league efficiency peaked in the early 90s and I think bad shooters shooting 3s is a big reason it's gone down. The mid-range has never really lost value with the elite offensive guys in the NBA all having good mid-range games. It's just that regular season scoring favors the 3 lately.

Was thinking about a thread like this the other day just havent had the passion lately to post, it seems like people say guys had this weapon in the 90's but outside MJ, who else was that proficient in the middle?

warfelg
10-15-2016, 11:00 AM
Was thinking about a thread like this the other day just havent had the passion lately to post, it seems like people say guys had this weapon in the 90's but outside MJ, who else was that proficient in the middle?

AI thrived on hitting mid range shots. Ditto for Kobe.

D-Leethal
10-15-2016, 06:37 PM
AI thrived on hitting mid range shots. Ditto for Kobe.

Pierce, Dirk, Tony Parker to toss out a couple more.

ewing
10-16-2016, 12:15 AM
well, Stockton was basically Rubio with scoring ability. Still had the pass first, second, and third disposition.

:laugh:

ewing
10-16-2016, 12:18 AM
Was thinking about a thread like this the other day just havent had the passion lately to post, it seems like people say guys had this weapon in the 90's but outside MJ, who else was that proficient in the middle?


Pat Ewing

Scoots
10-16-2016, 09:23 PM
Pat Ewing

Yeah, that 3 step top of the key fade was deadly :)

Hawkeye15
10-17-2016, 10:03 AM
:laugh:

Rubio-elite defender, passer, reader of the PnR, can't score
Stockton-elite defender, passer, reader of the PnR, highly efficient scorer

If Rubio were a highly efficient scorer, he is an absolutely elite, top tier PG. Alas, he is far from highly efficient. Hell he isn't even butt reaming average efficient

Hawkeye15
10-17-2016, 10:04 AM
Pat Ewing

that killer travel move where he played hop scotch into the lane was awesome

Scoots
10-17-2016, 12:58 PM
that killer travel move where he played hop scotch into the lane was awesome

Too slow man, I already made that joke :)

Hawkeye15
10-17-2016, 01:00 PM
Too slow man, I already made that joke :)

my bad. I remember doing it in the drive way games I played in back in the day. Step, step, hop, step, fade...

Somehow I was open every time

ewing
10-17-2016, 01:26 PM
Yeah, that 3 step top of the key fade was deadly :)

Some guys r so good they get different rules


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
10-17-2016, 01:29 PM
Rubio-elite defender, passer, reader of the PnR, can't score
Stockton-elite defender, passer, reader of the PnR, highly efficient scorer

If Rubio were a highly efficient scorer, he is an absolutely elite, top tier PG. Alas, he is far from highly efficient. Hell he isn't even butt reaming average efficient

I actually like Rubio. I don't u can compare anyone to Stockton if they can't shoot though. Shooting and being able to draw out d bc he was such good shooter was a huge part of stocktons game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
10-17-2016, 01:56 PM
I actually like Rubio. I don't u can compare anyone to Stockton if they can't shoot though. Shooting and being able to draw out d bc he was such good shooter was a huge part of stocktons game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

very fair.

hugepatsfan
10-17-2016, 05:06 PM
The mid-range isn't as efficient as shooting a 3 or getting to the rim but if that's your game that's your game. If a guy can't shoot 3s but can shoot from mid-range then that's what I want him doing. Role players will always have limitation (hence being role players) and for some a lack of a 3 point shot it one of those limitations. it just means you need to do other things to offset the weakness, and a mid-range game can be one of those things. Evna Turner is one of those guys. Shaun Livingston is one of those guys.

Chronz
10-17-2016, 07:13 PM
Pat Ewing
Even though he missed so many of them and relied on it as much as he did?

To me when people say its a "lost art", it implies a functional offensive move, with Ewing, he was good sure but theres a reason both his teams and he himself weren't elite offensively.

Its a weapon that opens up other avenues but for guys like Ewing, it appeared to be the primary avenue by far. Why would you revolve an offense around guys like that unless it opened up far more valuable means of scoring?

Its declined but does that mean the Mid-range game is a lost art or simply one that was eschewed in favor of winning?

I personally think you only really need 1 mid-range buckets getter, someone you can give the ball to in "clogged toilet" possessions and have him bail you out. At the same time, that person cant entirely revolve their game around that shot or they stunt their teams offensive output. Unless they are like Dirk who can can them at above 1.2PPP if you leave him open, its pretty hard to create for others with that shot as a primary weapon.


When was Ewing's offensive peak in your opinion?

ewing
10-17-2016, 09:20 PM
you're a silly boy Chronz

Scoots
10-18-2016, 08:12 AM
Some guys r so good they get different rules


I think a key part of his defense was that guys didn't want to drive anywhere near him for fear of slipping in the puddle and tearing up a knee.

Heediot
10-18-2016, 08:16 AM
Duncan with that patented bank. Melo and Pierce also played a big mid-range game. LMA and Rip Hamilton as well.

Chronz
10-18-2016, 12:18 PM
you're a silly boy Chronz
And Ewing was a mediocre offensive player whos bricking from mid range shows us why the league went away from it

ewing
10-18-2016, 12:37 PM
And Ewing was a mediocre offensive player whos bricking from mid range shows us why the league went away from it

Ewing was given more responibilty offensively then he should have been. The best #2 he had on that end during his prime was John Starks. Saying Knicks weren't a good offensive team bc of Ewing's shot selection is silly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nycericanguy
10-18-2016, 01:30 PM
And Ewing was a mediocre offensive player whos bricking from mid range shows us why the league went away from it

prime Ewing had a season where he averaged almost 30ppg on 55% shooting. he was also an excellent FT shooter for a big man. don't think i;ve ever heard him called a mediocre offensive player. he carried the knicks offense for more than a decade and had them at 50+ wins every year.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2016, 02:41 PM
Ewing never really had any seasons where he was offensively dominant, outside 89-90', in which case he was arguably a top 10 offensive player. Ewing's huge contributions routinely came on the other side of the floor. I wouldn't go so far as to call him mediocre, but if we are measuring against star players, that term would indeed fit for his offense.

Good offensive player
Great defensive player

That sums up Ewing

Chronz
10-18-2016, 06:24 PM
Ewing was given more responibilty offensively then he should have been. The best #2 he had on that end during his prime was John Starks. Saying Knicks weren't a good offensive team bc of Ewing's shot selection is silly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then hes not exactly "thriving" is he, certainly not enough to suggest hes a part of that "lost art". Anytime I saw him take that jumper I was happy. Know why? Cuz even when wide open, it wasn't accurate and took him away from the boards. I saw nothing about his skillset that suggests he wouldve transformed his effectiveness with another star. Hell, the guy was old as **** and taking shots away from superior players. Its why the team was often better without him as he aged. Dude was dumb as bricks

Chronz
10-18-2016, 06:40 PM
prime Ewing had a season where he averaged almost 30ppg on 55% shooting. he was also an excellent FT shooter for a big man. don't think i;ve ever heard him called a mediocre offensive player. he carried the knicks offense for more than a decade and had them at 50+ wins every year.

Yeah and everyone was surprised when he did it, a symptom of having a great pass first PG set him up+his athletic peak. Its kinda like when Amare went to NY and had a decent stretch but well beneath what he did with Nash and co. Career 106 ORTG says more than simple stats ever do. His stretch from 88-92 was the only part to brag about offensively and his teams didn't win 50 on average those years.

His offense didn't lead them to 50 wins outside those years, offensively the Knicks were mediocre and Ewing didn't stand out, his defense led them to alot of success but its telling of how much support he had on that end that despite the Knicks being a historically great defensive team, Ewing never got DPOY love and actually shared some votes with Oakley.

Chronz
10-18-2016, 06:45 PM
IDC what anyone says, Ewings last 7 years were HORRENDOUS OFFENSIVELY. This after starting off slow as ****, he was never suppose to be a great offensive player, Ewing never got the memo. I VIVIDLY remember him chucking away in Orlando in his limited minutes, if an old Ewing didn't get the memo, what makes you guys think he would've gotten it at his peak?

You can win a title with the guy but its going to be alot harder than most guys who are considered at his level.

ewing
10-18-2016, 08:51 PM
IDC what anyone says, Ewings last 7 years were HORRENDOUS OFFENSIVELY. This after starting off slow as ****, he was never suppose to be a great offensive player, Ewing never got the memo. I VIVIDLY remember him chucking away in Orlando in his limited minutes, if an old Ewing didn't get the memo, what makes you guys think he would've gotten it at his peak?

You can win a title with the guy but its going to be alot harder than most guys who are considered at his level.

that explains why he had more success then almost all of them with less support.

Chronz
10-18-2016, 10:11 PM
[/B]

that explains why he had more success then almost all of them with less support.

Yeah and it had very little to do with his offense and even defensively the dude never won dpoy.

You're talking about a guy who shot what like 33% in a 7 game series loss? If he were even alil bit efficient the team wins.

ewing
10-18-2016, 10:18 PM
Yeah and it had very little to do with his offense and even defensively the dude never won dpoy.

You're talking about a guy who shot what like 33% in a 7 game series loss? If he were even alil bit efficient the team wins.

That a better cherry pick then when he was 40 on the magic. Keep schooling bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
10-18-2016, 10:28 PM
That a better cherry pick then when he was 40 on the magic. Keep schooling bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right because the Ewing Theory began when he joined the magic.

Silly child

Chronz
10-18-2016, 10:31 PM
Someone school me here. When was the last time an alleged great has been in the coaching ranks this long yet couldn't find anyone to take a chance with him....

ewing
10-18-2016, 10:45 PM
Right because the Ewing Theory began when he joined the magic.

Silly child


no it started in 99 (13 years after he entered the league) based on a miracle run in a strike shortened season when he was playing on broken knees.

ewing
10-18-2016, 10:49 PM
keep schooling chronz. you know when T-Mac was a broken player often teams were better with him on the bench. 13 years into this career sometimes the knicks were better without him and with a young Marcus Camby in the middle.

D-Leethal
10-18-2016, 11:12 PM
In Chronz' world Ewing is a bum and DeAndre Jordan is a stud.

D-Leethal
10-18-2016, 11:16 PM
Someone school me here. When was the last time an alleged great has been in the coaching ranks this long yet couldn't find anyone to take a chance with him....

What the hell kind of argument is that? You are the first one to say great players don't make great coaches. Ewing obviously does well enough to keep himself employed as a top assistant but he definitely doesn't have the personality to be a HC.

D-Leethal
10-18-2016, 11:21 PM
I've heard Chronzie say DJ is a good to great offensive player and Ewing is mediocre. DJ would get served up for lunch and lock himself in his bedroom if he went up against those bigs in the 90s that Ewing and the teams he led went to absolute war against. Chronzie puts on a front like he is some objective and unbiased fan but he is as much an emotional posting tool as anyone on here.

D-Leethal
10-18-2016, 11:25 PM
IDC what anyone says, Ewings last 7 years were HORRENDOUS OFFENSIVELY. This after starting off slow as ****, he was never suppose to be a great offensive player, Ewing never got the memo. I VIVIDLY remember him chucking away in Orlando in his limited minutes, if an old Ewing didn't get the memo, what makes you guys think he would've gotten it at his peak?

You can win a title with the guy but its going to be alot harder than most guys who are considered at his level.

lol Chronzie. A lot harder than most guys at his level yet he got closer than most guys at his level will ever get, with a grocery bagger as his sidekick. Ewing was going toe to toe with Jordan and Hakeem, your pansy *** skill-deprived girlfriend DJ wouldn't lead a team to 20 wins as the top gun on his squad.

D-Leethal
10-18-2016, 11:31 PM
And why toss out ORTG for anyone on the 90s Knicks like they were put out there to play some finesse offensive ball or something? They wanted the game to be ugly, the final score in the 80s, and play in the half court mud. They were willing to trade off scoring efficiency and finesse play for brutal defense. That's how they played, and that's how they won. Ewing wasn't going to miraculously score the rock with ease and get clean open lanes and looks in a grind-it-out half court slugfest. Oh wait I forgot simpleton Chronzie thinks you can play baseball analytics with basketball like one side of the court doesn't effect the other...

D-Leethal
10-18-2016, 11:38 PM
Chronzie says Ewing and AI had plenty of support and the perfect mix of talent but bends over backwards to absolve CP3 of his choking ways.

One can't bend over for DJ while fellating Blake, say CP3 doesn't have enough help and then when done guzzling say it's much harder for Ewing to bring his team to the promised land than other greats.

Chronz
10-19-2016, 11:55 AM
In Chronz' world Ewing is a bum and DeAndre Jordan is a stud.
Why, cuz I dont buy the theory that he thrived from midrange despite missing so many from there? Neither thrived in the mid-range, at least DJ was smart enough to not take shots he shouldn't.


keep schooling chronz. you know when T-Mac was a broken player often teams were better with him on the bench. 13 years into this career sometimes the knicks were better without him and with a young Marcus Camby in the middle.
Yeah, when Tmac was an inefficient chucker who tried to hold on to his prior glory, those days ended once he left Houston. He wasn't chucking away like an old Ewing who should have known better. Ewing entered that stage while being an All-Star player. You already admitted he was tasked with too much offensively so I fail to see how thats thriving. I dont buy the notion that he would have aced them with Dirk like efficacy had he only had the help. Great shooters make shots, Ewing missed them.


no it started in 99 (13 years after he entered the league) based on a miracle run in a strike shortened season when he was playing on broken knees.
lol no it didn't thats just when it was really tested when an 8th seed made the Finals. I first heard the grumblings of NY being better off without him in the mid 90's but apparently has followed him his entire career since George Town. Should be interesting, lets look up his teams record in the games outside the stretch I spoke of earlier. You think you'll find a Tmac level of impact?

Tmac could be surrounded by garbage and STILL kill you from midrange, meanwhile you can blame all his misses on his teammates. Which only proves how he did NOT thrive from midrange. An offense based around his mid-range game, in whatever minuscule role you wish to conjure, would be deplorable.

Chronz
10-19-2016, 12:20 PM
And why toss out ORTG for anyone on the 90s Knicks like they were put out there to play some finesse offensive ball or something? They wanted the game to be ugly, the final score in the 80s, and play in the half court mud. They were willing to trade off scoring efficiency and finesse play for brutal defense. That's how they played, and that's how they won. Ewing wasn't going to miraculously score the rock with ease and get clean open lanes and looks in a grind-it-out half court slugfest. Oh wait I forgot simpleton Chronzie thinks you can play baseball analytics with basketball like one side of the court doesn't effect the other...
Spare me the cliches plz, playing a defensive style doesn't completely exonerate you of your inefficiencies. Its not like we have never seen great offensive players in a defensive system, hell Pat Riley brought the same system to Miami and we saw Mourning post the best numbers of his career, its only poor poor Ewing that is forced into bricking shot after shot as his team loses a 7 game Finals. Also, notice how even playing on a historic defensive team wasn't enough for Ewing to claim DPOY, thats how much help he got on that end. The inefficiencies I speak of apply for Ewing on even .500 caliber squads with a mediocre defenses around him. Guys like Duncan can play in the mud and dominate individually, I get that Ewing isn't him, which is why I wouldn't say he thrived from mid-range. We have different standard.

You can cling to your theories and believe Ewing is some sort of outlier who should be given a pass but I believe he lost his cat like quickness and would have led NY to a title had the support come a few years sooner or if he was a few years younger during that MJ-less window.


Coming from the guy who didn't even know what O-RTG not too long ago, you think Im going to believe your theories on anything quantitative? Tell me then, just how much does one side effect the other? Love to see how you demonstrate this without vague cliches and objective evidence to support it. They do influence each other, we prolly just dont see eye to eye on how much, but if simply disagreeing with you makes me a simpleton in your mind so be it.


lol Chronzie. A lot harder than most guys at his level yet he got closer than most guys at his level will ever get, with a grocery bagger as his sidekick. Ewing was going toe to toe with Jordan and Hakeem, your pansy *** skill-deprived girlfriend DJ wouldn't lead a team to 20 wins as the top gun on his squad.
Good, now that we've settled Ewing>DJ, lets hear why Ewing is thriving from midrange despite missing so many of them. Its fair to say he was a decent/mediocre jumpshooter but thats never been a lost art. The lost art tag is reserved guys like Dirk, Willis Reed, CP3 etc... guys who dont need the excuses Ewing has made for his binkie.


I've heard Chronzie say DJ is a good to great offensive player and Ewing is mediocre. DJ would get served up for lunch and lock himself in his bedroom if he went up against those bigs in the 90s that Ewing and the teams he led went to absolute war against. Chronzie puts on a front like he is some objective and unbiased fan but he is as much an emotional posting tool as anyone on here.
Its all relative, DJ is really valuable in his era vs his peers, Ewing is on a different platform and judged by his own era/peer group, where he was utterly mediocre. Not buying an All-NBA first teamer would get tossed up by a 7ft jumpshooter. I stopped "pretending" to be objective awhile ago guy.


What the hell kind of argument is that? You are the first one to say great players don't make great coaches. Ewing obviously does well enough to keep himself employed as a top assistant but he definitely doesn't have the personality to be a HC.
True, it was a dig, brought you out of the doldrums didn't it.

Chronz
10-19-2016, 12:35 PM
Chronzie says Ewing and AI had plenty of support and the perfect mix of talent but bends over backwards to absolve CP3 of his choking ways.

One can't bend over for DJ while fellating Blake, say CP3 doesn't have enough help and then when done guzzling say it's much harder for Ewing to bring his team to the promised land than other greats.
CP3 has defeated a team superior to ANY Iverson has ever beat and I dont consider his team overachieving to be choking.

Ewing is different, but when has Ewing ever defeated a team that could lay claim to more talent than his? I remember his teams doing that without him but with him? Only that Celtics series that I have seen countless times, THAT was the best iteration of Ewing IMO. Its why I asked Ewing earlier, when was his offensive peak. That Ewing beasts out regardless of whos around him, like I can play CP3 with ANYONE and count on him to manipulate and distort defenses with his midrange game, showcasing elite level impact offensively.

Its telling that in the playoffs, despite being without Blake+DJ (one was injured but both were babies and incapable of heavy playoff minutes) vs an elite defense in the Grizzlies, that CP3 led the Clips to an elite offensive showing regardless of being without his 2 primary outlet weapons, they just couldn't stop their bigs (not CP3's job). Thats what a lost art implies , the simple threat of his mid-range game opens up other efficient means to score.

Ewing was that guy for such a short time frame and Ill tell you why. Its because he came in older and people never regarded him as a great offensive player so it was sorta surprising to see him become a scorer, that athleticism faded quickly tho and he was left with a decent jumper and decent robotic post moves. He didn't have that great a learning curve because he already went above his perceived ceiling, had he come in a gifted scorer maybe he becomes a Hakeem/Shaq level offensive player at his apex. Maybe not, just a thought.

Its sorta what happened with Dwight, came in younger and improved his post game demonstrably only to lose it all when his athletic ability was sapped. Dwight and Ewing share similarities in how much control of the offense they wanted.

ewing
10-19-2016, 12:38 PM
Chrome ur a silly boy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
10-19-2016, 12:42 PM
Chrome ur a silly boy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

loved your last commercial chewing, keep missing them midrange daggers. Timely hooping indeed

Chronz
10-19-2016, 02:13 PM
Just a question, if we cant look at his offensive deficiencies because of his teams style of play, does that mean we do the same with their defensive success and how much he himself is attributed for? Like "of course hes gonna look like a great defender, the entire team plays in the mud", that kind of talk? Aren't you still a product of that system? His offensive output cant be stunted without his defensive impact being overstated.

Im with Hawkeye on this one, Ewing was better defensively than offensively, how to rank him depends entirely on the team and perhaps its era. Its not out of the question that a highly athletic rim runner to the tune of elite efficiency and first team honors is more beneficial to his teams offense than a low efficiency chucker, its not a given hat the chucker becomes just as efficient in a lesser role. I saw it happen with Trevor Ariza and Ron Artest when they swapped roles. LA was noticeably worse offensively, Phil Jackson had to instruct Kobe to stop passing him the ball. LA was better defensively but speaking solely about offense, Ron Artest was a ball stopper who lacked the complete package to command such. Ariza was the guy who could close in on the gaps generated by Kobe/Pau and never dominate the ball. Artest was better at leading a mediocre offense.

DJ and Ewing is in similar regard, offensively its Ewing but not by as much as you jokers pretend, only difference is I believe Ewing to be one of the best anchors of all-time whereas DJ has the potential to be.

IndyRealist
10-19-2016, 02:54 PM
And why toss out ORTG for anyone on the 90s Knicks like they were put out there to play some finesse offensive ball or something? They wanted the game to be ugly, the final score in the 80s, and play in the half court mud. They were willing to trade off scoring efficiency and finesse play for brutal defense. That's how they played, and that's how they won. Ewing wasn't going to miraculously score the rock with ease and get clean open lanes and looks in a grind-it-out half court slugfest. Oh wait I forgot simpleton Chronzie thinks you can play baseball analytics with basketball like one side of the court doesn't effect the other...

Offensive rating is a per possession stat. The Pacers wanted games in the low 80s too, and they had the #1 rated offense 1998-2000.

valade16
10-19-2016, 09:47 PM
Yeah and it had very little to do with his offense and even defensively the dude never won dpoy.

You're talking about a guy who shot what like 33% in a 7 game series loss? If he were even alil bit efficient the team wins.

Is that a valid argument though? Tim Duncan never won a DPOY, are you going to downplay his defensive impact because of it?

valade16
10-19-2016, 09:51 PM
Tmac could be surrounded by garbage and STILL kill you from midrange, meanwhile you can blame all his misses on his teammates. Which only proves how he did NOT thrive from midrange. An offense based around his mid-range game, in whatever minuscule role you wish to conjure, would be deplorable.

Are you talking about at his peak or in his later years? Because his later years (age 28 and up) he was a 35% shooter from 10-23 feet.

Chronz
10-19-2016, 10:48 PM
Are you talking about at his peak or in his later years? Because his later years (age 28 and up) he was a 35% shooter from 10-23 feet.
Yeah Im talking about a broken Tmac....


Is that a valid argument though? Tim Duncan never won a DPOY, are you going to downplay his defensive impact because of it?

But we can point to seasons in which he should have won it, can the same be said for Ewing?

ewing
10-19-2016, 10:51 PM
Was it me or Pat Ewing who did something to you Chronz?

Chronz
10-20-2016, 12:27 AM
Its a debate about a single aspect of the game. I love Chewing

ewing
10-20-2016, 01:09 AM
Its a debate about a single aspect of the game. I love Chewing


IDK, you brought his performance in orlando, can't find a season he should have DPOY, and brought up his coaching career. you seem to be trolling.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2016, 09:28 AM
Was it me or Pat Ewing who did something to you Chronz?

I do find it interesting you fight for Ewing so hard, and crap on KG.

ewing
10-20-2016, 10:15 AM
I do find it interesting you fight for Ewing so hard, and crap on KG.

One is underrated and one is overrated. Also is from the greatest sports city in the world and one is from min [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
10-20-2016, 10:17 AM
One is underrated and one is overrated. Also is from the greatest sports city in the world and one is from min [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I went to Trent Tucker's basketball camp 2 years in a row here in MN, and Ewing was the special guest one year. I was like 16, sitting there in front of Ewing, maybe 4 feet away. He was blabbing about something or other, and all I could think was, "I wonder if I could actually get my entire forearm all the way up that enormous nostril".

Hawkeye15
10-20-2016, 10:18 AM
and how is NY the greatest sports city? The Yankees won some chips. What else? The Knicks haven't won **** since I was -2 years old, the Nets suck, the Jets suck, the Giants won a couple years ago....

for all the resources, marketing, appeal NY has, they are actually kind of a joke as a sports city.

And then you have that annoying city 4 hours north, that wins everything, and has fans that would jump in front of a car for Tom Brady. Ugh

ewing
10-20-2016, 10:18 AM
I went to Trent Tucker's basketball camp 2 years in a row here in MN, and Ewing was the special guest one year. I was like 16, sitting there in front of Ewing, maybe 4 feet away. He was blabbing about something or other, and all I could think was, "I wonder if I could actually get my entire forearm all the way up that enormous nostril".

They just don't raise great people in min


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
10-20-2016, 10:19 AM
They just don't raise great people in min


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well, they can't all be like me homie

ewing
10-20-2016, 11:58 AM
and how is NY the greatest sports city? The Yankees won some chips. What else? The Knicks haven't won **** since I was -2 years old, the Nets suck, the Jets suck, the Giants won a couple years ago....

for all the resources, marketing, appeal NY has, they are actually kind of a joke as a sports city.

And then you have that annoying city 4 hours north, that wins everything, and has fans that would jump in front of a car for Tom Brady. Ugh

Theres just no culture in min


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
10-20-2016, 11:59 AM
Theres just no culture in min [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
10-20-2016, 12:03 PM
Theres just no culture in min


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

we have ice fishing

ewing
10-20-2016, 12:04 PM
we have ice fishing

Haha. Have u ever?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
10-20-2016, 12:06 PM
Haha. Have u ever?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah, but I got super drunk so I barely remember. My gf's brother owns a camper trailer that also serves as a fishing house, so I am going to try again this winter. Now, if I had one of the fishing houses like they had in Grumpy Old Men, I would do it all the time.

Chronz
10-20-2016, 01:01 PM
IDK, you brought his performance in orlando, can't find a season he should have DPOY, and brought up his coaching career. you seem to be trolling.

I was drunk when I said some of those. I brought up Orlando because you would expect a guy in steep decline to stop chucking away but the guy really believed in his jumper. If he was like that in Orlando on hislast legs, I can only imagine how highly he thought of himself before then. I remember grumblings about his offensive standing, particularly after adding Spree and H20.

ewing
10-20-2016, 01:05 PM
yeah, but I got super drunk so I barely remember. My gf's brother owns a camper trailer that also serves as a fishing house, so I am going to try again this winter. Now, if I had one of the fishing houses like they had in Grumpy Old Men, I would do it all the time.

It's no wonder kg gets so much
support up there. Look at the alternatives


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
10-20-2016, 01:07 PM
I was drunk when I said some of those. I brought up Orlando because you would expect a guy in steep decline to stop chucking away but the guy really believed in his jumper. If he was like that in Orlando on hislast legs, I can only imagine how highly he thought of himself before then. I remember grumblings about his offensive standing, particularly after adding Spree and H20.

Pat could score the ball. He could have used another guy that could just go get buckets. You know like how lebron needs lvring


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
10-20-2016, 01:19 PM
It's no wonder kg gets so much
support up there. Look at the alternatives


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a friend to this day, 40 years old, that will turn blue in the face arguing you that Kent Hrbek was better than Don Mattingly.