PDA

View Full Version : Jahlil Okafor



More-Than-Most
01-29-2019, 10:17 PM
He is still only 23 years old

over his last 4 games he is

36 for 48
80 points
43 rebounds
12 blocks


This is all before tonight by the way... tonights game at half he is 5-7 for 14/5 and a block

ewing
01-29-2019, 10:31 PM
Good for him. I have seen zero % of this but always thought he was a talented offensive player. I was surprised when he crashed in burned in Brooklyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More-Than-Most
01-29-2019, 10:42 PM
Good for him. I have seen zero % of this but always thought he was a talented offensive player. I was surprised when he crashed in burned in Brooklyn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol right now he is carrying the pelicans and could upset the rockets xD


So far tonight 9-11 23/10 with 2 blocks.

bucketss
01-29-2019, 10:43 PM
hes demolishing the rockets, he did have a body transformation in the summer i believe he worked with the same guy oladipo did.

More-Than-Most
01-29-2019, 10:43 PM
hes demolishing the rockets, he did have a body transformation in the summer

lmfao he legit is moving like AD tonight.

ldawg
01-29-2019, 11:04 PM
Okafor got drafted by the wrong team.

ldawg
01-29-2019, 11:23 PM
Imo Pelicans should be glad Davis ask to be traded. They should jump all over that. 1st it avoid them giving a somewhat injury prone player a super max contract, 2nd Davis while putting up good numbers did not prove to be a 1A player that put a team on his back and win, 3rd With young players like Okafor, Randle, and what they can get for Davis help them rebuild super quick.

Okafor, Randle
Mirtic, Diallo
Ingram, Joshson,
Pope, Hart
Holiday, Payton

And their pick + pick via trade.

ewing
01-29-2019, 11:28 PM
Okafor got drafted by the wrong team.

The Sixers treated guys like trash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More-Than-Most
01-29-2019, 11:37 PM
The Sixers treated guys like trash


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lots of team do... see the knicks and kanter currently... do you want to know why teams treat players like assets... see Anthony Davis currently.

ewing
01-30-2019, 12:12 AM
lots of team do... see the knicks and kanter currently... do you want to know why teams treat players like assets... see Anthony Davis currently.

I was only trolling you. I donít like the way the NBA works admittedly and the Kanter situation is a result of that. There are reasons to dislike Kanterís game but I do feel for him playing behind Luke Kornet. Itís not right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More-Than-Most
01-30-2019, 01:41 AM
I was only trolling you. I donít like the way the NBA works admittedly and the Kanter situation is a result of that. There are reasons to dislike Kanterís game but I do feel for him playing behind Luke Kornet. Itís not right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**** that it is 100 percent right lol... tank4zion. Nothing else matters.

Tg11
01-30-2019, 08:02 AM
But can Okafor continue to put up numbers like this on a consistent basis

Alayla
01-30-2019, 10:14 AM
Okafor isn't very good regardless of what numbers he puts up he won't justify his issues at the other end

Tg11
01-30-2019, 10:28 AM
Yeah I mean if he starts putting up consistent numbers for a big man like putting up monster numbers game in game out then perhaps he'll fit right in in New Orleans

Scoots
01-30-2019, 11:06 AM
Kanteresque. Score, board, ole on D.

IKnowHoops
01-30-2019, 11:20 AM
Itís what happens when big boys turn into big men. Not surprised at all

ewing
01-30-2019, 11:34 AM
Kanteresque. Score, board, ole on D.

Have you watched or are you just going to assume he can't defend a paper bag b/c he had a hard time in pick and roll on the tankers his first 2 years? Dude was definitely capable of being more mobile then Kanter IMO, I don't think you could get away with slow footed wings and him but maybe he has improved enough where he can be the one big on the floor. I haven't watched so I don't know but I don't think he deserves to be written off yet either

Scoots
01-30-2019, 11:50 AM
Have you watched or are you just going to assume he can't defend a paper bag b/c he had a hard time in pick and roll on the tankers his first 2 years? Dude was definitely capable of being more mobile then Kanter IMO, I don't think you could get away with slow footed wings and him but maybe he has improved enough where he can be the one big on the floor. I haven't watched so I don't know but I don't think he deserves to be written off yet either

Oh yeah, I've watched. Defense is first about effort, 2nd is intelligence, 3rd is physical ability. Kanter and Okafor spend too much time unengaged on defense. Both could be much better on D that they have been, but to this point both players are good scorers, good rebounders, and bad defenders.

WaDe03
01-30-2019, 02:32 PM
Wades trainer is the ****ing GOAT if weíre being honest.

valade16
01-30-2019, 03:28 PM
Okafor is a talented individual scorer, but outside this current run, even when he's dropping 20 PPG the offense isn't better with him on the floor and his defense is atrocious. I feel like Okafor is a casualty of modern analytics, I feel if he were drafted in the 70's/80's he'd be the focal point of some team because of his ability to score.

Tg11
01-30-2019, 03:30 PM
Okafor is a talented individual scorer, but outside this current run, even when he's dropping 20 PPG the offense isn't better with him on the floor and his defense is atrocious. I feel like Okafor is a casualty of modern analytics, I feel if he were drafted in the 70's/80's he'd be the focal point of some team because of his ability to score.

That's so true but Okafor if he were to improve on the defensive end but also be more efficient on offense he could even become an All Star in the future but until then he will always be a role player at best

WestCoastSportz
01-30-2019, 03:49 PM
The Sixers seem to like drafting young bigs but give up on them really quick if they don't perform in their first year. They did it with Vucevic ,who is 28 years old now and averaging 20.7 points and 12 rebounds for the Magic. They gave up on Okafor and moved on to Embiid. Though there are exceptions, bigs usually takes time to develop.

Tg11
01-30-2019, 03:52 PM
The Sixers seem to like drafting young bigs but give up on them really quick if they don't perform in their first year. They did it with Vucevic ,who is 28 years old now and averaging 20.7 points and 12 rebounds for the Magic. They gave up on Okafor and moved on to Embiid. Though there are exceptions, bigs usually takes time to develop.

Yeah that's true but for the most part Okafor has been a bust

ewing
01-30-2019, 04:25 PM
Okafor is a talented individual scorer, but outside this current run, even when he's dropping 20 PPG the offense isn't better with him on the floor and his defense is atrocious. I feel like Okafor is a casualty of modern analytics, I feel if he were drafted in the 70's/80's he'd be the focal point of some team because of his ability to score.

I think he is a causality of modern offenses and officiating. If big guys that lack mobility killed your defense they would have found the bench in the 80s too.

valade16
01-30-2019, 04:42 PM
I think he is a causality of modern offenses and officiating. If big guys that lack mobility killed your defense they would have found the bench in the 80s too.

Yes, modern offenses, officiating, analytics. The game has changed for talented individual post scoring big men. The thing is, in the 80's a lack of mobility wasn't as crippling so long as they could anchor the post to a reasonable degree. Nowadays against someone like that other team goes small with a 3 point shooter and forces that dude out of the paint.

Mark Eaton had a long career in the 80's, I have difficulty imagining him surviving a PNR in today's game.

ewing
01-30-2019, 04:48 PM
Yes, modern offenses, officiating, analytics. The game has changed for talented individual post scoring big men. The thing is, in the 80's a lack of mobility wasn't as crippling so long as they could anchor the post to a reasonable degree. Nowadays against someone like that other team goes small with a 3 point shooter and forces that dude out of the paint.

Mark Eaton had a long career in the 80's, I have difficulty imagining him surviving a PNR in today's game.

No Eaton would get destroyed. The Sabonis that came late to your Balzers wouldn't have survived either. My point was that math didn't make people realize they stank. They were more valuable back then and when guys like Don Nelson tried to go small on everyone it didn't work too well. Analytics tell us those type players don't belong on the floor now. IMO in the 80s analytics would have told a different story

More-Than-Most
01-30-2019, 10:18 PM
:laugh:

maybe AD is a product of this system... Daily okafor update

Its halftime

6-7
12 poinrs
4 rebounds
1 block
1 steal

TheDish87
01-31-2019, 09:54 AM
The Sixers seem to like drafting young bigs but give up on them really quick if they don't perform in their first year. They did it with Vucevic ,who is 28 years old now and averaging 20.7 points and 12 rebounds for the Magic. They gave up on Okafor and moved on to Embiid. Though there are exceptions, bigs usually takes time to develop.

Thats like saying Orlando gave up on Dipo too soon, everyone develops at their own pace and needs the right situation to thrive. Vuc was traded in a deal for Bynum it had nothing to do with giving up on him. Okafor just came into a tough situation with Embiid and noel already on the roster and as much as i backed him then he didnt play with enough effort, the tanking got to him as much as anyone and it cost him.

Tg11
01-31-2019, 12:45 PM
But playing in New Orleans now on a young team might actually help him develop more into a potential All Star in the future

JAZZNC
01-31-2019, 02:35 PM
:laugh:

maybe AD is a product of this system... Daily okafor update

Its halftime

6-7
12 poinrs
4 rebounds
1 block
1 steal

Bro, how have the Pelicans not missed a beat without AD if hes so great and they replaced him with a guy literally nobody wanted on their team!?!? Plus his team is soooooo bad according to everyone they shouldn't even be in games especially against the second best team in the West without the elite Davis. I've been trying to say AD and his impact are overrated but oh well.

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 03:10 PM
poor guy was just born 20 years too late.

IndyRealist
01-31-2019, 03:27 PM
Okafor is a talented individual scorer, but outside this current run, even when he's dropping 20 PPG the offense isn't better with him on the floor and his defense is atrocious. I feel like Okafor is a casualty of modern analytics, I feel if he were drafted in the 70's/80's he'd be the focal point of some team because of his ability to score.

It's not analytics, the rules are literally different. All analytics did was say "hey, you're not maximally exploiting the current rules. Here's a cheatsheet."

valade16
01-31-2019, 04:22 PM
It's not analytics, the rules are literally different. All analytics did was say "hey, you're not maximally exploiting the current rules. Here's a cheatsheet."

But to Ewing and your point, even with the old rules and analytics in the 80's, analytics still would have said "you're not maximizing exploiting the current rules. You need to shoot A LOT more 3 pointers" and the emphasis on low post players would have still diminished in that it would have been better to use the post to force people to crash and then to kick it out to the open 3 rather than get your points off the block.

The diminishing of the low post scorer wouldn't have been as pronounced compared to today's rules, but it would still have been there in favor of the 3.

imReallyCHI
01-31-2019, 04:47 PM
bulls didnt even offer him a training camp invite

ewing
01-31-2019, 04:53 PM
But to Ewing and your point, even with the old rules and analytics in the 80's, analytics still would have said "you're not maximizing exploiting the current rules. You need to shoot A LOT more 3 pointers" and the emphasis on low post players would have still diminished in that it would have been better to use the post to force people to crash and then to kick it out to the open 3 rather than get your points off the block.

The diminishing of the low post scorer wouldn't have been as pronounced compared to today's rules, but it would still have been there in favor of the 3.

everyone already knew 3 was worth more then 2 . In football QBs put up a lot bigger numbers then they used to, they throw the ball more, they throw it down the field more, but everyone realizes that its b/c you aren't allowed to hit Qbs or touch Wide receivers. No one pretends that nerd geniuses figured out that a 50 yard pass was better then a 3 yard run.

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 04:57 PM
But to Ewing and your point, even with the old rules and analytics in the 80's, analytics still would have said "you're not maximizing exploiting the current rules. You need to shoot A LOT more 3 pointers" and the emphasis on low post players would have still diminished in that it would have been better to use the post to force people to crash and then to kick it out to the open 3 rather than get your points off the block.

The diminishing of the low post scorer wouldn't have been as pronounced compared to today's rules, but it would still have been there in favor of the 3.

While I think 3s would have increased, back then, you simply couldn't send any form of help without being called for illegal defense, until a basketball move was made. So the trench big, under THOSE rules, would still dominate. Couple that with the fact that speedy guards were just grabbed, and it was far more beneficial to just toss the ball into a big man and let him go to work. Okafor would still be very useful with those rules, but the counters to trench bigs would be different today (force them to defend outside).

Its not JUST analytics, in fact it's more to do with rules. People were bored of watching Barkley dribble for 20 seconds backing his man down..

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 04:58 PM
everyone already knew 3 was worth more then 2 . In football QBs put up a lot bigger numbers then they used to, they throw the ball more, they throw it down the field more, but everyone realizes that its b/c you aren't allowed to hit Qbs or touch Wide receivers. No one pretends that nerd geniuses figured out that a 50 yard pass was better then a 3 yard run.

its way easier today to get the ball to your best perimeter athlete, let him blow by the initial defender or use a PnR, and get the defense moving while giving that guy multiple outlets at the 3 point line. Why? Because rules dictate it.

valade16
01-31-2019, 05:00 PM
everyone already knew 3 was worth more then 2. In football QBs put up a lot bigger numbers then they used to, they throw the ball more, they throw it down the field more, but everyone realizes that its b/c you aren't allowed to hit Qbs or touch Wide receivers. No one pretends that nerd geniuses figured out that a 50 yard pass was better then a 3 yard run.

Actually they really didn't, that's why only 2 teams shot 10+ 3's per game as late as 1989 while 7 shot less than 5. Even back then any analytics expert worth their salt would be screaming at teams that they weren't utilizing the 3 point line enough and that has nothing to do with rule changes.

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 05:03 PM
Actually they really didn't, that's why only 2 teams shot 10+ 3's per game as late as 1989 while 7 shot less than 5. Even back then any analytics expert worth their salt would be screaming at teams that they weren't utilizing the 3 point line enough and that has nothing to do with rule changes.

Didn't Curry hit more 3's in the playoffs a couple years ago than every team combined the first year 3's were instituted in the playoffs?

ewing
01-31-2019, 05:13 PM
Actually they really didn't, that's why only 2 teams shot 10+ 3's per game as late as 1989 while 7 shot less than 5. Even back then any analytics expert worth their salt would be screaming at teams that they weren't utilizing the 3 point line enough and that has nothing to do with rule changes.


No they did. Pinto brought Providence to the final 4 and everyone and there dog in basketball journalism was writing articles about it over 30 years ago. Like Hawk said the # of 3s would have increased naturally but you didn't have the same shooters, if you did they wouldn't have been able to get the same looks, and you had other offensive options then. Saying Okfor is a victim of analytics isn't true IMO. If he can't defend today he may wind up being a victim of modern basketball but that has a lot more to do with rules some strategic discovery

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 05:20 PM
No they did. Pinto brought Providence to the final 4 and everyone and there dog in basketball journalism was writing articles about it over 30 years ago. Like Hawk said the # of 3s would have increased naturally but you didn't have the same shooters, if you did they wouldn't have been able to get the same looks, and you had other offensive options then. Saying Okfor is a victim of analytics isn't true IMO. If he can't defend today he may wind up being a victim of modern basketball but that has a lot more to do with rules some strategic discovery

I remember when the sniper movement started, every team had 1-2 guys who could bomb away, just to keep teams honest about sending help inside. Nowadays, every team has 10 guys who make it look like a layup if you leave them open.

valade16
01-31-2019, 05:23 PM
No they did. Pinto brought Providence to the final 4 and everyone and there dog in basketball journalism was writing articles about it over 30 years ago. Like Hawk said the # of 3s would have increased naturally but you didn't have the same shooters, if you did they wouldn't have been able to get the same looks, and you had other offensive options then. Saying Okfor is a victim of analytics isn't true IMO. If he can't defend today he may wind up being a victim of modern basketball but that has a lot more to do with rules some strategic discovery

Pitino was talked about and everybody raved about Providence's 3-point shooting precisely because it was so atypical to what was going on at the time. There's always a few people who are ahead of the curve, but the NBA by and large ignored the 3-point line for a long, long time. Larry Bird talks about how everyone considered it a novelty at the time. Kyle Korver even talks about how he was instructed not to slide to the 3-point line during a fast break his first few years in the league.

I think it's a product of both rule changes and analytics, but if you think people in the 80's were hip to the damage the 3-point line could do, well I don't know what to tell you. They weren't.

valade16
01-31-2019, 05:28 PM
I remember when the sniper movement started, every team had 1-2 guys who could bomb away, just to keep teams honest about sending help inside. Nowadays, every team has 10 guys who make it look like a layup if you leave them open.

Yeah nobody was really utilizing the 3-point line, it just wasn't done. You had a single dude who could shoot there in case you needed it, but otherwise there was no need because you didn't actually have to be able to shoot the 3 to keep your man from the basket, he was required to stay near you whether you could shoot or not according to the rules. But no matter what rules you play by, there were no rules that included a 3-point line that excused only shooting it from 3 5 times or less a game.

If you look at 1989 compared to 2018 (though the point is true of literally any year in the 80's compared to any of the last 5 years), the highest team eFG% was .518 and the lowest was .459. In 2018 it was .542 for the best and .492 for the worst (the worst team in 2018 would have the 10th best eFG% in 1989).

Whether you think Okafor's demise today was due to analytics or rule changes, analytics in any era would have agreed the 3 was vastly underutilized for a long time.

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 05:30 PM
Yeah nobody was really utilizing the 3-point line, it just wasn't done. You had a single dude who could shoot there in case you needed it, but otherwise there was no need because you didn't actually have to be able to shoot the 3 to keep your man from the basket, he was required to stay near you whether you could shoot or not according to the rules. But no matter what rules you play by, there were no rules that included a 3-point line that excused only shooting it from 3 5 times or less a game.

If you look at 1989 compared to 2018 (though the point is true of literally any year in the 80's compared to any of the last 5 years), the highest team eFG% was .518 and the lowest was .459. In 2018 it was .542 for the best and .492 for the worst (the worst team in 2018 would have the 10th best eFG% in 1989).

Whether you think Okafor's demise today was due to analytics or rule changes, analytics in any era would have agreed the 3 was vastly underutilized for a long time.

I feel it's both (rules/analytics), but if we all of a sudden made it illegal to help off the ball to any capacity until a basketball move was made, and we allowed perimeter defenders to grab/hold guards, within a couple years, guess what would show up again...........dominant post play.

valade16
01-31-2019, 05:40 PM
I feel it's both (rules/analytics), but if we all of a sudden made it illegal to help off the ball to any capacity until a basketball move was made, and we allowed perimeter defenders to grab/hold guards, within a couple years, guess what would show up again...........dominant post play.

I think you'd see dominant post play make a return, but it would still be secondary to teams finding ways to get open 3-point shots. Even the absolute best post up players and offenses weren't as efficient as ones shooting a boatload of 3's. My brother's suggestion is to get rid of the 3-point line, which seems to be the opposite of where Basketball in general is heading with possibly adding a 4-point line.

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 05:41 PM
I think you'd see dominant post play make a return, but it would still be secondary to teams finding ways to get open 3-point shots. Even the absolute best post up players and offenses weren't as efficient as ones shooting a boatload of 3's. My brother's suggestion is to get rid of the 3-point line, which seems to be the opposite of where Basketball in general is heading with possibly adding a 4-point line.

I actually would LOVE rule changes, it would create different styles around the league.

ewing
01-31-2019, 06:03 PM
Pitino was talked about and everybody raved about Providence's 3-point shooting precisely because it was so atypical to what was going on at the time. There's always a few people who are ahead of the curve, but the NBA by and large ignored the 3-point line for a long, long time. Larry Bird talks about how everyone considered it a novelty at the time. Kyle Korver even talks about how he was instructed not to slide to the 3-point line during a fast break his first few years in the league.

I think it's a product of both rule changes and analytics, but if you think people in the 80's were hip to the damage the 3-point line could do, well I don't know what to tell you. They weren't.

I learned run corner when the ball got pushed in about 4th grade. Was it encouraged if the lane would have given a layup? No. Is it looked at differently now? Yes. Was your originally statement that started this conversation wrong? I think so. But if you want to hold on to no one knew three was worth more then two theory, I don't know what to tell you

valade16
01-31-2019, 06:21 PM
I learned run corner when the ball got pushed in about 4th grade. Was it encouraged if the lane would have given a layup? No. Is it looked at differently now? Yes. Was your originally statement that started this conversation wrong? I think so. But if you want to hold on to no one knew three was worth more then two theory, I don't know what to tell you

And you're free to think that, but even beyond that, all his advanced numbers show that (absent this current stretch with NO) even his individual scoring prowess was neither overly efficient or beneficial to the offense write large. Not sure that would have been readily apparent in the 80's without analytics telling us so as there were several big men in his mold who got way more run than they probably deserved because of their prowess in the post.

I think we are at an impasse regarding the knowledge of the 3-point line in the 80's. If you think teams that took 3 3-pointers a game were aware of it's power or significance...

IndyRealist
01-31-2019, 06:33 PM
But to Ewing and your point, even with the old rules and analytics in the 80's, analytics still would have said "you're not maximizing exploiting the current rules. You need to shoot A LOT more 3 pointers" and the emphasis on low post players would have still diminished in that it would have been better to use the post to force people to crash and then to kick it out to the open 3 rather than get your points off the block.

The diminishing of the low post scorer wouldn't have been as pronounced compared to today's rules, but it would still have been there in favor of the 3.

Basketball analytics didn't really exist in the 80s. For more than a decade after it was introduced, coaches considered the 3pt shot a gimmick brought over from the ABA to sell tickets. They didn't adapt to the new ruleset. The long 2 only really faded out maybe 5 years ago. Heck, the NBA had zone for years before anyone would even touch it except when they were desperate.

ewing
01-31-2019, 07:28 PM
And you're free to think that, but even beyond that, all his advanced numbers show that (absent this current stretch with NO) even his individual scoring prowess was neither overly efficient or beneficial to the offense write large. Not sure that would have been readily apparent in the 80's without analytics telling us so as there were several big men in his mold who got way more run than they probably deserved because of their prowess in the post.

I think we are at an impasse regarding the knowledge of the 3-point line in the 80's. If you think teams that took 3 3-pointers a game were aware of it's power or significance...

And bc those big guys were space eaters that both helped you defend the paint and rebound which again are skills that were valued higher at the time bc of the way the game was played. Inefficient post play also limited fast breaks, lead to more offense rebounds, and didnít leave you with a guard trying to handle while a Dereck Harper type mugged him and tried to strip the ball. Also range shooting wasnít as valuable so guys didnít work on it and they grew up being taught by guys that probably didnít even have a line. It was a different game. A game where range shooting wasnít as valuable and where way fewer guys were capable of it.

Put it in context. Were the Mavs better with Damp and Doip at the 5 or Dirk? Should Hakeem have worked on finishing off cuts and extending his range or his post game? Is it reasonable to believe that guys like Bob Knight and Larry Brown could know so much about the game but need a code breaker to figure out 3 was worth more then two?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valade16
01-31-2019, 09:10 PM
And bc those big guys were space eaters that both helped you defend the paint and rebound which again are skills that were valued higher at the time bc of the way the game was played. Inefficient post play also limited fast breaks, lead to more offense rebounds, and didnít leave you with a guard trying to handle while a Dereck Harper type mugged him and tried to strip the ball. Also range shooting wasnít as valuable so guys didnít work on it and they grew up being taught by guys that probably didnít even have a line. It was a different game. A game where range shooting wasnít as valuable and where way fewer guys were capable of it.

Put it in context. Were the Mavs better with Damp and Doip at the 5 or Dirk? Should Hakeem have worked on finishing off cuts and extending his range or his post game? Is it reasonable to believe that guys like Bob Knight and Larry Brown could know so much about the game but need a code breaker to figure out 3 was worth more then two?

It wasn't as valued by that doesn't mean it wasn't as valuable. It's simple mathematics. A 3 is worth more than a 2. And you can talk about how post play limited fast breaks all you want, didn't really in the 80's when the pace was up and down all the time. Maybe the 90's you have a point.

You're trying to make it seem like everybody knew exactly how to use the 3-point line and intentionally chose not to because of the rules. You are literally the first person in history I've ever heard try to make this claim. Every anecdote, interview, article, quote, etc. talks about how nobody knew how to use the 3-point line when it first started.

You bringing up Hakeem is interesting because Rudy sort of stumbled upon the idea of a single Big man with a small ball lineup that could all shoot around him. There was a great article where he talks about his decision to play Horry at the 4, it was against the Suns because Barkley was killing their bigger slower 4's so Rudy wanted to bring in Horry to stop Barkley on defense. Well it didn't really change their defense but Rudy saw that it made their offense better and so he started using smaller lineups of 4 shooters around Hakeem more.

You can see this as the Rockets took 4.7 3's in 93 but then jumped to 15.7 in 94 then to 21.4 in 95. Horry's 3-pt attempts went from 0.6 to 1.7 to 3.5 during that span. The Rockets coincidentally went from losing in the 2nd round to back to back champions as they took more 3's.

By the mid 90's teams were shooting at the high end 20 3's a game (in part because the line had moved in briefly).

The lack of 3's in the 80's was not because it was a statistically worse shot or they were getting drastically better shots due to the rules, it's because nobody knew that shooting a ton of 3's is more efficient than shooting a ton of 2's. As Hawkeye and others have pointed out, they viewed it as a gimmick. It's why you saw teams start to tell their shooters to backup as the 80's turned into the 90's, they realized if you're going to shoot a long 2 might as well shoot a 3 instead. It's why you saw Jack Sikma go from shooting a combined 68 3's the first 10 years of his career to shooting about 170 per year his last 3. Or Laimbeer do something similar.

The lack of 3 point shots was not due to strategy, it was due to ignorance of the 3 point shot.

ewing
01-31-2019, 10:37 PM
It wasn't as valued by that doesn't mean it wasn't as valuable. It's simple mathematics. A 3 is worth more than a 2. And you can talk about how post play limited fast breaks all you want, didn't really in the 80's when the pace was up and down all the time. Maybe the 90's you have a point.

You're trying to make it seem like everybody knew exactly how to use the 3-point line and intentionally chose not to because of the rules. You are literally the first person in history I've ever heard try to make this claim. Every anecdote, interview, article, quote, etc. talks about how nobody knew how to use the 3-point line when it first started.

You bringing up Hakeem is interesting because Rudy sort of stumbled upon the idea of a single Big man with a small ball lineup that could all shoot around him. There was a great article where he talks about his decision to play Horry at the 4, it was against the Suns because Barkley was killing their bigger slower 4's so Rudy wanted to bring in Horry to stop Barkley on defense. Well it didn't really change their defense but Rudy saw that it made their offense better and so he started using smaller lineups of 4 shooters around Hakeem more.

You can see this as the Rockets took 4.7 3's in 93 but then jumped to 15.7 in 94 then to 21.4 in 95. Horry's 3-pt attempts went from 0.6 to 1.7 to 3.5 during that span. The Rockets coincidentally went from losing in the 2nd round to back to back champions as they took more 3's.

By the mid 90's teams were shooting at the high end 20 3's a game (in part because the line had moved in briefly).

The lack of 3's in the 80's was not because it was a statistically worse shot or they were getting drastically better shots due to the rules, it's because nobody knew that shooting a ton of 3's is more efficient than shooting a ton of 2's. As Hawkeye and others have pointed out, they viewed it as a gimmick. It's why you saw teams start to tell their shooters to backup as the 80's turned into the 90's, they realized if you're going to shoot a long 2 might as well shoot a 3 instead. It's why you saw Jack Sikma go from shooting a combined 68 3's the first 10 years of his career to shooting about 170 per year his last 3. Or Laimbeer do something similar.

The lack of 3 point shots was not due to strategy, it was due to ignorance of the 3 point shot.

They put the line in 1979. How many guys do you think had 3 point range in 1980? Like none. With shooters all over the floor and changes in rules good 3 point shots are more available while other options have been devalued. Teams and players have also gotten better at finding these shots for shooters. Going back to 1984 and telling everyone hey you can just shoot a ton of 3 wouldnít have made you the genius you think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hawkeye15
01-31-2019, 10:39 PM
When I was in 9th grade I took a 18 footer in a game, and my coach pulled me. He said, "if you are shooting that back up 2 feet and make it a 3". This was in 1991.

Rules are the biggest reason I think. But clearly many around the country were slow to adapt the game being played more than 15 feet in.

valade16
02-01-2019, 01:09 PM
They put the line in 1979. How many guys do you think had 3 point range in 1980? Like none. With shooters all over the floor and changes in rules good 3 point shots are more available while other options have been devalued. Teams and players have also gotten better at finding these shots for shooters. Going back to 1984 and telling everyone hey you can just shoot a ton of 3 wouldnít have made you the genius you think

There were quite a few that had 3-point range in 1980. First year it was implemented Barry took 3 a game and hit 33.1%. Brian Taylor 3 attempts 37.7%, Chris Ford 2.2 42.7%, Larry Bird 1.7 at 40.6%, John Roche 1.6 at 38%, Kevin Grevey 1.4 at 37%, Brian Winters 1.3 at 37.3%, Bill Ray Bates 1.2 at 42.1%, Fred Brown 1.1 at 44.3%.

And that was literally the first year it was implemented. If you had got your team practicing those shots you could have had a more marked improvement in the 80's than where the league was at, and you'd have had a better offense for it.

Telling everyone to shoot a ton of 3's may not have made me a genius, but it would have made me instantly better than about 50-75% of the coaches at the time.

valade16
02-01-2019, 01:11 PM
When I was in 9th grade I took a 18 footer in a game, and my coach pulled me. He said, "if you are shooting that back up 2 feet and make it a 3". This was in 1991.

Rules are the biggest reason I think. But clearly many around the country were slow to adapt the game being played more than 15 feet in.

What rules would have made the 3 such a bad shot in the 80's? None. The 3 would still have been better than the long 2's everyone was taking.

Or put another way, there's no way, none, zero, zip, where the best coaches of today would go back to the 80's even with the rules in the 80's and construct offenses that are only taking between 3-5 3-point shots a game.

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 01:18 PM
What rules would have made the 3 such a bad shot in the 80's? None. The 3 would still have been better than the long 2's everyone was taking.

Or put another way, there's no way, none, zero, zip, where the best coaches of today would go back to the 80's even with the rules in the 80's and construct offenses that are only taking between 3-5 3-point shots a game.

no, no, no. But if you allowed the older rules, the ball would still start being dumped into the post a ton more. In fact, it would be amazing to bring those old rules back, and have a mix of both era's. Bring me the dominant trench big, but now surround him with a bunch of dudes who can hit 3's, and have the green light.

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 01:20 PM
They put the line in 1979. How many guys do you think had 3 point range in 1980? Like none. With shooters all over the floor and changes in rules good 3 point shots are more available while other options have been devalued. Teams and players have also gotten better at finding these shots for shooters. Going back to 1984 and telling everyone hey you can just shoot a ton of 3 wouldnít have made you the genius you think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rick Mount could hit from literally anywhere. Even the guys who could shoot out there, didn't have it as part of their game.

valade16
02-01-2019, 01:36 PM
no, no, no. But if you allowed the older rules, the ball would still start being dumped into the post a ton more. In fact, it would be amazing to bring those old rules back, and have a mix of both era's. Bring me the dominant trench big, but now surround him with a bunch of dudes who can hit 3's, and have the green light.

I would love to see the older rules come back and have some more post play. I'm not saying post play would be dead in the 80's if they had modern analytics, I'm saying they'd have shot the ball from 3 a lot more. Their offenses would have gone to the Hakeem mid-90's centric model where the post man either shoots or passes out to a 3-point shot instead of the more common post man passes to a mid-range or cutter of the 80's.

You'd have also seen a lot more fast breaks with someone cutting to the corners or 3-point line instead of everyone crashing on the basket.

valade16
02-01-2019, 01:37 PM
Rick Mount could hit from literally anywhere. Even the guys who could shoot out there, didn't have it as part of their game.

McHale told Chuck in their all-time fantasy draft that Jerry Lucas could hit 3's easy. Jerry West obviously. There were players who could do it, it just wasn't a good shot because it wasn't worth an extra point.

Much like how my value in a pickup game plummets when every basket counts as 1 as opposed to how it's normally a point for a 2-pt shot and 2 pts for a 3-pt shot lol

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 02:50 PM
McHale told Chuck in their all-time fantasy draft that Jerry Lucas could hit 3's easy. Jerry West obviously. There were players who could do it, it just wasn't a good shot because it wasn't worth an extra point.

Much like how my value in a pickup game plummets when every basket counts as 1 as opposed to how it's normally a point for a 2-pt shot and 2 pts for a 3-pt shot lol

mine plummets as soon as I pretend to play defense

warfelg
02-01-2019, 02:52 PM
I think I read recently that he's been a -50 in this run? Holy crap.

valade16
02-01-2019, 03:25 PM
mine plummets as soon as I pretend to play defense

lol

ewing
02-01-2019, 03:38 PM
There were quite a few that had 3-point range in 1980. First year it was implemented Barry took 3 a game and hit 33.1%. Brian Taylor 3 attempts 37.7%, Chris Ford 2.2 42.7%, Larry Bird 1.7 at 40.6%, John Roche 1.6 at 38%, Kevin Grevey 1.4 at 37%, Brian Winters 1.3 at 37.3%, Bill Ray Bates 1.2 at 42.1%, Fred Brown 1.1 at 44.3%.

And that was literally the first year it was implemented. If you had got your team practicing those shots you could have had a more marked improvement in the 80's than where the league was at, and you'd have had a better offense for it.

Telling everyone to shoot a ton of 3's may not have made me a genius, but it would have made me instantly better than about 50-75% of the coaches at the time.

Do you have all those guys you just listed on the same team or maybe one of them? If its one do you tell a bunch of guys that have never shot from that far in a game to just start launching? If you have one what do after your one guy has a quarter where he hits 3 bombs and the opposing team starts face guarding him? If you have a bunch of them what do you do when your shooters are getting there *** kicked down low? Sorry its not as simple as you make it sound. You are right that the game could have evolved faster. You are wrong that you could have coached NBA teams with the "hey lets all launch threes" strategy and been more successful then the majority of guys in the league. In fact you would have wound up looking foolish

ewing
02-01-2019, 03:48 PM
Rick Mount could hit from literally anywhere. Even the guys who could shoot out there, didn't have it as part of their game.

I'm sure there were some. In my experience most people who can shoot a little have a range that naturally goes out to about 18 feet then it starts becoming more of a throw. Extending your natural shooting range to 23 -24 feet takes a good deal of work for most. Think of a guy like Charles Oakley. He was a pretty good mid range shooter. I'd say his range went out to about 18-19 feet on the elbows. If he grew up 20 years later I'm sure he'd been taking a couple of bombs a game. If you told him to start in 1995 i'm sure he'd be throwing air balls and breaking the back board half of the time. Could the game have evolved faster? Sure. Would telling Oakley and JR Reid to take 3 for 4 threes a game made the Knicks in better in 1995? No

valade16
02-01-2019, 03:51 PM
Do you have all those guys you just listed on the same team or maybe one of them? If its one do you tell a bunch of guys that have never shot from that far in a game to just start launching? If you have one what do after your one guy has a quarter where he hits 3 bombs and the opposing team starts face guarding him? If you have a bunch of them what do you do when your shooters are getting there *** kicked down low? Sorry its not as simple as you make it sound. You are right that the game could have evolved faster. You are wrong that you could have coached NBA teams with the "hey lets all launch threes" and been more successful then the majority of guys in the league. In fact you would have wound up looking foolish

The idea that it was impossible for people to shoot 3's or that teams knew about their power and chose not to is simply misguided. Just because they were living in an older era of basketball doesn't mean their older era tactics were best. The increase in 3's increased before the rules made it easier to shoot 3's. That was because the 3 was simply a better shot, and teams realized it.

If teams in the 80's had shot more 3's, they'd have been better, this is a matter of basic mathematics. Analytics would have helped them get there.

valade16
02-01-2019, 03:57 PM
I'm sure there were some. In my experience most people who can shoot a little have a range that naturally goes out to about 18 feet then it starts becoming more of a throw. Extending your natural shooting range to 23 -24 feet takes a good deal of work for most. Think of a guy like Charles Oakley. He was a pretty good mid range shooter. I'd say his range went out to about 18-19 feet on the elbows. If he grew up 20 years later I'm sure he'd been taking a couple of bombs a game. If you told him to start in 1995 i'm sure he'd be throwing air balls and breaking the back board half of the time. Could the game have evolved faster? Sure. Would telling Oakley and JR Reid to take 3 for 4 threes a game made the Knicks in better in 1995? No

How many big men have just started shooting 3's out of nowhere to some level of success? Marc Gasol, Pau Gasol, LMA, Cousins, Sikma, Laimbeer, Sheed, Blake Griffin, Brook Lopez.

If you are a good shooter the adjustment is easier than everyone is making out. I don't know if Oakley could have made the adjustment, but plenty of players could.

Though the 90's Knicks are an interesting example because even the modest amount of 3's they shot (between 7.5-14 per game from 89-95) would have led the league in 3-point shooting for a team every year until 1987. So even the 90's Knicks were shooting the ball from 3 way more than teams in the early to mid 80's. Yet I doubt you'd say their problem was they shot too many.

ewing
02-01-2019, 04:04 PM
I know you want to peddle some weird reality where it was simply impossible for teams to shoot 3's in the 80's or that teams knew about how much better it was to shoot 3's and chose not to, but there's nobody who has spoken about the era who agrees with you. I'll trust them over you, no offense.

If teams in the 80's had shot more 3's, they'd have been better, this is a matter of basic mathematics. Analytics would have helped them get there.

Once we make anything concrete you have nothing. Its one big black and white to you but that's not true. You would have have trouble building in from 1980s players that could match up with opposition teams while spreading the floor and moving the ball well enough to make guys like Jahil useless.

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 04:08 PM
I'm sure there were some. In my experience most people who can shoot a little have a range that naturally goes out to about 18 feet then it starts becoming more of a throw. Extending your natural shooting range to 23 -24 feet takes a good deal of work for most. Think of a guy like Charles Oakley. He was a pretty good mid range shooter. I'd say his range went out to about 18-19 feet on the elbows. If he grew up 20 years later I'm sure he'd been taking a couple of bombs a game. If you told him to start in 1995 i'm sure he'd be throwing air balls and breaking the back board half of the time. Could the game have evolved faster? Sure. Would telling Oakley and JR Reid to take 3 for 4 threes a game made the Knicks in better in 1995? No

oh I agree. 19'9", was no problem. But I had to change my form a bit from NBA distance. Now huge guys are just stronger, but you make a very good point.

I would have loved to see Oaktree chucking 3's...

by 95' there were plenty of shooters. Dale Ellis and Michael Adams were the first I think. But as discussed, teams only had 1-2 guys with a green light back then.

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:10 PM
Once we make anything concrete you have nothing. Its one big black and white to you but that's not true. You would have have trouble building in from 1980s players that could match up with opposition teams while spreading the floor and moving the ball well enough to make guys like Jahil useless.

It's certainly not black and white to me, there's plenty of grey for how many more 3's would have been a positive before it became a negative, and there's certainly grey area for how much analytics would have phased out the post man who doesn't really improve the offense as a whole, but the fact that more 3's would have been a positive or that analytics would have changed how we look at players is without doubt.

It is honestly frustrating to speak with you because every time I am the only one who provides evidence or stats and you just dismiss everything in favor of your opinion as if it's irrefutable. We get it, you love the 80's/90's of basketball. No, it was not a period of geniuses who knew what they were doing with the 3-point line. Everything about that era was not better, but many things were.

(I still enjoy your comments btw)

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:11 PM
oh I agree. 19'9", was no problem. But I had to change my form a bit from NBA distance. Now huge guys are just stronger, but you make a very good point.

I would have loved to see Oaktree chucking 3's...

by 95' there were plenty of shooters. Dale Ellis and Michael Adams were the first I think. But as discussed, teams only had 1-2 guys with a green light back then.

And by '95 John Starks was chucking more 3's than any team collective did from 1980-1985. What rule changes happened from the 80's to the 90's where teams suddenly realized the 3 was a shot worth taking more than 3 times a game?

ewing
02-01-2019, 04:11 PM
How many big men have just started shooting 3's out of nowhere to some level of success? Marc Gasol, Pau Gasol, LMA, Cousins, Sikma, Laimbeer, Sheed, Blake Griffin, Brook Lopez.

If you are a good shooter the adjustment is easier than everyone is making out. I don't know if Oakley could have made the adjustment, but plenty of players could.

Though the 90's Knicks are an interesting example because even the modest amount of 3's they shot (between 7.5-14 per game from 89-95) would have led the league in 3-point shooting for a team every year until 1987. So even the 90's Knicks were shooting the ball from 3 way more than teams in the early to mid 80's. Yet I doubt you'd say their problem was they shot too many.

And how many haven't had success? How many aren't even in the league anymore? Do you think there is any correlation b/t the shrinking of front line players both in height and physical strength and the rise of the 3 ball?

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 04:17 PM
And by '95 John Starks was chucking more 3's than any team collective did from 1980-1985. What rule changes happened from the 80's to the 90's where teams suddenly realized the 3 was a shot worth taking more than 3 times a game?

not many. Relaxation of zone calls, but that is about it. As the game became slower, and more physical possession to possession after the track meet of the 80's, teams realized spacing mattered when you wanted to run an offense through a dominant big.

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:17 PM
And how many haven't had success? How many aren't even in the league anymore? Do you think there is any correlation b/t the shrinking of front line players both in height and physical strength and the rise of the 3 ball?

Today? Sure there's a correlation, there's also a correlation with regards to rules.

But as I said, the 3-point shot skyrocketed from 1987-1995 and then even more. So 3's were going up by a great degree in the era of Hakeem, Shaq, D-Rob, Ewing, etc. So no, the increase in 3's is not primarily because big post players declined. Teams were taking more 3's than ever before at the golden age of 7' post players.

What do you attribute that to? Why did teams start taking a bunch more 3's in the 90's than the 80's?

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:19 PM
not many. Relaxation of zone calls, but that is about it. As the game became slower, and more physical possession to possession after the track meet of the 80's, teams realized spacing mattered when you wanted to run an offense through a dominant big.

That's really what it comes down to. "teams realized spacing matters". That's what I've been getting at.

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 04:19 PM
Today? Sure there's a correlation, there's also a correlation with regards to rules.

But as I said, the 3-point shot skyrocketed from 1987-1995 and then even more. So 3's were going up by a great degree in the era of Hakeem, Shaq, D-Rob, Ewing, etc. So no, the increase in 3's is not primarily because big post players declined. Teams were taking more 3's than ever before at the golden age of 7' post players.

What do you attribute that to? Why did teams start taking a bunch more 3's in the 90's than the 80's?

couldn't that be a counter to pacing slowing down, as well as the value of the 3 being recognized? No need to shoot 3's in the 80's as much, transition points and lanes to the rim where wide open.

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 04:21 PM
That's really what it comes down to. "teams realized spacing matters". That's what I've been getting at.

I mean this all can be summarized as sports evolve. Rule changes further enhanced the 3, and eventually, analytics made it THE shot.

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:23 PM
couldn't that be a counter to pacing slowing down, as well as the value of the 3 being recognized? No need to shoot 3's in the 80's as much, transition points and lanes to the rim where wide open.

I'm sure pace had something to do with it, but as you said, so does the value of the 3-point being recognized, which has been my entire point. Nobody valued the 3 pointer in the 80's because nobody recognized it's value (except for Pitino at Providence and your HS basketball coach).

Even in transition, players cutting to the corners or running a more modern fast-break would have been a good thing to do in addition to everybody just crashing to the rim. Either way, whether the 3 was as necessary to the 80's or not, the coaches weren't running the numbers on how 3's affect their teams in relation to fast breaks, they were ignoring the 3 altogether, that wasn't an informed strategic decision, but one of collective osmosis of basketball traditionalists.

ewing
02-01-2019, 04:25 PM
It's certainly not black and white to me, there's plenty of grey for how many more 3's would have been a positive before it became a negative, and there's certainly grey area for how much analytics would have phased out the post man who doesn't really improve the offense as a whole, but the fact that more 3's would have been a positive or that analytics would have changed how we look at players is without doubt.

It is honestly frustrating to speak with you because every time I am the only one who provides evidence or stats and you just dismiss everything in favor of your opinion as if it's irrefutable. We get it, you love the 80's/90's of basketball. No, it was not a period of geniuses who knew what they were doing with the 3-point line. Everything about that era was not better, but many things were.

(I still enjoy your comments btw)

Every period is filled with geniuses. These guys know the game. I do think the game in its current incarnation is less interesting but the guys who are living it on the sidelines know a hell of a lot. I think you should give them more of a benefit of the doubt here.

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:26 PM
I mean this all can be summarized as sports evolve. Rule changes further enhanced the 3, and eventually, analytics made it THE shot.

Sports evolve yes, but that doesn't mean that the evolution doesn't have a place in previous iterations. Just because they were the strategies of the time doesn't mean they were the best strategies of the time. The T-bone offense was the strategy of the 60's, but had a team been running the West Coast Offense it would have still been a great strategy even though it was from a different era.

The 3 used more than 3 times a game would have still been a great strategy in the 80's, even if it wasn't used 30 times a game like today.

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:27 PM
Every period is filled with geniuses. These guys know the game. I do think the game in its current incarnation is less interesting but the guys who are living it on the sidelines know a hell of a lot. I think you should give them more of a benefit of the doubt here.

Just because you're a genius doesn't mean you are considering all possible strategies and ways to win. Red Auberach was a genius who dismissed the 3-point line as a gimmick and said his teams weren't going to use it. Does that mean he's not a genius? No. Does it mean he was wrong about that? Absolutely. I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to why they didn't shoot more 3's. It wasn't a strategic decision based on information, it was a knee-jerk reaction against change.

valade16
02-01-2019, 04:30 PM
Anyways, I'm out of this convo. It was a fun conversation, even if we disagree!

Hawkeye15
02-01-2019, 04:35 PM
Sports evolve yes, but that doesn't mean that the evolution doesn't have a place in previous iterations. Just because they were the strategies of the time doesn't mean they were the best strategies of the time. The T-bone offense was the strategy of the 60's, but had a team been running the West Coast Offense it would have still been a great strategy even though it was from a different era.

The 3 used more than 3 times a game would have still been a great strategy in the 80's, even if it wasn't used 30 times a game like today.

the NFL is more guilty of this than any other major sport, but many times, coaches are just regurgitated around the league. So new ideas and concepts are slow to follow. It's easy in hindsight to pick apart strategies, but at the time, offenses were not built around the long ball, there were no analytics, and even if there were, the realization of the 3 would have been slow going, just like it was.

Coaches can be stubborn man.

ewing
02-01-2019, 04:41 PM
Sports evolve yes, but that doesn't mean that the evolution doesn't have a place in previous iterations. Just because they were the strategies of the time doesn't mean they were the best strategies of the time. The T-bone offense was the strategy of the 60's, but had a team been running the West Coast Offense it would have still been a great strategy even though it was from a different era.

The 3 used more than 3 times a game would have still been a great strategy in the 80's, even if it wasn't used 30 times a game like today.

That is definitely fair. I agree