OT - It does sneak up on you

[Garland Bayley]

64 players, 4 flights, 2 nine hole matches each day. Winners play winners, losers play losers. Woe be to the golfers (methinks Kalen might lose the first two ) that lose all four matches.
Willing to play 27 holes a day? 128 players, 4 flights, or 128 players 2 flights.
Willing to play 36 holes a day? 256 players possible, but may overwhelm the course. So make appropriate adjustments in flighting as seen above.

36 hole days were a lot easier to pull off when courses were 6,200 yards and a round took 2.5 hours.

But, somehow the Buda crowd manages to do it two or three days a year, usually on a weekend.

[Jeff Schley]

One other concept to think about is shot distribution parity.  In theory, if you're averaging 1.1 points per 2-point attempt and you're averaging 1.3 points per 3-point attempt, it means that you should be taking more 3-point attempts.  i.e. you could force the action a little more there until the expected value from both zones is equal. 

If we look at the Lakers this year, the stats would say that they are shooting too many threes to be optimal. 
If you ignore fouls-
they are averaging 1.078 points per 3-point attempt
and they are averaging 1.175 points per 2-point attempt

Since foul drawing on 3-point attempts is so low (under 3% of all attempts), the expected value of these 2-pointers needs to be increased by all of the free throws that they produce.  That requires more data, but all NBA teams have that and they know the answer to this. 

Meanwhile, the Jazz are averaging 1.18 points per 3-point attempt while they are only averaging 1.06 on 2-point attempts.  In their case, they might want to shoot even more, even though they lead the league in attempts already.

Peter this sounds like Paul Westhead school of basketball. I'm sure we remember him from his Loyola Marymount days of run and gun, jacking 3's from everywhere. Jeff Fryer, Per Stumer, Kimble, Gathers, Lowery, etc.

[Jason Thurman]

Huh...I just figured the 3 point shot was easier to learn than actually learning how to play center, for example.  Players coming out of college after one year haven't learned how to play their position yet. Foot work, positioning, using their body...that takes a few years of coaching. Running up the court and firing a trey? Easy...not much involved with that.

This is not wrong, and again, relates to golf.


I love great shooters, and the NBA has never had more of them. It's easy to say "the league is more skilled than ever" with all the guys who can pass and shoot and handle the ball at a high level.


But the value and development of post skill has never been so overlooked. It's widely accepted that "post ups are inefficient," and so basketball looks very different than it did prior to 2010, when we thought post play was absolutely essential.


But like, the idea that "post-ups=inefficient" is sorta stupid given the track records of the game's greatest post players. Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Moses, McHale, Kareem, and a few of their friends would like to show you their ring collections...


It's just that post-ups are really bad when practiced by unskilled guys. And developing post skills takes a lot of coaching and development time that pro teams just don't have. Rather than developing post skills, it's easier to focus on easier ways to contribute as a big: set good screens, roll hard to the rim, and catch lobs. And try to develop an outside shot... you can do that by yourself a lot more easily than you can develop as a post player.


Strategically, I get it. It's the right approach for most teams, developing most talent. But aesthetically I miss interior play. I'm encouraged to see a few guys moving back INSIDE now, after about a decade of watching bigs continually move further from the basket. I'd like to see a rule tweak or two to encourage more interior play, but I at least like knowing that it still works as we watch Embiid and Jokic vie for MVP this season. They're probably gonna lose to Lebron, but he's a pretty lethal post player too.


In golf, the equivalent is the disappearance of shotmaking, I think. It's a casualty of rule changes, equipment changes, and analytics that show you're better off focusing on hitting it far, wedging it with precision, and striping long approaches with your "normal" shot shape for maximum reliability and repeatability.


And it's not like shotmaking has disappeared entirely. It's still an asset for guys who have it. But it's really hard to compete at the pro level if your game is more built on shotmaking than power anymore. I don't think that was true in the 90s.


But I think I'd have really liked watching Corey Pavin do his thing against Bryson, if it was a reasonably fair fight. I think if they had played each other in their primes with equipment from the 1990s, it would've been a reasonably fair fight. But with 2020s equipment? I fear Pavin would be competing for club championships instead of US Opens.

[jeffwarne]

As good as players have become at deep shooting..
(as Jason points out that skill can be developed by yourself)
does the NBA even need the three point shot anymore to open up the paint?

[Jeff Schley]

As good as players have become at deep shooting..
(as Jason points out that skill can be developed by yourself)
does the NBA even need the three point shot anymore to open up the paint?

Well the width of the lane has expanded to take away some of the big guys advantage from Mikan to Chamberlain. Shaq in college dominated so much in the 12 foot lane. I don't think skilled bigs are a thing because they can't be developed in college with the one and done culture now. It is like trying to take a great HS offensive lineman who isn't fully developed physically even, but has good potential and giving him one year of college football and say go to the NFL. Bigs need time to develop their bodies and techniques just like OL. The OL is technical, very technical, so are good big men.

[A.G._Crockett]

Here's some food for thought, and from a pretty authoritative source.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hockey-goalies-are-too-big-now/618021/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[jeffwarne]

Here's some food for thought, and from a pretty authoritative source.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hockey-goalies-are-too-big-now/618021/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Great article.
Scale out of whack, thus changing game.
Just like the golf, there could be many solutions proposed, but most won't address the actual issue-scale.


key line in article
"the key is not to look for answers in the wrong places"
see groove rule,see proposing 46 inch limit to drivers.


The major difference is that hockey does not compare to golf in adult participation(especially at the high handicap level), all of whom assume themselves "stakeholders"

[Kalen Braley]

Well apparently Johnny M won't be sneaking up on anybody.

Top pros around the world:  You've been put on notice!! 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/johnny-manziel-says-he-is-now-focusing-on-becoming-a-professional-golfer/ar-BB1e9Yho?li=BBnbfcL

[Phil Burr]

I'm impressed by all of the basketball analytics talk.  I thought we were just golf geeks.  This brings me to a favorite basketball discussion topic ever: five most influential players:


In no particular order:


Wilt Chamberlain: proved that big men were athletes, not just unskilled gawky freaks with pointy knees & elbows
Steph Curry: elevated the 3-point shot from Hail Mary mastered by a few to a focal point of the offense
Spencer Haywood: first to leave college early to turn pro and set in motion the inexorable movement that spawned Kobe, Lebron, Zion and hundreds of others
Magic Johnson: celebration of triple-double (apologies to Oscar Robertson), plus pure showmanship
Larry Bird: white men can't jump, but they sure as hell can shoot


There are hundreds of omissions from my list, with MJ being most obvious.  With all due respect to his greatness, athleticism was no longer new (David Thompson, Dominique Wilkins, etc.; repeated winning was no longer new (60s Celtics), etc.  His mastery of all was remarkable but I cant see how he single-handedly changed the game.


To my inclusion of Spencer Haywood, I also think Billie Jean King and Curt Flood were pioneers in the way pay sexual acceptance and pay equity for women (at least in tennis; a work in progress elsewhere) and free agency for athletes changed forever the landscape of professional sports.


Please be kind with your responses; after all, these are just opinions.

[David_Tepper]

Phil B. -

While not a player, I think you have to acknowledge the influence of Red Auerbach in the game. His willingness to field a truly integrated team (not an easy thing to do in Boston!) took a certain amount of courage and changed the sport for the better. His eye for spotting talent (Russell, KC & Sam Jones, Havlicek, etc.) was special. 


DT 

[Jeff Schley]

Phil,


Good topic as although I don't watch the NBA recently I was a huge fan growing up through the Jordan years in Chicago.  My list would be:

• Wilt Chamberlain - the original dominant big man (apologies George Mikan), who was athletic, strong, and durable. His stats are voluminous in just about every category.
• Oscar Robertson - the triple double machine, when it wasn't a thing, versatility when it wasn't as valued. At his size and athleticism it is impressive for the versatility he had on teams that weren't dominant. Put him in Boston or LA and I think he would have been one of the top 10 players of all time unanimously.
• Larry Bird - production from a average athlete at best. Very skilled and sound fundamentals with clutch IT factor.
• Kobe Bryant/Kevin Garnett - great players, but they were the firsts in the mid 90's to kick off the HS players to the NBA with regularity.
• Michael Jordan - do we really have to explain him on this list?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
What makes you label Larry Bird as a very "average" athlete?
I have an idea but I'll wait.


The converse of Larry Bird is the guy who spends hours at the gym, chiseling his/physique, who can't throw or hit a baseball, shoot a basketball, sprint or swim fast etc.


"Skilled" vs. "athletic" is always an interesting discussion-especially in golf.

[Jeff Schley]

Jeff,
What makes you label Larry Bird as a very "average" athlete?
I have an idea but I'll wait.


The converse of Larry Bird is the guy who spends hours at the gym, chiseling his/physique, who can't throw or hit a baseball, shoot a basketball, sprint or swim fast etc.


"Skilled" vs. "athletic" is always an interesting discussion-especially in golf.

Are you saying that Larry Bird had above average athleticism for an NBA basketball player? I tried to pick my words carefully and used skilled for that reason.

I'm saying he was one of the best shooters of all time, instinctive passer, good ball handler, tough rebounder. He was not a great defender away from the basket for what I think are obvious reasons.

Also I wouldn't classify someone who is very fit with a muscular physique as athletic at all. Athleticism to me requires movement.

[JLahrman]

Wilt Chamberlain - the original dominant big man (apologies George Mikan), who was athletic, strong, and durable. His stats are voluminous in just about every category.

Wilt was the original super-athletic big man. But you have to give George Mikan credit as being the first player to show that a truly big man even had a place in the game at all.

[SL_Solow]

Chiming in on the basketball topic (recognizing that it has become off topic) I have several observations.  First regarding the lists, while these matters are necessarily subjective, I perceive a few omissions.  Pre NBA, Hank Luisetti, the first player to popularize the one handed shot is important.  If non-players are permitted, Danny Biasone who, along with Leo Ferris. invented the 24 second clock played a key role in the development of the game.  Incidentally, he selected 24 seconds by computing the number of shots per team needed to have a fast paced game and backed into the average time per  possession  Jumping Joe Fulks was the first person to demonstrate the effectiveness of the jump shot in the NBA.  It took a while for the league to fully adopt this technique ( I can remember watching players taking set shots into the 1960's when I became a fan) but the jumper opened up the offensive game in the half court.  As for Red Auerbach, he was a wonderful man and coach and very funny in person but even he would give more credit to Bill Russell regarding his record and his opening up the Celtics to black players.  He only obtained Russell because fan favorite, Ed Macauley wanted to end his career in St. Louis so they engineered a trade before Russell ever played a game.  Russell had led USF to 2 NCAA titles but was suspect because of an awkward offensive game.  Yet I suggest he was far more important and dominant than Wilt.  Wilt won 2 titles in his career, both on teams with dominant talent.  Russell won every year save 2 and in one he was injured and missed the finals.  He also won 2 NCAA's and an Olympics.  He established the importance of defense and rebounding.  With regard to the integration issue, for the first several years Russell was the only black starter on the Celtics, KC Jones and Sam Jones came off the bench and Satch Sanders came a little later replacing Jim Loscutoff in the line up.  Finally, we should differentiate between those with extraordinary skills and those who changed the way the game was played.  Wilt was the most talented big man of his era, maybe of all time.  But the game didn't change partially because others couldn't do what he did. Oscar was supremely talented but he showed bigger players could both score and control the game via ball handling.  He was also a great rebounder on a team with undersized centers in his prime at Cincy.  He paved the way for larger guards and then Magic took the ball handling and size further.  Jordan may have been the most dominating with the possible exception of Russell but nothing that he did was revolutionary; he was just better than everyone.  Similarly, there have always been great shooters, the 3 point shot has simply increased the emphasis.


I have always thought that the essential problem in the evolution of the game is the fact that there are only a few players and the basket is 10 feet in the air.  It is a beautiful game but those who can play above the rim have an inherent advantage and the small number of players and size of the court creates a disproportionate impact matched only by the impact of the pitcher in baseball.  In baseball a starter pitches every 5th day where a basketball player is in every game.  That is why the rules makers keep changing things to open up basketball, as a way to balance out some of the inherent inequities in the game.

[JMEvensky]

I have always thought that the essential problem in the evolution of the game is the fact that there are only a few players and the basket is 10 feet in the air.  It is a beautiful game but those who can play above the rim have an inherent advantage and the small number of players and size of the court creates a disproportionate impact matched only by the impact of the pitcher in baseball.  In baseball a starter pitches every 5th day where a basketball player is in every game.  That is why the rules makers keep changing things to open up basketball, as a way to balance out some of the inherent inequities in the game.

Years ago I said the NBA would be a better game if played 4 on 4 and I think that's truer now than before.

[Ira Fishman]

Shel,


I am hard pressed to think of a finer post. As an MJ fan, I would like to find a response but can only note that his pathfinding contribution was regarding off the court economics.


Ira

[Jeff Schley]

  Jordan may have been the most dominating with the possible exception of Russell but nothing that he did was revolutionary; he was just better thanyon evere. 

I guess I do have to explain Jordan on the list. 
Many watched Jordan throughout his career, but to me he was transformed his game and was extremely versatile at various stages. If you remember the early Jordan drove to the basket most of the time drawing scores of fouls and took a big toll on him physically. He wasn't a great range shooter (thus his drives to the hoop), but his mid range game was fabulous and attacking the rim led to many posters. He did this all the while being a lock down defender. Which is why I think he is so versatile for not only did he play more minutes than anyone on the team and be the No. 1 option, he dug deep on the defensive end. Even getting to the point of winning the defensive player of the year. He was top 10 in blocks a couple years even and always top 5 in steals.
Also remember the year Collins put him at point guard and he averaged over 8 assists a game as well with the most triple doubles of his career. So he could do that as well.

He wasn't one dimensional and after 5 - 6 years developed the 2nd most dominating shot (skyhook is 1) with his fade-away jumper. He admits that by developing this shot, it cut down on the wear and tear of attacking the rim all the time and getting fouled hard (pistons). It extended his career probably as it lessened the beating he was taking. It made him a deadly post player, and 3-4 times a game he could pump fake off of it and spin to the hoop for a dunk as well. So by mid career he was the either the best in the league or top 5 in the league at driving to the rim, defending, post play, point guard (when he played there), and of course the last second shot.
I recall when he came back from his 2nd retirement end of the year. In the playoffs to the Magic he got the ball stolen by Nick Anderson in the closing seconds which was the first time I can ever recall him getting pick pocketed like that. It was like, woah is MJ done?  Obviously he comes back to win 3 more titles and a couple more MVP's (should have won 2 more). Keep in mind the total BS MVP voting during his career with Barkley and Malone winning it over him. I would even say he should have won in his 87 season over Magic.


Ok I'm a total fan of Jordan, but because he could dominate in a variety of ways in different seasons as his career progressed. I know everyone thinks Lebron is the best all round player, I would say Jordan does everything better but rebound than LeBron. Put Jordan at point guard his career and he is better than Lebron, especially if he had someone other than Granville Waiters to pass to early in his career when they tried him at point.

[SL_Solow]

Jeff, I perceived the question to be about players who transformed the way the game was and is played, not who was the most dominant or the "best".  I live in Chicago and saw Jordan play his entire career as well as having some off court contact.  He is certainly in the team picture for greatest ever and his evolution as a player is duly noted.  He won titles without being able to recruit an all star cast, just like Russell and unlike LeBron.  But he did not change the game the way the others I referenced even though he may have been a better player.  It is always difficult to rate players of different eras because one can only play in their own era under the prevailing rules and with the then extant equipment.  We have the same discussions in golf. Jones vs. Nelson vs. Hogan vs. Nicklaus vs. Woods; its a matter of taste.  I suggest that the best would have adjusted if they had been born in a different time.  Wilt was supremely talented but Russell was more effective in many ways and people tend to forget about Kareem.  Jordan vs. LeBron is the current argument and it leaves out Magic who didn't shoot or score as well but impacted games in special ways that are difficult to measure.  Of course that leaves our Robertson who played on teams with one above average player for most of his career (Jerry Lucas) and in the same division with Russell's Celtics.  So Oscar set the standard for triple doubles, annually was second in the league behind Wilt in scoring and was the assist leader.  He is also in the team picture for best of all time.  Nothing against Jordan, he was as good as anyone that I ever saw but he didn't cause changes to the game of the type Peter posited in the original post.  I agree with Ira about his impact on marketing.  His achievement in that regard with the guidance of David Falk was transformative notwithstanding some less than savory behavior while building his empire.

[Phil Burr]

I still come back to Wilt.  Last time I checked, he played a game with 5 men per side, a 10-foot hoop, a 24-second shot clock and a 48-minute game, on a court whose dimensions have not changed.  Some of his numbers are incomprehensible: 
Four highest season scoring averages (50.4, 44.8, 38.4, 37.6)
118 career 50+ point games (Jordan is second with 31)
Seven consecutive 50+ point games
Career rebounding average 22.9
8 games with 40+ points/40+ rebounds
124 games with 30+ points/30+ rebounds (rest of league combined = 32)
Had a game with 22 points, 25 rebounds and 21 assists
Led the league in assists in 1967-8 (in your face to the critics who said he was just a scorer)
It's ironic that one his greatest moments came when the Lakers hired former Celtic Bill Sharman as their head coach and won a championship, winning 33 consecutive games along the way.  Could that ever happen in today's "load management" NBA?

[JMEvensky]

Phil Burr, we may disagree on the LPGA GOAT but I'm right there with you on The Big Dipper. Not many players in any sport have had the rules changed because of their dominance.

[Phil Burr]

My friend Mr. Evensky, we didn’t disagree on the LPGA GOAT.  Although I made an argument for Annika’s dominance in terms of winning percentage (the same argument can be made for Tiger) I agreed that Mickey Wright and Jack Nicklaus are the GOATs of the LPGA and PGA, respectively.  I do appreciate your bolstering of Wilt’s greatness!

[Phil Burr]

Three other things I love about Wilt:


1. He never fouled out a game;
2. He almost never came out of the game; in the 1961-62 season his minutes played gave him an average of six seconds of rest per game;
3. Before blocks and steals were officially tracked, he is reported to have posted a quintuple-double of 53 points, 32 rebounds, 14 assists, 24 blocks and 11 steals in a game.

[V. Kmetz]

Aw hell, I've got to unleash as I was the 8 year old who knew every stat of the 10 lb NBA Encyclopedia and only got worse when I added NCAA mania  to it in 1976. Later, I was the 14 year old in Boston Garden, when my beloved Sixers, were cheered on at the end of Game 7 of the Eastern finals, by the rival, usually hostile Celtics crowd in defeat, "Beat LA, Beat LA"...spine chilling...


This feels like your talking about my life...


1. This conversation started talking about the 3-pt shot and I remember Chris Ford making that first one; but I think an honest examination of all the many such "rules" regimes imposed on basketball and all the major sports reveals that they are usually an exploitation idea, to make the game sell more; they are almost never about the well-being or purity of the sport.  The 3 point shot was first a brainchild of the Globetrotter's Abe Saperstein to have a unique fan-attraction novelty for his shortlived ABL, the ABA cam next and kept it and held a rebel's approach to basketball (think USFL legitimacy with XFL gimmick) for 10 years.  When adopted, four years after the merger, the NBA had no idea that Bird and Magic were going to revitalize interest in the league's traditional big markets, and needed something, as if those around, will remember, the late 70s saw the NBA in decline with drug-charges, team shenanigans, and the major markets of LA, Chicago Boston and NY all with teams in the crapper.  One other note on the 3 pt...as an offensive tactic (heavy use) I think some original development credit has to go to that Pitino era of the Knicks (86 - 88) whose teams was marketed as the Bomb Squad and at the same time Don Nelsons "Run-TMC" with Tim Hardaway (Sr.), Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond...they were offensive producers and shocked the hell out of everybody that such an approach would come from the conservative Nelson, whose coaching name was made with the Mq. Johnson Bucks who had a completely different O.  To me, those two things in the late 80s were DNA in the seed corn for the deep shooting game we have today.


2. Bird and Magic are like the BC/AD historical division of the NBA; their novel skills, their immediate success and the carryover from college interest were like the ending of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New.  Magic, a big guy with a near Curly Neal handle, was as new as if Aaron Judge and Mike Trout were to emerge in the body of a single rookie this year. It was that revolutionary. Bird was like if Greg Maddux also had Randy Johnson's stuff, who ever wants to face him?  Bird turned around the fallen Celtics from 29-53 to 61-21, but didn't yet have McHale and DJ in support, losing to my Dr J. Sixers... Magic led the Lakers to their first title in a almost a decade, winning the clinching Game 6 playing center for the inured Jabbar, going 42-15 and 7. (*** that was the last NBA Finals game broadcast on tape-delay, starting at 11:30 pm ET local***)


3. Russell needs to be in that spot between Mikan and Chamberlain as the Abraham, Issac and David of the Center evolution, with perhaps Alcindor-Jabbar as the last of the Old Testament prophets.  Russell made the athleticism of big man defense a thing to be engaged, in the way Lawrence Taylor changed the NFL forever from a defensive position, in a way that Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Joe Montana, Jerry Rice and Tom Brady haven't from an offensive pedestal.  Walton, if healthy, could have predictably made an similar impact, but rally, the next evolution is Ewing-Olajuwon (shooters, scorers, with defensive skills).


4. I think if there's was a palpable decline in the quality of game play, it occurred when Chuck Daly's Pistons came into McNasty and McFilthy (Mahorn and Ruland) pre-deranged, (but deranged) Rodman, the physical play of Vinnie Johnson; that Pistons squad took the "showtime Lakers" and the fast break Celtics and brought it into the mire...


5. Which leads to my thoughts on the legacy of Jordan who has no betters in talent and skill and court judgment, but who only prospered as a ring champion when that Lakers/Sixers/Celtics/ era of the 80s passed, and the game had been brutalized down by Daly and Riley's Knicks... Jordan did not win his first championship for 7 seasons and wasn't even in the Conf finals for 5/6 (?) of those years... and held the dubious mark of something like 0 -15 in 40 pt games of his, until that era had passed and he had the quality around him...and the big man was back on the run. But on the playground of the NBA pantheon, he still is my first pick...I like to say it this way...I'd take Chamberlain in the first quarter, Lebron in the 2nd, Magic in the 3rd and Jordan in the 4th...no OT in that universe, but Reggie Miller comes to mind.


6.  The one and done/straight to NBA from HS thing was really inaugurated by Bill Willoughby of the Rockets in the NBA and Moses Malone of the ABA...the famous story of Malone was that Lefty Driesell had the amazing Petersburg Va, bull wrapped up for Maryland as that Lucas, MacMillan era was winding down and the Utah Stars of the ABA came to Malone's impoverished shack and laid down 100, $100 dollar bills on his mother's kitchen table....the rest is history.

7. The Wilt 61-62 season is like the unicorn season of all time, like a Jim Brown (pick) or a Brady-Moss 07...

I could, like many things, talk forever on this, but enough for now - great OT discussion.

[Kalen Braley]

I know this will be a very unpopular opinion, but oh well.. 

Just like in golf, where I'm of the belief that champions of yester year like Old Tom and Bobby Jones couldn't hold a candle to todays best players, much less compete with them, I think same is true for NBA Basketball players who played prior to the league expansion in the 70s.  All those famous Celtics run where they won 9 out of 10, (8 in row), there was only 8 and 9 teams in the league.  And watching old film it was almost entirely pasty white guys who could barely get up and down the floor, so of course truly athletic guys like Russell and Wilt the Stilt completely obliterated them and did whatever they wanted.

And those two remain the exception to that time period, I would have loved to have watched how they stacked up with the stars over the past 40 years in the league.  Wilt vs Shaq or Bill Russell trying to match up against a Kevin Durant would be fascinating stuff.

P.S.  Put me down for MJ as the absolute GOAT.  He had another level/gear he reserved for teams in the 4th quarter and would simply not be denied in his exerting his will.