# Sloan on Roy: "one of the best players in the league"



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

_“He can get to just about any spot on the floor he wants to get to,” Sloan says. “He’s big and strong, can get to the basket, get to the free-throw line and get the ball to open teammates. I knew he was going to be a great player the first time I saw him.”_

http://portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=119973992717722300


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Man, this is fun. We are the talk of the NBA, and rightfully so. It's so great to finally have a star player with great character on our team. Roy is a guy that every coach in the NBA would love to have, but he's all ours!!!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Man, this is fun. We are the talk of the NBA, and rightfully so. It's so great to finally have a star player with great character on our team. Roy is a guy that every coach in the NBA would love to have, but he's all ours!!!


:clap:

GO TRAIL BLAZERS!


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

NathanLane said:


> _“He can get to just about any spot on the floor he wants to get to,” Sloan says. “He’s big and strong, can get to the basket, get to the free-throw line and get the ball to open teammates. I knew he was going to be a great player the first time I saw him.”_
> 
> http://portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=119973992717722300


Best article, by far that I have seen this season. Most insiteful and accurate. *AND THAT WAS BEFORE "WHATS HIS NAME"*MADE THOSE 24 PTS. IN THE THIRD QUARTER!!!!!!!!:yay::biggrin::clap2::worthy:

gatorpops


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

gatorpops said:


> Best article, by far that I have seen this season. Most insiteful and accurate. *AND THAT WAS BEFORE "WHATS HIS NAME"*MADE THOSE 24 PTS. IN THE THIRD QUARTER!!!!!!!!:yay::biggrin::clap2::worthy:


Actually, it was written after that game. The author says he wanted to get Sloan's impressions of the Blazers after they had beaten his team in the season series.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

I am still not that excited about what we have done this season. Mostly because I'm in half-denial. Now is about that time where I normally wake up and go "GDI, noooooooooooo!!!"


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

I'm telling you... Roy is the closest thing to "The Next Jordan" we will ever see.
He is like a Jason Kidd meets Mike Jordan with a great attitude and an unselfish game.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Actually, it was written after that game. The author says he wanted to get Sloan's impressions of the Blazers after they had beaten his team in the season series.



Sorry, I think I win this one Talkhard. _*Sloan’s comments to me came before Saturday night’s Blazer win over Utah,* when Portland was forced to play without Roy most of the game._

I believe that the article was written *after* the game but the comments came before and this makes them even more better. Just the same, we both like what was said and what is taking place. Go Blazers!

gatorpops


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Resume said:


> I'm telling you... Roy is the closest thing to "The Next Jordan" we will ever see.
> He is like a Jason Kidd meets Mike Jordan with a great attitude and an unselfish game.


Hate to only say doubtful/negative stuff on this board (probly cause you don't need me to be positive here) but *seriously?*


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Resume said:


> I'm telling you... Roy is the closest thing to "The Next Jordan" we will ever see.
> He is like a Jason Kidd meets Mike Jordan with a great attitude and an unselfish game.



Good lord, he is not the next, the previous, the one after or anything else Jordan. He is Brandon Roy. If there is something that Roy seems to be share with Jordan is an above average understanding of what makes a basketball game winnable - but they are not anywhere alike other than sharing size and position more or less.

While Roy is athletic, he is nowhere near the athletic specimen that Jordan was. While he is a fierce competitor - I do not think that he has the same fanatic tunnel vision that Jordan had. While he is able to attack the basket - he does it mostly under the rim while Jordan did it above. He can create for his teammates - but he is more of a natural distributer than Jordan. Of court it is clear that while both are charismatic, Roy is nowhere near the marketing machine Jordan was and still is.

There are several players that Roy shares attributes - but Jordan, other than that magnificent hand switch move - is not really one of them.

If there is something I hope they share in the future - it is the fact that they can not fit all their rings on one hand.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Resume said:


> I'm telling you... Roy is the closest thing to "The Next Jordan" we will ever see.
> He is like a Jason Kidd meets Mike Jordan with a great attitude and an unselfish game.


Well at least you aren't setting the bar too high. :lol:

-Pop


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Of court it is clear that while both are charismatic, Roy is nowhere near the marketing machine Jordan was and still is.


Not so sure. Michael was amazingly charismatic, but I don't think he inspired people to *like* him. People wanted to *be like* Mike, not like the man.

Roy, OTOH, is a really really likable person. When he does off-the-court interviews, the boyish enthusiasm and sense of humour shine. I think he'll be extremely marketable, and with an image that the league is now promoting. Basketball players - amazing, and still good guys.

iWatas


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

SodaPopinski said:


> Well at least you aren't setting the bar too high. :lol:
> 
> -Pop


LoL

I guess we all have to wait a few years down the road to see if I am right!
Once we win 5-6 championships in the next 10 years, you will all see.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

andalusian said:


> There are several players that Roy shares attributes - but Jordan, other than that magnificent hand switch move - is not really one of them.


The next time you see Brandon dribble up the court, dribble between his legs 4-5 times with the quickness of a cat, studder step in, take a step back and NAIL an 18 foot jumpshot in the defenders face, tell me he isn't as athletic as Jordan.

It's cool though man... hate on Roy. Hate means he doing something right.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Resume said:


> The next time you see Brandon dribble up the court, dribble between his legs 4-5 times with the quickness of a cat, studder step in, take a step back and NAIL an 18 foot jumpshot in the defenders face, tell me he isn't as athletic as Jordan.
> 
> It's cool though man... hate on Roy. Hate means he doing something right.


Roy IS NOT as athetlic as MJ..


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Roy IS NOT as athetlic as MJ..


How did Magic Johnson get in this thread?


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> How did Magic Johnson get in this thread?


the same way you got in..?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Resume said:


> The next time you see Brandon dribble up the court, dribble between his legs 4-5 times with the quickness of a cat, studder step in, take a step back and NAIL an 18 foot jumpshot in the defenders face, tell me he isn't as athletic as Jordan.


Ah, I see. So you think that Roy is as athletic as the MJ in his Wizards days? I can buy that. I thought you were talking about prime time Mike.

(and I love Roy's game and what he means for this team, but he is not nearly as athletic as Michael was).


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Resume said:


> The next time you see Brandon dribble up the court, dribble between his legs 4-5 times with the quickness of a cat, studder step in, take a step back and NAIL an 18 foot jumpshot in the defenders face, tell me he isn't as athletic as Jordan.
> 
> It's cool though man... *hate on Roy. Hate means he doing something right.*


i don't think he's hating on roy...he's just being objective...it's not like he said anything untrue...just not what you wanted to hear...just my opinion...

and by the way, i hate you guys...at least you guys won't be in the lottery again...imagine adding rose, gordon, beasley, mayo, or even bayless to your current squad...


well, with how good your gm is, you might have a shot anyways through sometype of brilliant trade...geez i hate you guys...


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Jordan was more athletic than Brandon, but Brandon has some leadership qualities and abilities to make other players better that far exceed anything Jordan ever showed in those departments.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I love B-Roy, but let's not get crazy here. He's not MJ.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

andalusian said:


> While Roy is athletic, he is nowhere near the athletic specimen that Jordan was.


On the other hand, I never saw Jordan pull off such a sweet behind-the-back cross-over dribble like the one Roy executed on Wade.



> While he is a fierce competitor - I do not think that he has the same fanatic tunnel vision that Jordan had.


Everybody remembers the Jordan of the Chicago championship teams--not the one who went through a few losing seasons first. Give Roy time. He's already got a killer attitude and it may get even more intense as he zooms in on a championship.



> While he is able to attack the basket - he does it mostly under the rim while Jordan did it above.


Again, you are remembering Jordan's flashy dunks--which he is rightfully famous for--but the great majority of his points came from "below the rim," just like Roy's.



> Roy is nowhere near the marketing machine Jordan was and still is.


Of course not, and neither was Jordan himself in his early years. Again, give Roy time. I think he's one of the more likeable stars in the NBA and he will eventually get a lot of promotional opportunites (though of course he doesn't play in a big media market like Jordan did).



> There are several players that Roy shares attributes - but Jordan, other than that magnificent hand switch move - is not really one of them.


I think Roy has a lot of Jordanesque qualities--but of course he is noticably lacking in the arrogance that Jordan often displayed. Roy is humble and down-to-earth, despite his great talent.



> If there is something I hope they share in the future - it is the fact that they can not fit all their rings on one hand.


Amen to that.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

I like how everyone has a different definition for athleticism.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

LameR said:


> I like how everyone has a different definition for athleticism.


Michael was obviously pretty explosive, but there aren't too many guys who have posted 40+ inch max verts since they started making the pre-draft info public like Brandon did. Heck, Wade's max was 35"

While he's got some court savvy, dude's no slouch athletically... the way I define it :wink:

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Every now and then, Roy gets up with the best of them, but he doesn't do it as consistently or as effortlessly as Jordan did.

Dan


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

STOMP said:


> Michael was obviously pretty explosive, but there aren't too many guys who have posted 40+ inch max verts since they started making the pre-draft info public like Brandon did. Heck, Wade's max was 35"
> 
> While he's got some court savvy, dude's no slouch athletically... the way I define it :wink:
> 
> STOMP


I agree Roy's actually very deceptively athletic, but definately not on MJ's level.
And since you mentioned him, despite the vertical stat you pulled up (which I'm assuming is true), Wade is more athletic than Roy (your opinion may differ..).


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> I agree Roy's actually very deceptively athletic, but definately not on MJ's level.
> And since you mentioned him, despite the vertical stat you pulled up (which I'm assuming is true), Wade is more athletic than Roy (your opinion may differ..).


here's a link for pre-draft stats... http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2007

5.5" is a pretty substantial difference... right? 

STOMP


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

STOMP said:


> here's a link for pre-draft stats... http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2007
> 
> 5.5" is a pretty substantial difference... right?
> 
> STOMP


I don't know how many of these you have numbers for but athleticism is made up of a variety of things, eg;

Max Vertical + Standing Vertical
Hangtime
Speed
Quickness
Explosiveness (very similar to quickness I guess, but also how quickly you can get up, etc.)
Body Control (maybe this doesn't belong in here but Body control is affected by every other thing like hangtime, reaction, etc.)

and a lot more,, but anyway, my point is on the whole I say Wade is more athletic than Roy (which isn't what this thread is about at all but just saying cause you compared their verticals only).
And again, I'm not saying Roy isn't athletic.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> I don't know how many of these you have numbers for but athleticism is made up of a variety of things, eg;
> 
> Max Vertical + Standing Vertical
> Hangtime
> ...


hangtime??? Are you contending your guy has helium in his bones? Or a cape? That would be sort of cool if he did, but gravity is known to have an equal effect on all of us without special powers.

You're free to hold whatever opinion you want to, but I'm of the opinion that you're grasping at straws trying to explain away facts. IMO you shouldn't take it as an affront that someone else is at least as athletic as your special avitar guy... there are others as well.

STOMP


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> hangtime??? Are you contending your guy has helium in his bones? Or a cape? That would be sort of cool if he did, but gravity is known to have an equal effect on all of us without special powers.
> 
> STOMP


This is accurate. It was tested on Sport Science (the greatest source ever).


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

Sports Science is a sham.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

This is turning into a very silly debate. :starwars:


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

STOMP said:


> hangtime??? Are you contending your guy has helium in his bones? Or a cape? That would be sort of cool if he did, but gravity is known to have an equal effect on all of us without special powers.
> 
> You're free to hold whatever opinion you want to, but I'm of the opinion that you're grasping at straws trying to explain away facts. IMO you shouldn't take it as an affront that someone else is at least as athletic as your special avitar guy... there are others as well.
> 
> STOMP


Hangtime - time you can stay airborne. This can differ from your vertical.

I don't need to grasp at straws, the others still apply, which I think most of them (outside of vertical) Wade excels at.
And lol, a blazer fan telling me "there are others as well".. :laugh: (obviously I'm generalising here)


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

LameR said:


> This is accurate. It was tested on Sport Science (the greatest source ever).


Wait, so Wade really _does_ have helium in his bones? How cooool! That said, might this fall under the category of something like Peformance Enhancing Drugs?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

NateBishop3 said:


> This is turning into a very silly debate. :starwars:


Theres no debating that this is some silly bleep

STOMP


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Hangtime - time you can stay airborne. This can differ from your vertical.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Wow.... Wade not only is a great basketball player, but he should also be given a Nobel Prize, because according to you, he can defy physics!!! 

This is one of the best posts of all time. :clap2:


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Hangtime - time you can stay airborne. This can differ from your vertical.


Wow, I weep for our school system.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Bear with me.

There can be SOMETHING of a difference between hang time and vertical - because movement in a basketball game is not the same as a standing vertical leap. Assume:

Player A: 30" standing vertical - 32" running vertical
Player B: 28" standing vertical - 33" running vertical

then Player B has more hang time, despite have an inferior standing vertical jump.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

blazerboy30 said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Wow.... Wade not only is a great basketball player, but he should also be given a Nobel Prize, because according to you, he can defy physics!!!
> 
> This is one of the best posts of all time. :clap2:


LOL

You don't need a TV show on sports science. Just go back to Isaac Newton. (No, he is not the guy they named the fig cookie after.)


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

max vertical leap and hangtime are NOT the same thing.

think of a long jumper vs a high jumper. does the high jumper automatically have the greater hang time? how you jump matters, not just how high.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

kflo said:


> think of a long jumper vs a high jumper. does the high jumper automatically have the greater hang time? how you jump matters, not just how high.


Actually, no. Hang time is a function of how HIGH you jump. Nothing else. The question is whether a player jumps higher in a game, and in motion, than he does when measuring a standing vertical.

iWatas


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> Actually, no. Hang time is a function of how HIGH you jump. Nothing else. The question is whether a player jumps higher in a game, and in motion, than he does when measuring a standing vertical.
> 
> iWatas


actually, you're wrong.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

specifically, hang time is a function of velocity and angle. height is a function of those 2 variables as well. and people can generate different velocity at different angles.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

kflo said:


> actually, you're wrong.


How is he wrong? all objects are accelerated back to earth at 1g. This means that that any basketball player decelerates at the same rate when he is going up, and accelerate at the same rate going down, so the (vertical) speed that he leaves on his initial jump is the thing that determines how high he will get and because the earth pull is a constant - the time he "hangs". with a constant acceleration - flight time is a linear function of the initial (vertical) speed you leave the ground just as maximum vertical is.

The only way someone can hang longer than someone else using the same force (assuming they are of the same mass, of course) is if that someone converts more of the force to a vertical force, so if you say that Roy when he jumps converts most of his force to horizontal movement compared to wade - it could be true for individual jumps, but if Roy has a higher vertical than Wade - he should be able to "hang" in the air longer than wade.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

kflo said:


> specifically, hang time is a function of velocity and angle. height is a function of those 2 variables as well. and people can generate different velocity at different angles.


I would agree with this. Thus, the only way that Wade gets more hangtime than Roy with LESS vertical is that he has a higher velocity. As those are the two factors in hangtime, in order for Wade to have more hangtime than Roy, he must either have greater vertical (and the same velocity) or greater velocity (and the same vertical). If one player's vertical is notably less than another's, then his velocity must be significantly higher in order to have a greater hangtime. I don't believe Wade's velocity sufficiently greater than Roy's to backup the assertion that he has greater hangtime.

Gramps...


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> I would agree with this. Thus, the only way that Wade gets more hangtime than Roy with LESS vertical is that he has a higher velocity. As those are the two factors in hangtime, in order for Wade to have more hangtime than Roy, he must either have greater vertical (and the same velocity) or greater velocity (and the same vertical). If one player's vertical is notably less than another's, then his velocity must be significantly higher in order to have a greater hangtime. I don't believe Wade's velocity sufficiently greater than Roy's to backup the assertion that he has greater hangtime.


Actually, this means nothing. If you have a higher horizontal velocity when you jump - you will cover more ground (ground speed) - but your hang time will be the same. As I said above - hang time, when you factor a constant acceleration - is directly proportional to the vertical height you got. Horizontal speed does squat to change the hang time.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

A good analogy is found in ballistics. Bullets go forward very quickly. But no matter how fast they go, they still are pulled earthward at 1g. Sideways velocity means NOTHING; the only thing that matters is the maximum height - that gives hang time.

iWatas


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Some players, like Jordan, appear to have a longer "hang time" because of the way they jump. Pulling their legs up when they leap makes the jump appear to last longer. Incidentally, dancers do the same thing. But as has been pointed out, gravity impacts us all equally (air resistance would play a very minor role in jumping basketball players).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

andalusian said:


> How is he wrong? all objects are accelerated back to earth at 1g. This means that that any basketball player decelerates at the same rate when he is going up, and accelerate at the same rate going down, so the (vertical) speed that he leaves on his initial jump is the thing that determines how high he will get and because the earth pull is a constant - the time he "hangs". with a constant acceleration - flight time is a linear function of the initial (vertical) speed you leave the ground just as maximum vertical is.
> 
> The only way someone can hang longer than someone else using the same force (assuming they are of the same mass, of course) is if that someone converts more of the force to a vertical force, so if you say that Roy when he jumps converts most of his force to horizontal movement compared to wade - it could be true for individual jumps, but if Roy has a higher vertical than Wade - he should be able to "hang" in the air longer than wade.


he's wrong because he claimed "Hang time is a function of how HIGH you jump. Nothing else". and that is simply false, and he's therefore wrong.

and vertical force vs horizontal force are simply a function of the angle. and people maximize their velocity at different angles. higher vertical does not automatically mean hang time. the 1 foot jumper vs the 2 foot jumper. nique vs jordan. perfect examples of different jumping styles and different angles of trajectory.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> A good analogy is found in ballistics. Bullets go forward very quickly. But no matter how fast they go, they still are pulled earthward at 1g. Sideways velocity means NOTHING; the only thing that matters is the maximum height - that gives hang time.
> 
> iWatas


completely false.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

kflo said:


> he's wrong because he claimed "Hang time is a function of how HIGH you jump. Nothing else". and that is simply false, and he's therefore wrong.


How is it wrong? Hang time is directly related to how high you jump. Directly. He did not say that hang time is a function of your theoretical max vertical - but for every jump you make, the hang time is directly proportional to how high you get. Directly. Exactly right. No way around that.



kflo said:


> and vertical force vs horizontal force are simply a function of the angle. and people maximize their velocity at different angles. higher vertical does not automatically mean hang time. the 1 foot jumper vs the 2 foot jumper. nique vs jordan. perfect examples of different jumping styles and different angles of trajectory.


If someone jumps directly up (vertical) or at 45 deg. with the same force - his hang time will be longer when he jumps vertically - because he gets higher. I am really not sure I understand what you are trying to argue - that Roy can not jump at 60 deg but Wade can? That Roy is limited somehow to 45 deg only? Really, it makes no sense. If Roy has a higher max vertical than Wade - he should be able to hang longer than Wade in the air. It's physics. He might be more controlled and confident in his shot below the rim than Wade so choose to use his superior jump to cover more ground while he jumps but keep it lower - but it has nothing to do with how athletic he is or how much hang time he can get. Nothing.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

andalusian said:


> How is it wrong? Hang time is directly related to how high you jump. Directly. He did not say that hang time is a function of your theoretical max vertical - but for every jump you make, the hang time is directly proportional to how high you get. Directly. Exactly right. No way around that.


he said it was a function of how high you jump, and nothing else. and that's completely false. and that's how it's wrong. hang time is not just a function of how high you jump. 



andalusian said:


> If someone jumps directly up (vertical) or at 45 deg. with the same force - his hang time will be longer when he jumps vertically - because he gets higher. I am really not sure I understand what you are trying to argue - that Roy can not jump at 60 deg but Wade can? That Roy is limited somehow to 45 deg only? Really, it makes no sense. If Roy has a higher max vertical than Wade - he should be able to hang longer than Wade in the air. It's physics. He might be more controlled and confident in his shot below the rim than Wade so choose to use his superior jump to cover more ground while he jumps but keep it lower - but it has nothing to do with how athletic he is or how much hang time he can get. Nothing.


i'm arguing that the velocity you generate at 45 deg need not be the same velocity you generate at 60 deg. the way you jump impacts this. an obvious example again is the 1 footed jumper (jordan) vs the 2 footed jumper (nique). completely different jumping style. different angle of takeoff at highest velocity. different vert. different hang-time. that's physics. again, velocity and angle are the variables here. and neither are kept constant by changing the other.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

kflo said:


> he said it was a function of how high you jump, and nothing else. and that's completely false. and that's how it's wrong. hang time is not just a function of how high you jump.


Let me ask you a question? If you take a football and a basketball and throw them both to reach 12 feet high in the air. Which one would be in the air longer? (You can choose whatever angle you want, whoever you want to throw them, whatever color you want). It does not matter. Since they will be pulled back to earth at the same g and they reach the same height - they will spend exactly the same time in the air. The max distance from the earth you reach when leaving the earth and without on board propulsion will determine how long you are in the air - so what he said is 100% right.

In physics, the classic equation is:

y = y0 + v0 * t + 1/2 a * t^2

Since both players start from the ground, y0 = 0 for both of them. so we get

y = v0 *t + 1/2 a * t^2

Now, a in both cases is the same, it is 1g.

Let's try to look at half of the hang time - from the moment that the player reached the highest place he is and is starting to fall down. At this place, his initial velocity is 0 (v0 = 0)

So, you know that 

y = 1/2 g * t ^ 2

with y being the max height - since g is a constant - you can see that the time is directly proportional to the max height. This is exactly what he told you.

If you know that player A jumps higher than player B, you know that yA > yB - so:

1/2 g *tA^2 > 1/2 g * tB^2

Where tA is the time player A hangs in the air and tB is the time player B hangs in the air. So, it is pretty clear that the player than jumps higher stays in the air longer.

There is no way that someone can jump higher in less time than someone else jumps lower - since they are both pulled down to earth at the same rate... the equation shows that there is a direct correlation between hang time and max vertical.

Obviously, since we looked at only the "going down" half of the equation, the total hang time is going to be double that - but it is the same constant (double) for both players, so it makes not difference.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

andalusian said:


> How is it wrong? Hang time is directly related to how high you jump. Directly. He did not say that hang time is a function of your theoretical max vertical - but for every jump you make, the hang time is directly proportional to how high you get. Directly. Exactly right. No way around that.


he said it was a function of how high you jump, and nothing else. and that's completely false. and that's how it's wrong. hang time is not just a function of how high you jump. 



andalusian said:


> If someone jumps directly up (vertical) or at 45 deg. with the same force - his hang time will be longer when he jumps vertically - because he gets higher. I am really not sure I understand what you are trying to argue - that Roy can not jump at 60 deg but Wade can? That Roy is limited somehow to 45 deg only? Really, it makes no sense. If Roy has a higher max vertical than Wade - he should be able to hang longer than Wade in the air. It's physics. He might be more controlled and confident in his shot below the rim than Wade so choose to use his superior jump to cover more ground while he jumps but keep it lower - but it has nothing to do with how athletic he is or how much hang time he can get. Nothing.


i'm arguing that the velocity you generate at 45 deg need not be the same velocity you generate at 60 deg. the way you jump impacts this. an obvious example again is the 1 footed jumper (jordan) vs the 2 footed jumper (nique). completely different jumping style. different angle of takeoff at highest velocity. different vert. different hang-time. that's physics. again, velocity and angle are the variables here. and neither are kept constant by changing the other.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

kflo said:


> i'm arguing that the velocity you generate at 45 deg need not be the same velocity you generate at 60 deg. the way you jump impacts this. an obvious example again is the 1 footed jumper (jordan) vs the 2 footed jumper (nique). completely different jumping style. different angle of takeoff at highest velocity. different vert. different hang-time. that's physics. again, velocity and angle are the variables here. and neither are kept constant by changing the other.


You need to break the vector into two components - the horizontal and vertical parts of the force (use cos() and sin() on the angle to get these) - and ignore the horizontal - since it is irrelevant. If both players jump to the same vertical, the vertical component of the jump will translate to the same vertical velocity. If player A jumps higher than player B - his initial vertical velocity will be higher. It is that simple).


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Are you serious? Ok,

Michael Jordan can dunk from say the freethrow line at his furthest point, that doesn't mean anyone with the same or higher vertical can dunk from that same distance.
Or that someone can do a certain reverse layup (like the triple-clutch or whatever you want to call it infamous jordan layup), doens't mean anyone with Jordan's vert can do it.
It's factored not just by vertical (like kflo said, thankyou). Having the highest vertical doesn't grant you the longest 'hangtime' in any situation.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Having the highest vertical doesn't grant you the longest 'hangtime' in any situation.


Yes it does. It is physics.You can argue until you are blue in the face, it is not going to change the fact that physics work the same way if your name is Jordan or Dan Dickau.

But I doubt very much that Roy has anywhere near MJ's vertical, and I never claimed that Roy has anywhere the body control or some of the skills that MJ had.

Hang time is proportional to max vertical. No way to go around it.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

andalusian said:


> Yes it does. It is physics.You can argue until you are blue in the face, it is not going to change the fact that physics work the same way if your name is Jordan or Dan Dickau.
> 
> But I doubt very much that Roy has anywhere near MJ's vertical, and I never claimed that Roy has anywhere the body control or some of the skills that MJ had.
> 
> Hang time is proportional to max vertical. No way to go around it.


Really? So *anyone* with the same Max/No-Step vertical as Jordan could, say, dunk from anywhere Jordan can?

I really doubt that, I don't think vertical applies directly to 'hangtime' (not sure if I'm using the right word here) in basketball.
Or Jordan's reverse double-clutch layup is another example of hangtime. Are you saying anyone wwith the same no-step and max vertical numbers as Jordan can hang for that long (or however long Jordan could stay airborne)?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Really? So *anyone* with the same Max/No-Step vertical as Jordan could, say, dunk from anywhere Jordan can?


No, because hang time has nothing to do with it - it has to do with the kind of force he was able to get on the horizontal part of the vector while still having the max vertical and his body control skills, the ability to palm the basketball etc...

We clearly do not see Jordan's max vertical when he dunks from the foul line, since he does not convert all the force his legs can produce to vertical vector. But, I would guess, that anyone that has the running vertical that Jordan has with his body control, ability to palm the basketball in one hand should be able to do something like that.

Hang time is directly related to max vertical. There really should be no argument here.



NewAgeBaller said:


> I really doubt that, I don't think vertical applies directly to 'hangtime' (not sure if I'm using the right word here) in basketball.
> Or Jordan's reverse double-clutch layup is another example of hangtime. Are you saying anyone wwith the same no-step and max vertical numbers as Jordan can hang for that long (or however long Jordan could stay airborne)?


Two things - the double clutch layup and changing hands in a dunk have nothing to do with vertical, they have everything to do with body control.

I define hang time as the time it takes a player to touch the ground after he jumped - and this is directly related to how high he can jump - it is just physics. Jordan had a lot more going for him than absolute jaw dropping athletic ability - but if you take a crazy athlete like Travis Outlaw that can probably match Jordan in his leaping ability - the time he spends in the air (assuming he can jump as high as Jordan) will be the same - even if he does not have 20% of Jordan's body control and basketball IQ and creative flair. 

If you want to change the definition of hang time from the classic "time in the air" to something else - I can not comment - but if it is the simple time in the air - physics take over.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

E=mc^2


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

andalusian said:


> No, because hang time has nothing to do with it - it has to do with the kind of force he was able to get on the horizontal part of the vector while still having the max vertical and his body control skills, the ability to palm the basketball etc...
> 
> We clearly do not see Jordan's max vertical when he dunks from the foul line, since he does not convert all the force his legs can produce to vertical vector. But, I would guess, that anyone that has the running vertical that Jordan has with his body control, ability to palm the basketball in one hand should be able to do something like that.
> 
> ...


I think you're right, thats why I said "im not sure if i'm using the right word" before. When I said 'hangtime' is not directly related to one's max vertical, I was also considering all the other factors like his force on the horizontal vector, his bodycontrol, maybe agility, etc. Most importantly the horizontal force factor which is why I added "in basketball" and gave the examples I did. And yea, I was following what kflo said about velocity generated at different angles (which I guess is what you were saying with vertical and horizontal vectors).

But anyway back on-topic, the reason I brought hangtime in was cause someone pretty much claimed a higher vert = more athetlic player.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*"*



NewAgeBaller said:


> the reason I brought hangtime in was cause someone pretty much claimed a higher vert = more athetlic player.


I made no claim of the sort... time for you to reread the thread as you're way off course

STOMP


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: "*



STOMP said:


> I made no claim of the sort... time for you to reread the thread because you're way off course
> 
> STOMP


You brought up their vertical stats to make a point on how Roy is actually very athetlic.

I said "*despite the vertical stat* you pulled up (which I'm assuming is true), Wade is more athletic than Roy (your opinion may differ..)."

and you brought up the difference in vertical again...



You said:


> Michael was obviously pretty explosive, but there aren't too many guys who have posted 40+ inch max verts since they started making the pre-draft info public like Brandon did. Heck, Wade's max was 35"
> 
> While he's got some court savvy, dude's no slouch athletically... the way I define it
> 
> STOMP





Me said:


> I agree Roy's actually very deceptively athletic, but definately not on MJ's level.
> And since you mentioned him, despite the vertical stat you pulled up (which I'm assuming is true), Wade is more athletic than Roy (your opinion may differ..).





You said:


> here's a link for pre-draft stats... http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-...nts/?year=2007
> 
> 5.5" is a pretty substantial difference... right?
> 
> STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: "*



NewAgeBaller said:


> You brought up their vertical stats to make a point on how Roy is actually very athetlic.
> 
> I said "*despite the vertical stat* you pulled up (which I'm assuming is true), Wade is more athletic than Roy (your opinion may differ..)."
> 
> and you brought up the difference in vertical again...


right, but where do I ever say that vert is the only thing that equals athleticism as you've just stated? Thats just you filling in the gaps creating a strawman to argue against. If you want to know how I actually define athleticism, you could ask me instead of assigning me some 2 dimensional view. Athleticism (IMO) is a subjective judgement that can be defined in many ways. Some people think golfers are athletic... bowlers even. My only point in listing Roy's outstanding Vert was that to show that he's pretty explosive... in fact one of the more explosive jumpers in the league at the various pre-drafts. But doing better in one test on this one particular day that Wade and Brandon were respectively tested isn't the end all of Bball athleticism in my eyes... heck Wade fared better in one of the two other running drills if you want to look it up in the link I provided. My point was made to counter those who were selling BR short athletically on page 2 of this thread so I compared his vert to a guy (Wade) who is known for his jumping ability. We don't have hard data on MJ or Kobe or Vince to compare. I don't think he's the greatest athlete in the league... heck, depending on whose doing the judging I know that others would argue other Blazers are better athletes then him. And thats fine... because it's subjectively defined.

STOMP


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

*Re: "*



STOMP said:


> right, but where do I ever say that vert is the only thing that equals athleticism as you've just stated? Thats just you filling in the gaps creating a strawman to argue against. If you want to know how I actually define athleticism, you could ask me instead of assigning me some 2 dimensional view. Athleticism (IMO) is a subjective judgement that can be defined in many ways. Some people think golfers are athletic... bowlers even. My only point in listing Roy's outstanding Vert was that to show that he's pretty explosive... in fact one of the more explosive jumpers in the league at the various pre-drafts. But doing better in one test on this one particular day that Wade and Brandon were respectively tested isn't the end all of Bball athleticism in my eyes... heck Wade fared better in one of the two other running drills if you want to look it up in the link I provided. My point was made to counter those who were selling BR short athletically on page 2 of this thread so I compared his vert to a guy (Wade) who is known for his jumping ability. We don't have hard data on MJ or Kobe or Vince to compare. I don't think he's the greatest athlete in the league... heck, depending on whose doing the judging I know that others would argue other Blazers are better athletes then him. And thats fine... because it's subjectively defined.
> 
> STOMP


You first bringing it up I had no problem with, I was talking about how I said "despite the vertical, ..." and you brought it up again in response.
But anyway, whatever, back on topic,

fair enough, and I agree with you, Roy is very deceptively and explosively athletic.
Most of the league and media don't know this though.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Are you serious? Ok,
> 
> Michael Jordan can dunk from say the freethrow line at his furthest point, that doesn't mean anyone with the same or higher vertical can dunk from that same distance.
> Or that someone can do a certain reverse layup (like the triple-clutch or whatever you want to call it infamous jordan layup), doens't mean anyone with Jordan's vert can do it.
> It's factored not just by vertical (like kflo said, thankyou). Having the highest vertical doesn't grant you the longest 'hangtime' in any situation.


It's all about how you define hangtime. 

If 

*Hangtime=* length of time you are in the air then there are only two things that effect it.

1. How high you jump.
2. How much you pull your legs up, actually increasing the distance you have to fall and therefore increasing the time you are "in the air" or not touching the ground.

#2 is how players appear to have more hang time without necessarily have a better vertical.

However, in this, you say.

*Hangtime*= Not only time in the air, but distance traveled in the air, and the number of athletic moves (pumps and hand switching and such) 

I agree with this. This is what makes up a basketball player's "hangtime" in the basketball sense.

Back to the topic of Roy vs. Jordan

-*Athletics*: I say Jordan was more athletic in that he utilized his athletic abilities much more and I think could probably leap further than Roy (which matters a lot when you're leaping towards the basket for a dunk) and same with Wade vs. Roy.
-*Winning Attitude:* I say Roy has shown so far that he has the ability to be the same kind of clutch player. It's hard to deny with how many big shots Roy has taken and made, and not only layups but tough jumpers and threes.
-*General Demeanor:* Jordan had more of a tenacious streak than Brandon, but their will to win seems nearly equal. Brandon has been pretty fired up on a couple of occasions though.
-*Marketability.* I think Jordan will still be much more marketable because he was more athletic, and because he was so much better than any player of his time. I feel like if Kobe, Lebron, and Wade were playing in their primes with Jordan in his, it would have diminished his dominance slightly.
I know a lot will disagree on this, but Who were the other great guards of the time? Reggie Miller? Glen Rice? John Starks? Jeff Hornacek? None of them were consistent "take the game over" kind of players like Jordan or some of the top players today (notice consistent, because I know Reggie did from time to time, but only averaged around 20 ppg for his career). The time was all about the big men (Houston- Olajuwan, San Antonio- Robinson, New York- Ewing) and Jordan was unique.

I don't believe Roy will get anywhere close to the status of Jordan for the reasons above, however, I think he will reach the status of say Clyde Drexler as one of the greatest Blazers of all time, except Brandon will (hopefully) team with Oden and Aldridge to bring us many championships.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Webster's Dictionary said:


> It's all about how you define hangtime.
> 
> If
> 
> ...




Yea your second definition is what i meant, my bad. Tried to explain it above.

Anyway, I don't think anyone will ever have the marketability of Jordan.
To Michael's credit, noone will ever really have his constant domination and general demeanor, he was amazing.


----------

