# Gotta love Dennis Rodman



## Mamba v2.0 (May 27, 2013)

http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=9353089


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

I actually agree with Rodman. LeBron James is a soft player, an old player past his prime in Kevin Garnet rocked James in the post offensively and defensively last year in the Eastern Conference Finals. James turns soft when going against physical players/team. 

Of course James would adjust to the physical style of basketball. However his stats, over all efficiency, and greatness would be diminished.

Also I'll look for it, but Grant Hill was interviewed and said that players from the 90s were stronger and bigger than they are today. He said the general population perpetuate the idea that athletes today are stronger and bigger, and he said thats just not true. And I agree with him ..

Look at the impact Hibbert had on the Miami Heat. Back in the early 90s the NBA was chalk full of big huge centers, and power forwards. Elbows to the side of the head that put you on your backside were part of the norm when it comes to defense. LeBron James don't got shit when it comes to physical enforcing defenses. Especially when you take into consideration the wing players could grab, push, and hold you when you attempted to make your offensive move. Where as now a days thats a quick foul. 

And I love the fact Rodman said he would of took Bosh out of his game easily. Its true though he would have .. lol Great stuff.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

> "It's really not a comparison. If LeBron was playing in the late '80s and early '90s, he would be just an average player," Rodman said Friday on "The Dan Patrick Show." "To do what Michael has done ... what he did was more charisma, there was more articulating and stuff like that. LeBron is more like ... there's no flash to his game. He's a great player, don't get me wrong, he's a hell of player, I'll give him that. But to me Scottie (Pippen) and Michael are probably the two best one-two punches I've ever seen."


What the hell does that even mean?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> I actually agree with Rodman. LeBron James is a soft player, an old player past his prime in Kevin Garnet rocked James in the post offensively and defensively last year in the Eastern Conference Finals. James turns soft when going against physical players/team.
> 
> Of course James would adjust to the physical style of basketball. However his stats, over all efficiency, and greatness would be diminished.
> 
> ...


You're wrong.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

hobojoe said:


> What the hell does that even mean?


It means that Rodman is a babbling retard.

Sort of like the fool up above who keeps spamming youtube clips in some attempt to prove a futile point.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

The myth grows as time passes. 20 years from now Lebron will be regarded as a legend and likely Top 5 player of all-time while Michael Jordan becomes Jim Brown.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Rodman has a point, but only to a point. The thing is that had LeBron played earlier and had all these wide open lanes taken away from him and been played more physically overall, his game would have probably evolved differently as well. Maybe it would have meant a more developed post game or outside shot, but it's impossible to state that he would have just been another guy given his athletic abilities.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If he played today, Michael Jordan would be an average player. See I can say things too. 

Rodman has pride in his era like every other former player, and that's fine. It should just be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Mamba v2.0 (May 27, 2013)

Im sick of hearing about how Lebron is better than Jordan. Its not the case nor will it ever be. Do you think jordan wouldve disappeared in a game 1 of the nba finals? Hell no, he wouldve taken over the game. Thats the difference between the two...jordan wanted the big moment while lebron tends to shy away from it. And to say 20 years down the road mj wil be nothing is retarded. Gtfo


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Rodman's on that good kush and alcohol.


----------



## Mamba v2.0 (May 27, 2013)

And people who thimk this miami team would wipe the floor with the 96-98 bulls is on kush and alchool. Jordans bulls were great in every aspect. Jordan would lock down wade and make him too tired to run. Pippen wouldnt lock Lebron down, but he would force him to make jumpers. Ron harper would slow down mario chalmers and rodamn would take bosh out of his game and outrebound him at the sametime. Rodman was all about hustle and he wanted it more than anybody else. Then toni kukoc would stretch the floor, leaving a gap for jordan and pippen to get into the lane. Lebron would be way too intimidated by the likes of michael jordan...jordan would take him out of the game mentally before the tip. Bulls in 5


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

The Miami Heat could use a player as physical and dominating in the paint as Rodman.

Respect greatness...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

It's okay with me if some people respect Rodman as their intellectual equal. Personally I would suspect that it's just another exercise in his long career of seeking attention.


----------



## Mamba v2.0 (May 27, 2013)




----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Diable said:


> It's okay with me if some people respect Rodman as their intellectual equal. Personally I would suspect that it's just another exercise in his long career of seeking attention.


this cat diable only wishs he was cut from the same cloth as rodman. how else can you explain the fact that diable is talking about attention seeking issues. bit of advice to the cat that is diable, 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If he played today, Michael Jordan would be an average player. See I can say things too.
> 
> Rodman has pride in his era like every other former player, and that's fine. It should just be taken with a grain of salt.


Actually, I wonder about how Jordan would be. On the one hand, he would have grown up shooting threes and been much more adept at it, and the lack of hand-checking would make him an even better scorer. But on the other hand, it's possible that he might not have stayed long in college and not developed some of the skills that set him apart. I wonder...


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

23AJ said:


> this cat diable only wishs he was cut from the same cloth as rodman. how else can you explain the fact that diable is talking about attention seeking issues. bit of advice to the cat that is diable, 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.



THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Krstic All-Star said:


> Actually, I wonder about how Jordan would be. On the one hand, he would have grown up shooting threes and been much more adept at it, and the lack of hand-checking would make him an even better scorer. But on the other hand, it's possible that he might not have stayed long in college and not developed some of the skills that set him apart. I wonder...


Jordan definitely grew at UNC. However he was considered by many to be the best freshmen in the country. And made the UNC team for a reason. 






Jordan bangs head on the glass on block attemp.






Len Bias .. Michael Jordan ... Mike with the signature show stopping dunk ..


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Krstic All-Star said:


> Actually, I wonder about how Jordan would be. On the one hand, he would have grown up shooting threes and been much more adept at it, and the lack of hand-checking would make him an even better scorer. But on the other hand, it's possible that he might not have stayed long in college and not developed some of the skills that set him apart. I wonder...


Being guarded by lengthy 6'7 athletes both stronger and faster would certainly work against him. The Craig Ehlo, Jeff Hornacek and John Starks types simply didn't provide the same type of individual defense as guys today. While handchecking was more prevalent, help defense strategies and defensive schemes in general are more advanced today. 

Basketball like any craft improves with time. That's just the evolution of the game. To think otherwise is just nostalgia. 

It's really impossible to assert what a player then would be now, because all of the external factors are different. That's why you take a player for how they dominated their own era and leave it at that. Anything beyond that is likely subject to all kinds of bias (like Rodman's comments).


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Being guarded by lengthy 6'7 athletes both stronger and faster would certainly work against him. The Craig Ehlo, Jeff Hornacek and John Starks types simply didn't provide the same type of individual defense as guys today. While handchecking was more prevalent, help defense strategies and defensive schemes in general are more advanced today.
> 
> Basketball like any craft improves with time. That's just the evolution of the game. To think otherwise is just nostalgia.
> 
> It's really impossible to assert what a player then would be now, because all of the external factors are different. That's why you take a player for how they dominated their own era and leave it at that. Anything beyond that is likely subject to all kinds of bias (like Rodman's comments).


Undersized NBA players .. nothing new there .... You shouldn't judge a player by the size of his body, but by the size of his heart, and basketball skill merits. End of story.

PGs - Nate Robinson 5'9" .. Earl Boykins 5'5" .... JJ Barea 5'11" ...Chris Paul 5'11" .. Allen Iverson 5'11" .. just to name a few.. and there is a lot more .. Aaron Brooks .. anyone .. 

SGs - Dywane Wade 6'4" ...Eric Gordon 6'3" ...Rodney Stuckey 6'5" .. Wesley Mattews .. 6'5" .. 

A guy like Craig Ehlo was actually 6'6" and a lock down defender. I hope you would know the game better, and I definitely hope race doesn't factor in to how you rate players .. 

A ton of tweener small forwards and power forwards to list ...

As far as Centers .. Most are much smaller especially compared to Jordans era. And we saw what one big center in Roy Hibbert could do to a LeBron James led team ..

A 5'9" guy blocks LeBron James dunk attempt on a fast break from behind .. And whats even more pathetic and to the point of this soft NBA league right now .. James hits the floor like he got fouled ... another flop James ? sheesh


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If you don't think size, speed and strength are relevant factors, then there is no point in discourse. Jordan was great and arguably the best ever, and LeBron is on the career path to the same class (though he isn't there yet). Leave it at that.


----------



## Drizzy (Mar 23, 2012)

How does saying lebron is above average = comparing lebron to mj?

Rodman is wrong. LeBron is not MJ...clearly....but average? Come on.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If you don't think size, speed and strength are relevant factors, then there is no point in discourse. Jordan was great and arguably the best ever, and LeBron is on the career path to the same class (though he isn't there yet). Leave it at that.



I think that heart, and basketball skills are the most important merits to judge a player by. Not their size ... Hence why they're is great undersized players in every era ... 

Also I know PEDS are a much much bigger issue regarding todays so called, bigger, faster, and stronger athletes. That might have something to do with your claim if you really wanna look into it ..

It's just that the NBA/NFL do a much better job and not shooting their sport in the foot like the MLB do ... 

But don't foolishly believe that only baseball players are taking illegal PEDS. 

LeBron James and Kobe Bryant for the record consider JORDAN to be the Greatest EVER. Not Just me .. watch the first few minutes of this video for evidence ...


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Mamba v2.0 said:


> *Im sick of hearing about how Lebron is better than Jordan*. Its not the case nor will it ever be. Do you think jordan wouldve disappeared in a game 1 of the nba finals? Hell no, he wouldve taken over the game. Thats the difference between the two...jordan wanted the big moment while lebron tends to shy away from it. *And to say 20 years down the road mj wil be nothing is retarded.* Gtfo


It's so strange, I'm looking through this thread and I can't find a person who said any of these things...

Jordan is the best of all time right now in my opinion. No one can say Lebron won't be when his career is over with, he's in his prime right now and still has a lot more he can do, and he's probably going to win more titles. So far I've never seen as complete a basketball player as Lebron, and by this I mean someone who has all the physical tools he needs and could do almost everything at an elite level. You could easily argue that in terms of basketball play and skills, Lebron's already better. I don't think so, but it's definitely arguable and no one is stupid in any way for thinking so. 

And again, in terms of what Lebron does best, he did not disappear in game 1 against the Spurs. He's a guy who's best at making others better, and he did an excellent job of doing so in that game. He had an off night from the field and could've been more aggressive but it was not a disappearing act in any way.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If you think LeBron is taking PEDS and that's why he is great, then fine. That's a totally different claim. Also a claim I can dismiss until provided evidence.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If you think LeBron is taking PEDS and that's why he is great, then fine. That's a totally different claim. Also a claim I can dismiss until provided evidence.


Trust me, no one honestly thinks Lebron is taking PEDS and that's why he's great.

...right?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Being guarded by lengthy 6'7 athletes both stronger and faster would certainly work against him. *The Craig Ehlo, Jeff Hornacek and John Starks types simply didn't provide the same type of individual defense as guys today.* While handchecking was more prevalent, help defense strategies and defensive schemes in general are more advanced today.


This. Where are the "stoppers" guarding LeBron that fit the Craig Ehlo/Jeff Hornacek physical profile? Or the imposing 6'3 Joe Dumars.

The legend of Jordan is just that...legend.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If you think LeBron is taking PEDS and that's why he is great, then fine. That's a totally different claim. Also a claim I can dismiss until provided evidence.


No you keep bringing up bigger athletes evolution with out mentioning the elephant in the room which is illegal peds. its not so black and white, and actually i think james is very skilled, but i know physical defense makes him struggle, i know the rules have been changed to encourage more scoring, and it gives the offensive player an advantage. 

You bring up the evolution of schemes, but fail to equate it to the fact once players were stopped being able to push, grab, and dictate where the offensive player goes, coaches, players etc had to find other ways to defend. Its not because the old way wasn't effective, in fact it was more effective, hence the point being made ... its that the defense had to change to compensate for its prior abilities being stripped when playing D ..

I see you and many people never articulating the full scope of the differences in the Eras, instead voicing your opinion steeped in your bias about your favorite players .. I will be the first person right now to admit, i prefer the older guys in the league, when players were not your friend, when the game was a force to be reckoned with if you tried to drive the ball into the teeth of a defense .. I admit that ... but you guys, be willing to open up your minds around the many multitude of reasons why things have changed ...

And remember not all Evolution is Good.. Evolution does occur always, but evolution can be any sort of change, good and bad .. 

By the way even though I disagree with patches on here, I actually do respect his opinion.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> This. Where are the "stoppers" guarding LeBron that fit the Craig Ehlo/Jeff Hornacek physical profile? Or the imposing 6'3 Joe Dumars.
> 
> The legend of Jordan is just that...legend.


Michael Jordan wasn't 6'8" 270 ... 

LeBron James has an undeniable physical advantage over the guys that play his position as well .


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

If guys like Ron Artest were able to handcheck, nobody would ever score. The influx of big, strong and fast perimeter players forced the league's hand. I agree this led to coaches needing to be more creative with their defenses schemes, but the bottom line is that they did. So now we have a league of guys who are lengthy, strong and fast who play within great team defensive schemes. This in comparison to inferior athletes being able to play more physical individual defense in inferior defensive schemes. I'm not saying either way is harder to score on, I'm simply saying that pinpointing one aspect where defense has loosened is dishonest if you're ignoring the ways it has become more advanced. 

As far as the PEDS claim, I need some evidence and specifics. This seems like a reach.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

For example, I think Jordan's lack of deep range would have been problematic in this era, but if the competition demanded it, Jordan would have developed it. But at the expense of what part of his game? This is the evolutionary process to a tee, just on the basketball court.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> No you keep bringing up bigger athletes evolution with out mentioning the elephant in the room which is illegal peds. its not so black and white, and actually i think james is very skilled, but i know physical defense makes him struggle, i know the rules have been changed to encourage more scoring, and it gives the offensive player an advantage.
> 
> You bring up the evolution of schemes, but fail to equate it to the fact once players were stopped being able to push, grab, and dictate where the offensive player goes, coaches, players etc had to find other ways to defend. Its not because the old way wasn't effective, in fact it was more effective, hence the point being made ... its that the defense had to change to compensate for its prior abilities being stripped when playing D ..
> 
> ...


You just basically made a giant rambling out of nothing without even actually responding to his points.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> For example, I think Jordan's lack of deep range would have been problematic in this era, but if the competition demanded it, Jordan would have developed it. But at the expense of what part of his game? This is the evolutionary process to a tee, just on the basketball court.


Like its been problematic for Rip Hamilton and Derrick Rose ...


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If guys like Ron Artest were able to handcheck, nobody would ever score. The influx of big, strong and fast perimeter players forced the league's hand. I agree this led to coaches needing to be more creative with their defenses schemes, but the bottom line is that they did. So now we have a league of guys who are lengthy, strong and fast who play within great team defensive schemes. This in comparison to inferior athletes being able to play more physical individual defense in inferior defensive schemes. I'm not saying either way is harder to score on, I'm simply saying that pinpointing one aspect where defense has loosened is dishonest if you're ignoring the ways it has become more advanced.
> 
> As far as the PEDS claim, I need some evidence and specifics. This seems like a reach.


A guy just like Ron Artest was able to handcheck b4 in Anthony Mason .. and players had to utilize every aspect in their game to score against him, because he was obviously very strong, fast, and a damn good defender.

But players are bigger , stronger, and faster now ...


----------



## 23isback (Mar 15, 2006)

Lebron getting blocked by Nate Robinson is more a testament to how great an athlete Nate is than how soft Lebron is. Regardless, one instance of a small player blocking Lebron doesn't discredit Lebron's entire body of work. Lebron was contained by Indiana because they crowded him every time he got the ball and his teammates could not hit their open shots. Nobody can beat a team 1 on 5, especially a big defensive team like Indiana. Watch Game 7 though when Lebron finally got some production out of Wade and how he absolutely destroyed the Pacers. 






Lebron is a unique physical specimen, unlike anybody in NBA history. 
To say he wouldn't dominate in any era is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Anthony Mason was similar size to Ron Artest, but he played PF and even C later in his career, which illustrates my point. Mason didn't have near the lateral quickness that Artest did but they were the same size and strength. We have guys now who are legitimately PF size and strength with legitimate SG/SF quickness. Allowing these guys to handcheck in addition to playing in more advanced defensive schemes would be suicide.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Anthony Mason was similar size to Ron Artest, but he played PF and even C later in his career, which illustrates my point. Mason didn't have near the lateral quickness that Artest did but they were the same size and strength. We have guys now who are legitimately PF size and strength with legitimate SG/SF quickness. Allowing these guys to handcheck in addition to playing in more advanced defensive schemes would be suicide.


Mason was bigger and thicker than Arrest, and as you mentioned, didn't play on the perimeter... that comparison is a waste of everyone's time. 

If you want to see the handcheck at work look at Mason's teammate, an old, strong Derrick Harper, and how he literally guided guys around the court with one hand.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> For example, I think Jordan's lack of deep range would have been problematic in this era, but if the competition demanded it, Jordan would have developed it. But at the expense of what part of his game? This is the evolutionary process to a tee, just on the basketball court.


Right. That's why comparing players from different eras is so difficult, and why it's customary to compare them based on what they actually did in their time rather than what they could've done in another time. I imagine Jordan would've developed a 3-point shot much like Kobe did over the course of his career, but like you said, at what cost? Nobody really knows. 

Former players and fans alike are guilty of thinking their era was "better" all the time. I get it, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think the game evolves over time. My favorite is when I hear about "the lost art of the midrange jumper" as to why today's game is worse. To hell with the fact that the numbers clearly show it to be the most inefficient shot in basketball.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Michael Jordan WOULD be an average player today. Don't believe me? I have a youtube of him getting exploited on a single play on defense.






I rest my case


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Sir Patchwork said:


> For example, I think Jordan's lack of deep range would have been problematic in this era, but if the competition demanded it, Jordan would have developed it. But at the expense of what part of his game? This is the evolutionary process to a tee, just on the basketball court.


you are aware that later in his career Mike did develop from behind the arc and in fact shot 42% for a season on 3.2 attempts per game in 95-96 - it's not something he couldnt do, it's something he didnt need to do - he'd of had no problem developing the shot earlier in his career if that was the fashion of the times and at the expense of nothing

also you are aware that 5 of the top 10 single season leaders in 3pa were recorded during his prime right? so where's the evolution?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> For example, I think Jordan's lack of deep range would have been problematic in this era


Why do you say that? I say you just keep Jordan's game exactly how it was and instead surround him with more 3-pt shooting in this era. His game would adapt very well to today's game. We're talking about a finesse player who would be given more room to operate (less physical defense) and has all the shifty moves to exploit that fact. No way I'd want Jordan shooting more 3's when he can get a high 50's TS% on high volume doing what he always did best. Especially when you can easily surround him with good 3-pt shooting role players to balance out the team offense.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

as stated: 1) Jordan didnt lack a deep game 2) he won 6 titles while half the top ten single seasons in 3 pt attempts were being registered

so please....


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

e-monk said:


> you are aware that later in his career Mike did develop from behind the arc and in fact shot 42% for a season on 3.2 attempts per game in 95-96 - it's not something he couldnt do, it's something he didnt need to do - he'd of had no problem developing the shot earlier in his career if that was the fashion of the times and at the expense of nothing
> 
> also you are aware that 5 of the top 10 single season leaders in 3pa were recorded during his prime right? so where's the evolution?


There were more than twice as many 3-pointers attempted per game this year than there were in Jordan's last season prior to his first retirement. The mid-90s was when the evolution really started.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> There were more than twice as many 3-pointers attempted per game this year than there were in Jordan's last season prior to his first retirement. The mid-90s was when the evolution really started.


When he won two MVPs, 3 scoring titles and three titles in the mid-90s?

I'm sorry but the three pointer being a bigger weapon today is not a good argument against Jordan. 

Now if you want to argue that he benefitted from being THE low post option in all his teams I might listen. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

hobojoe said:


> There were more than twice as many 3-pointers attempted per game this year than there were in Jordan's last season prior to his first retirement. The mid-90s was when the evolution really started.


it's not like a) it wasnt in heavy use already (5 of the top 10 attempts seasons) b) the strategy hadnt already been used and proven effective (surrounding Hakeem with 3 pt shooters = 2 rings) c) Mike couldnt hit 3s - he did exactly what Kobe has done first and better (adapting his game as he aged) and speaking of Kobe (or Wade) d) guys whose game in some way or another patterns after early Mike havent thrived in this era

so all this talk about Mike couldnt shoot 3s or couldnt adjust or wouldnt be effective is manifestly dumb


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> When he won two MVPs, 3 scoring titles and three titles in the mid-90s?
> 
> I'm sorry but the three pointer being a bigger weapon today is not a good argument against Jordan.
> 
> ...


That's when it _started_. There were still only 25.4 attempts per game in Jordan's last season in Chicago as opposed to just under 40 this year. It's a much bigger part of the game today than it was in Jordan's career, that's a fact. Whether he would've needed it or not is up for debate.


----------



## SharkAA (Jun 7, 2013)

"It's really not a comparison. If LeBron was playing in the late '80s and early '90s, he would be just an average player," Rodman said Friday on "The Dan Patrick Show."

"I'm just sick and tired of people comparing (James) to Michael Jordan," Rodman said. "It's a whole different era, man."

These two statements are so contradictory and mindless, that they deserve a huge facepalm. Geez, no wonder he is a 'buddy' of Kim Jong Un.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

e-monk said:


> it's not like a) it wasnt in heavy use already (5 of the top 10 attempts seasons) b) the strategy hadnt already been used and proven effective (surrounding Hakeem with 3 pt shooters = 2 rings) c) Mike couldnt hit 3s - he did exactly what Kobe has done first and better (adapting his game as he aged) and speaking of Kobe (or Wade) d) guys whose game in some way or another patterns after early Mike havent thrived in this era
> 
> so all this talk about Mike couldnt shoot 3s or couldnt adjust or wouldnt be effective is manifestly dumb


I'm glad you brought up Kobe and Wade. Kobe adapted as he aged, which has allowed him to age gracefully and still be one of the top scorers in the league as he approaches 40. Wade has not adapted his game nearly as well and he's not aging nearly as gracefully. I'm not attributing that all to Kobe having a 3-point shot and Wade not, but as his athleticism has declined it would certainly be helpful to have a reliable outside shot.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

it's pretty common knowledge that Kobe has patterned his game and career after Mike - like I said Mike did it first and did it better including adding the 3 to his arsenal

and if Lebron could take the time to develop an effective 3 early in his career as he has (without sacrificing other elements of his game) - someone with Mike's work effort and drive most certainly could have (and did)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

also players are not bigger than they were 10-15 years ago they might be slightly heavier but so what? what good does that do them when contact and hand checking has minimized any advantage of strength?

and differences in size have nothing to do with quality of play - Swede Halbrook was 7'2" Bill Russell was 6'9" - Shawn Bradley was 7'6", Ben Wallace was 6'9" etc etc etc - Rodman himself was what 6'7" and yet the greatest rebounder in the history of the game


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

hobojoe said:


> That's when it _started_. There were still only 25.4 attempts per game in Jordan's last season in Chicago as opposed to just under 40 this year. It's a much bigger part of the game today than it was in Jordan's career, that's a fact. Whether he would've needed it or not is up for debate.


What about 94-95? 95-96?


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> What about 94-95? 95-96?


1994-95: 30.7 attempts/game
1995-96: 32.1 attempts/game
1996-97: 33.6 attempts/game
1997-98: 25.4 attempts/game
1998-99: 26.2 attempts/game
1999-00: 27.4 attempts/game
2000-01: 27.4 attempts/game

-----------------------------

2009-10: 36.3 attempts/game
2010-11: 36.0 attempts/game
2011-12: 36.8 attempts/game
2012-13: 39.9 attempts/game


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

So the difference between 97 when Jordan lost the MVP to Malone but won a ring and scoring title and 2010 was 3 attempts. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and.....?



silence


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Right, if you're going to hand pick seasons to compare and make it as close as possible, it seems insignificant. But looking at the whole picture it's clear that the 3-point is a bigger part of today's game than it was in the 80s and 90s. That's not even debatable. If you want to argue anything beyond that I'm fine with it, but it's definitely a bigger part of today's game than it has been at any other point in basketball history.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

how much bigger? less than 10%? and the game has so evolved...? come on you've been following the argument

it's changed a bit but not that much and anyone ascribing that change to having anything to do with rendering Mike average has to be joking


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

hobojoe said:


> What the hell does that even mean?


That James is giving Rodman Larry Bird flashbacks. Or that Dennis has taken one too many to the head and forgot where he was.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

e-monk said:


> how much bigger? less than 10%? and the game has so evolved...? come on you've been following the argument
> 
> it's changed a bit but not that much and anyone ascribing that change to having anything to do with rendering Mike average has to be joking


Well I don't think anyone other than Dennis Rodman thinks LeBron would be average in the 80s/90s and nobody thinks Jordan would be average in today's game. I do think Mike would play a different game today than he did in his day, and it's not just the 3-pointer. Like others have mentioned, the hand-checking, the zone defense, the size and length (particularly on the perimeter). It's a different game, and like I said in my first post that's why it makes it difficult to compare across eras. Jordan was unquestionably the best player of his era, but I do think if he were playing today he'd play a different game. Not to say he'd be better or worse (I don't know), just different.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Anthony Mason was similar size to Ron Artest, but he played PF and even C later in his career, which illustrates my point. Mason didn't have near the lateral quickness that Artest did but they were the same size and strength. We have guys now who are legitimately PF size and strength with legitimate SG/SF quickness. Allowing these guys to handcheck in addition to playing in more advanced defensive schemes would be suicide.


Wrong, Mason did cover wings, and guarded Jordan. Just watch the Bulls/Hornets series Jordan even talks about how tough a defender Mason is. They used Glen Rice/Anthony Mason on Jordan. Mason also guarded Pippen. That was the thing about Mason he could bang inside with the big boys, and guard the wings because of his great speed for his size. Not sure where the hell you came up with him being slow laterally, Mason was well known for his speed, ball handling skills, and strength....

watch the video .. get informed ..


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

23AJ said:


> Wrong, Mason did cover wings, and guarded Jordan. Just watch the Bulls/Hornets series Jordan even talks about how tough a defender Mason is. They used Glen Rice/Anthony Mason on Jordan. Mason also guarded Pippen. That was the thing about Mason he could bang inside with the big boys, and guard the wings because of his great speed for his size. Not sure where the hell you came up with him being slow laterally, Mason was well known for his speed, ball handling skills, and strength....
> 
> watch the video .. get informed ..
> 
> ...


You just posted a video of Mason guarding MJ in the post (which was match-up specific because MJ was playing almost primarily out of the post in the halfcourt offense by 1998) and maybe ending up on the perimeter once or twice on switches... the second video (before I stopped it) was him banging and scoring underneath... I'm not sure these videos were the best way to illustrate your point. I remember watching Anthony Mason extensively while he was an active player... it is not accurate to say that he was a perimeter defender in the mold of an Artest.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> Wrong, Mason did cover wings, and guarded Jordan. Just watch the Bulls/Hornets series Jordan even talks about how tough a defender Mason is. They used Glen Rice/Anthony Mason on Jordan. Mason also guarded Pippen. That was the thing about Mason he could bang inside with the big boys, and guard the wings because of his great speed for his size. Not sure where the hell you came up with him being slow laterally, Mason was well known for his speed, ball handling skills, and strength....
> 
> watch the video .. get informed ..
> 
> ...


I strongly suggest you watch the videos you just posted, they don't really prove your point in the way you're suggesting.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> So the difference between 97 when Jordan lost the MVP to Malone but won a ring and scoring title and 2010 was 3 attempts.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Keep in mind that for most of the 90s the three point line was shorter than it is these days (they moved it to its present distance in 98 or 99). So throughout much of the decade teams were more willing to let them fly, and three point FG%s were a little bit inflated.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that yet. From 94-97 the line was 2 feet shorter, hence the dropoff in attempt from 97 to 98. Those three seasons were also Jordan's best three point shooting seasons not coincidentally. Jordan's legacy is often made into something it's not, but when people start telling me he developed a great three point shot, that's a whole new level of nostalgia.

For reference, his last year as a Bull was the year they pushed the line back to 23.9, and Jordan shot 23% down from 38% the year before.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

I find it hard to believe many of you know the greatness that was Mason as a player. He was Ron Artest before Ron Artest, An incredible defender, and much better creator offensively, and had amazing ball handling skills for a player of his size. His speed was unquestioned. I simply think, many of you didn't follow the NBA then like you do now, and many have just forgotten. Read the article posted about Mason to give you a lil more insight on his defensive abilities to guard inside and out, as I've been explaining here ..



> NBA PLAYOFFS;Mason Accepts Jordan Assignment as Mission: Possible
> By MIKE WISE
> Published: May 04, 1996
> SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/04/s...ts-jordan-assignment-as-mission-possible.html


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> Keep in mind that for most of the 90s the three point line was shorter than it is these days (they moved it to its present distance in 98 or 99). So throughout much of the decade teams were more willing to let them fly, and three point FG%s were a little bit inflated.


The short 3 point line was only around for three seasons in the mid-'90s, from '94-'97 I believe.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

no no, that's 'most' - 30% is a majority right?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Keep in mind that for most of the 90s the three point line was shorter than it is these days (they moved it to its present distance in 98 or 99). So throughout much of the decade teams were more willing to let them fly, and three point FG%s were a little bit inflated.


I thought hobo joe would of pointed it out when I specifically asked about 94-95 and 95-96. Especially when Jordan barely played in 94-95. But he didn't so I ran with it. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> I thought hobo joe would of pointed it out when I specifically asked about 94-95 and 95-96. Especially when Jordan barely played in 94-95. But he didn't so I ran with it.


Well played then. Anyway, I still find it hilarious that Rodman made (more or less) the exact same statement about James that he did about Bird. Which should cement LBJ's status as an all-time top 10 player.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Yeah, that's what I thought as well. I didn't know if many others would remember Rodman saying that Bird would just be another player if he were black though. Didn't Isiah more or less agree with him? I forget exactly, but Isiah got himself in the middle of that stupidity somehow.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Diable said:


> Yeah, that's what I thought as well. I didn't know if many others would remember Rodman saying that Bird would just be another player if he were black though. Didn't Isiah more or less agree with him? I forget exactly, but Isiah got himself in the middle of that stupidity somehow.


Yeah, Isiah caught the flak for Rodman's comments. Mostly because everyone hated him and the people he was speaking to didn't understand that he was trying to be ironic (Thomas was commenting on how sportswriter's covered the game of basketball when he "agreed" with Rodman and it's glaringly obvious when you read his words).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Diable said:


> Yeah, that's what I thought as well. I didn't know if many others would remember Rodman saying that Bird would just be another player if he were black though. Didn't Isiah more or less agree with him? I forget exactly, but Isiah got himself in the middle of that stupidity somehow.


that's not really what rodman said . the context of the questioning means everything. the reporter was basically asking him what it felt like to be guarding the best player of all time.

his belief was that the reporters were overrating bird

he said that if bird were black you guys (meaning the reporters) would think he was just another good player.

in this case rodman was astute for 2 reasons . 
1 reporters especially in the 80's overrated white players , sports reporters at the time were almost 100% white.
2. bird was playing hurt , he injured himself after the 86 finals and was never the same afterwards he admitted as much in his book with magic.

rodman was a rookie he never faced a healthy larry bird , i find it hard to find fault with his reasoning then.

thomas, the team captain backed his teammate who was essentially right, bird was being overrated not just in the moment but also in hindsight , magic johnson and michael jordan both came off the best statistical seasons of their career and are both considered better players than bird historically though not at the moment even though bird himself remarked god had disquised himself as michael jordan 12 month earlier . thomas in particular bristled with the somewhat racist notions at the time that white players succeeded because they were smarter and that black players succeeded because they were more gifted physically.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Anyone who agrees with a man who is best friends with the leader of North Korea should probably not exist.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Here's your soft boy Dennis. A 6'8 Forward having the best block of all-time on a 7 footer.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> that's not really what rodman said . the context of the questioning means everything. the reporter was basically asking him what it felt like to be guarding the best player of all time.
> 
> his belief was that the reporters were overrating bird
> 
> ...


You're conflating their comments. Thomas was guilty of the social commentary, Rodman was actually serious. Thomas' statement makes it crystal clear that he didn't agree with Rodman at all (in terms of Bird just being another player), but he did point out all the rest of it that you're attributing to The Worm. And this completes the irony. Poor Thomas caught the flak then for Rodman's words and now people are attributing to Rodman Thomas' pointed social commentary.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

doctordrizzay said:


> Anyone who agrees with a man who is best friends with the leader of North Korea should probably not exist.


Mamba will agree with just about anyone who derails Lebron, but of course when he states Kobe can win a title with Lebron's old supporting cast in Cleveland that shouldn't surprise you.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> You're conflating their comments. Thomas was guilty of the social commentary, Rodman was actually serious. Thomas' statement makes it crystal clear that he didn't agree with Rodman at all (in terms of Bird just being another player), but he did point out all the rest of it that you're attributing to The Worm. And this completes the irony. Poor Thomas caught the flak then for Rodman's words and now people are attributing to Rodman Thomas' pointed social commentary.





> The Detroit Pistons, for whom Rodman was a rookie forward, had just been beaten 117-114 by the Boston Celtics in the seventh game of last season's NBA Eastern Conference finals, and Rodman was furious with the Celtics and the taunting Boston Garden crowd, and he ached for one last chance to get back at them. He said, " Larry Bird is overrated in a lot of areas. I don't think he's the greatest player. He's way overrated." These derogatory words about Bird, widely acclaimed as the NBA's best or, at worst, second-best player, felt good as they came cascading out. "Why does he get so much publicity?" Rodman continued. "Because he's white. You never hear about a black player being the greatest." From where he was sitting nearby, Detroit teammate Isiah Thomas agreed that if Bird were black, "he'd be just another good guy."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067269/index.htm

that is what rodman said in its entirety....it was a social commentary as well.

and for all the spin about dennis being some wide eyed innocent and thomas being this cold hearted city slicker , thomas is about 2 weeks older than him , and rodman used to live on the streets for like 2 years after high school .

i've always believed rodman had a more expansive view of people and life in general vs. the avg. pampered athlete because he has certainly experienced more.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> I thought hobo joe would of pointed it out when I specifically asked about 94-95 and 95-96. Especially when Jordan barely played in 94-95. But he didn't so I ran with it.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


You got me, that three year experiment slipped my mind. Certainly explains the spike in those numbers though.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Da Grinch said:


> that's not really what rodman said . the context of the questioning means everything. the reporter was basically asking him what it felt like to be guarding the best player of all time.
> 
> his belief was that the reporters were overrating bird
> 
> ...


here's a Larry Bird anecdote:



> After Bird made four straight baskets with Dennis Rodman guarding him, he ran over to Chuck Daly and asked "who's guarding me, Chuck? Is anyone guarding me? You better get someone on me or I'm gonna go for 60." Then he'd continue the banter the next time he got the ball with Rodman inches away.


maybe the worm came across some bitter grapes?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067269/index.htm
> 
> that is what rodman said in its entirety....it was a social commentary as well.
> 
> ...


The difference is that Thomas opened his comments by calling Bird an exceptional player, while Rodman is clearly serious with his remarks. So, no, Rodman isn't offering pointed social commentary because he's clearly delusional. Thomas, on the other hand, made it clear that he was referring to the sportswriters and the stereotypes that dogged black athletes.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> The difference is that Thomas opened his comments by calling Bird an exceptional player, while Rodman is clearly serious with his remarks. So, no, Rodman isn't offering pointed social commentary because he's clearly delusional. Thomas, on the other hand, made it clear that he was referring to the sportswriters and the stereotypes that dogged black athletes.


rodman wasn't delusional , not in the least .

he was being spiteful, that much is very obvious.

by his own admission he was hurt and decided to be hurtful in return.

when started talking about how the reporters never talk about black players being the greatest he was calling them racists , that their opinions were colored by race.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

e-monk said:


> here's a Larry Bird anecdote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i dont doubt it , 

later in the same article.


> When pressed on the subject, Rodman concedes—once again—that his comments about Bird were ill-advised. "If we had won the game, I wouldn't have said anything like that," he says. "I was hurting, and I wanted to hurt those people back. But I shouldn't have said what I said. Larry Bird proved to me he's one of the best, and they were the better team that day. I made a mistake." Unequivocal though his apology sounds, it's clear that Rodman's remarks about Bird reflected a feeling shared by other black players: White writers and fans embrace white NBA stars a little too eagerly.


like i said to e.h. he was being spiteful.

people are way too quick to dismiss the man as crazy or stupid when he clearly isn't either.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I doubt Rodman was very good at trash talking compared to Bird. Rodman might be crazy or dumb, I don't know him well. He certainly says a lot of dumb shit and this is stupid. He probably did it for a reason though. Everything we know about him indicates that he does thing to attract attention to himself and it is extremely likely that he said this stuff simply so that he could read his own name in the papers.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Phil said in his book he thinks Rodman had ADD and did that shit for attention. Reason he fit in well with the bulls is because they ignored his crap for the most part when he joined them. Phil even let him break team rules without punishing him to avoid him lashing out. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Phil said in his book he thinks Rodman had ADD and did that shit for attention. Reason he fit in well with the bulls is because they ignored his crap for the most part when he joined them. Phil even let him break team rules without punishing him to avoid him lashing out.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Dennis Rodman the shit - check!

Phil Jackson the shit - check!

Anthony Mason the shit - check!

Michael Jordan the shit - check!

Thread over/end.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Jordan didn't lack a deep shot or a three point shot at that. He worked his backside off and developed one of the most lethal fade away jump shots of all time. He wasn't taking those fades close to the bucket, he was near the three point line many times and nailed them unconsciously. A move he patented that many NBA ballers today add to their arsenal. MJ is written all over the league then and now. 

As for the three point shot, MJ developed it quite well by 1993 where he shot 35% from three for the regular season. Also let it be noted, that during the 1993 playoffs all the way to a title Jordan shot 40% from three netting 28 three pointers. 

So Jordan was well on his way developing his three point shot at the distance that the three point line is today. The following year in 1994 the NBA changed the distance and for three seasons Jordan had an incredible three point percentage. After that the NBA pushed the line back out to where it was originally. And Jordans percentage dropped significantly. 

But when you take into consideration that the line moved in and out, its not a surprise Jordans three point percentage changed so much. Consider this, when you work on a shot from a distance thats what your body mechanics and muscle memory learn. And once you finally have a good shot you can rely on from a certain distance. The NBA Then goes and changes the distance. Moves it inward, so now that makes the shot easier, but for three seasons your muscle memory and technique gets accustomed to that depth. Then the NBA moves the line back, and once again you have to make adjustments and change your shot. SO by no means is MJ's three point percentage a typical fair way we measure someone over their career. Just a fair point that should be considered.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Take Paul George out of your avatar before I cut you.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

23AJ said:


> But when you take into consideration that the line moved in and out, its not a surprise Jordans three point percentage changed so much. Consider this, when you work on a shot from a distance thats what your body mechanics and muscle memory learn. And once you finally have a good shot you can rely on from a certain distance. The NBA Then goes and changes the distance. Moves it inward, so now that makes the shot easier, but for three seasons your muscle memory and technique gets accustomed to that depth. Then the NBA moves the line back, and once again you have to make adjustments and change your shot. SO by no means is MJ's three point percentage a typical fair way we measure someone over their career. Just a fair point that should be considered.


This would be a fair point but it just doesn't jive with the percentages. League 3PT% jumped from 33% (ranked 21st out of 35 seasons) to 36% (6th out of 35 seasons) in 1994-1995. From there, the NBA had it's 3 best 3PT% seasons up to that point. Once they moved it back out, it again dropped to 34% (from 37%).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

patrickkint said:


> Fixed ladders are important fixtures for marine and non-marine structures and are primarily used for access. Fixed means that the ladder is permanently attached to a structure.
> 
> pontoon ladders


Like a house boat?


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Take Paul George out of your avatar before I cut you.


:laugh:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

23AJ said:


> Jordan didn't lack a deep shot or a three point shot at that. He worked his backside off and developed one of the most lethal fade away jump shots of all time. He wasn't taking those fades close to the bucket, he was near the three point line many times and nailed them unconsciously. A move he patented that many NBA ballers today add to their arsenal. MJ is written all over the league then and now.
> 
> As for the three point shot, MJ developed it quite well by 1993 where he shot 35% from three for the regular season. Also let it be noted, that during the 1993 playoffs all the way to a title Jordan shot 40% from three netting 28 three pointers.
> 
> ...


he didn't lack a 3 point shot but it wasn't a strength either (career .327 percentage) and if you take out the shortened line years it was much lower, it was certainly a less potent aspect of his offense to the point opposing defenses would encourage him to take it.

that step in or out means a lot.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> This would be a fair point but it just doesn't jive with the percentages. League 3PT% jumped from 33% (ranked 21st out of 35 seasons) to 36% (6th out of 35 seasons) in 1994-1995. From there, the NBA had it's 3 best 3PT% seasons up to that point. Once they moved it back out, it again dropped to 34% (from 37%).


What do you mean ? Explain, Jordan came in as a raw long distance shooter, worked his backside off to become a great shooter, and by 1993 Jordan was shooting 36 Percent from three (when the three point line was at the same distance it is now). Jordan also shot the three ball at a 40 percent clip during his 1993 Playoff where he led the Bulls to a championship over the Suns. My point is, if the NBA never moved the three point line inward, I believe Jordans muscle memory, accuracy and over all three point skill would continue to get better and develop. However Jordan had to adjust to the three point line being moved in, and then adjust to the three point line being moved back out. Something NBA players today have not had to deal with. Its something not to be overlooked. When judging Jordan by his three point shooting percentages over his career.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> he didn't lack a 3 point shot but it wasn't a strength either (career .327 percentage) and if you take out the shortened line years it was much lower, it was certainly a less potent aspect of his offense to the point opposing defenses would encourage him to take it.
> 
> that step in or out means a lot.


Look at Jordans career season to season, clearly Jordan got better at shooting the three. Obviously his best season was in 1993 when he shot 36 percent from the three point line, and shot 40 percent making 28 three pointers during the playoffs culminating in a championship (Bulls vs Suns Finals). This was the year before the league moved the three point line inward. 

Ask any great shooter, you practice your shot thousands of times from a certain range, especially when were talking about the three point line in the NBA. You gain muscle memory, accuracy, and your shot continues to develop especially when you're a young player. This holds true for Michael Jordan as it does any player in the NBA that works hard on their shooting. So you have to take into account the fact MJ was becoming a very good three point shooter in his own right. However the league moved the three point line inwards. So Jordan shot from the leagues three point line, and his percentage obviously went up, but he would lose his muscle memory, accuracy, and years of training shooting from the original three point line. Hence when the NBA moved the three point line back to it's original distance, MJ's three point percentage suffered. I believe the point I'm making is reasonable, and something to consider.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

23AJ said:


> Ask any great shooter, you practice your shot thousands of times from a certain range, especially when were talking about the three point line in the NBA. You gain muscle memory, accuracy, and your shot continues to develop especially when you're a young player. This holds true for Michael Jordan as it does any player in the NBA that works hard on their shooting.


And yet the entire NBA mysteriously got better when the three point line moved in.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

23AJ said:


> What do you mean ? Explain, Jordan came in as a raw long distance shooter, worked his backside off to become a great shooter, and by 1993 Jordan was shooting 36 Percent from three (when the three point line was at the same distance it is now). Jordan also shot the three ball at a 40 percent clip during his 1993 Playoff where he led the Bulls to a championship over the Suns. My point is, if the NBA never moved the three point line inward, I believe Jordans muscle memory, accuracy and over all three point skill would continue to get better and develop. However Jordan had to adjust to the three point line being moved in, and then adjust to the three point line being moved back out. Something NBA players today have not had to deal with. Its something not to be overlooked. When judging Jordan by his three point shooting percentages over his career.


You're describing it like Jordan gradually got better through steady progression. He didn't. He had peaks and valleys in his 3PT% throughout his career, with more valleys than peaks. He shot a worse 3PT% than his prior season 4 times in his career, which suggests inconsistency, not steady progress from the arc. 

The bottom line is that he had three of his four best three pointer shooting seasons by both percentage and volume while the line was shorter. It clearly helped him, not hurt him, as you're suggesting.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You're describing it like Jordan gradually got better through steady progression. He didn't. He had peaks and valleys in his 3PT% throughout his career, with more valleys than peaks. He shot a worse 3PT% than his prior season 4 times in his career, which suggests inconsistency, not steady progress from the arc.
> 
> The bottom line is that he had three of his four best three pointer shooting seasons by both percentage and volume while the line was shorter. It clearly helped him, not hurt him, as you're suggesting.


NO thats your opinion not the bottom line. For christ sake. This is the problem trying to have an objective discussion. You're clearly not taking my point into consideration because it will change your own opinion. So I see how it is with the majority of you posters. You don't want to find any middle ground, any common sense, ignore facts, and try explain it all away by some inconsistent years. Like every good three point shooter arc cant be explained the exact same way. They can't they've all had different reasons why their shooting has slumped and gone up. 

MJ was striking down that three point shot by 93 at a 36 percent clip, and a 40 percent clip through the playoffs. You can't ignore that fact .. Just because it doesn't jive with his three point shooting percentages after the three point line was moved inward, and then back outward. 

Here is Jordans three point shooting percentage year by year through out his career ...

1984-85 .173 (52 3PA)
1985-86 .167 (Jordan only played 18 games that season)* (18 3PA)
1986-87 .182 (66 3PA)
1987-88 .132 (53 3PA)
1988-89 .276 (98 3PA)
1989-90 .376 (245 3PA)
1990-91 .312 (93 3PA)
1991-92 .270 (100 3PA)
1992-93 .352 (230 3PA)
1994-95 .500 (NBA move three point line inward)* (32 3PA)
1995-96 .427 (Three point line still moved inward)* (260 3PA)
1996-97 .374 (Three point line still moved inward)* (297 3PA)
1997-98 .238 (126 3PA)
2001-02 .189 (53 3PA)
2002-03 .291 (55 3PA)	

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

E.H. Munro said:


> And yet the entire NBA mysteriously got better when the three point line moved in.


The three point line was moved in to increase scoring by the league. Hence it being moved to 22 feet. 22 feet is what the corner three point line is at now. I guess those threes shouldn't count today huh ?


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> NO thats your opinion not the bottom line. For christ sake. This is the problem trying to have an objective discussion. You're clearly not taking my point into consideration because it will change your own opinion. So I see how it is with the majority of you posters. You don't want to find any middle ground, any common sense, ignore facts, and try explain it all away by some inconsistent years. Like every good three point shooter arc cant be explained the exact same way. They can't they've all had different reasons why their shooting has slumped and gone up.


He made a compelling argument as to why your theory doesn't work (and honestly all you need is common sense to figure out why your argument doesn't work), and so far all you've done is ignore his points and just do what you always do, repeat what you say in hopes that you'll achieve something out of it. 

The fact is, the ENTIRE NBA shot better when the line was moved. When it was moved back, the ENTIRE NBA shot worse. It's simple common sense. They shot better because it was closer. And then when it moved back, they shot worse because it was farther. There's nothing else to it really. These are the kinds of things you teach to someone who never even learned the game of basketball, and even then, most of them won't need to learn this because they have what you call a brain. 

The fact you're suggesting that moving the three point line back somehow screwed up MJ's rhythm from three and made him forever suck from the three point line is just stupid, and so is claiming that moving the line had nothing to do with the entire NBA shooting better from there. Before you call out everyone on the board and claim we ignore facts and have no common sense, I strongly suggest you do something that might be very difficult for you, but I think you can manage it.

And this is what that is. Learn the game of basketball. That's it.


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

23AJ said:


> The three point line was moved in to increase scoring by the league. Hence it being moved to 22 feet. 22 feet is what the corner three point line is at now. I guess those threes shouldn't count today huh ?


And the corner three point line is coincidentally the spots where the highest 3 point % is on the floor.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

hobojoe said:


> I'm glad you brought up Kobe and Wade. Kobe adapted as he aged, which has allowed him to age gracefully and still be one of the top scorers in the league as he approaches 40. Wade has not adapted his game nearly as well and he's not aging nearly as gracefully. I'm not attributing that all to Kobe having a 3-point shot and Wade not, but as his athleticism has declined it would certainly be helpful to have a reliable outside shot.


Kobe isn't even 35 yet.....


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I heard this comment and after watching the trouble he had with Hibbert I do wonder what his game would have been like in the 90s with all those Centers

I think the Pacers roster showed that he is definitely tailor-made for *this* era...now chicken or the egg is another story

I would never doubt his production and impact in any era though


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Hyperion said:


> Kobe isn't even 35 yet.....


I know, what I meant was he's adapted his game in a way that will allow him to continue to be effective as he approaches 40 if he chooses to keep playing a few more years. He's still an elite scorer, and I don't see any reason he can't continue to be with the obvious caveat being he recovers fully from the achilles injury.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

23AJ said:


> The three point line was moved in to increase scoring by the league. Hence it being moved to 22 feet. 22 feet is what the corner three point line is at now. I guess those threes shouldn't count today huh ?


I have no idea what this has to do with your claim that shooters would shoot worse after moving the three point line in. If your claim were true, then 3PFG% should have decreased after the league moved the line in. But mysteriously the league improved after the NBA moved the line in. Equally mysteriously the whole league got worse at shooting them after the line moved back out. So you were wrong about it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

23AJ said:


> Look at Jordans career season to season, clearly Jordan got better at shooting the three. Obviously his best season was in 1993 when he shot 36 percent from the three point line, and shot 40 percent making 28 three pointers during the playoffs culminating in a championship (Bulls vs Suns Finals). This was the year before the league moved the three point line inward.
> 
> Ask any great shooter, you practice your shot thousands of times from a certain range, especially when were talking about the three point line in the NBA. You gain muscle memory, accuracy, and your shot continues to develop especially when you're a young player. This holds true for Michael Jordan as it does any player in the NBA that works hard on their shooting. So you have to take into account the fact MJ was becoming a very good three point shooter in his own right. However the league moved the three point line inwards. So Jordan shot from the leagues three point line, and his percentage obviously went up, but he would lose his muscle memory, accuracy, and years of training shooting from the original three point line. Hence when the NBA moved the three point line back to it's original distance, MJ's three point percentage suffered. I believe the point I'm making is reasonable, and something to consider.



the thing is this .

when it was going in , he shot it more and when it wasn't he didn't shoot it much , 

you can look at that post you put up and see that , the line coming in made it easier to hit , so he shot it more .

when it went back he shot it less again .

he had the range on his shot to hit it , but it wasn't where he tailored his game .

he averaged like 23 shots a game . not counting how many times he got fouled in the act of shooting , and he averaged 1.7 3 point attempt a game over the course of his career ,

and some of those were end of the quarter chucks , it simply wasn't a focus of his ...if he chose for it to be it probably would have been a strength of his game .

but he didn't .

so it wasn't.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

XxIrvingxX said:


> And again, in terms of what Lebron does best, he did not disappear in game 1 against the Spurs. He's a guy who's best at making others better, and he did an excellent job of doing so in that game. He had an off night from the field and could've been more aggressive but it was not a disappearing act in any way.


If anyone ever play in a basketball game? People so called look for pass first means he cannot score at will.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Lol at Kobe adapting as he aged....He literally just shoots even more know to get his numbers


----------



## XxIrvingxX (Apr 23, 2012)

John said:


> If anyone ever play in a basketball game? People so called look for pass first means he cannot score at will.


You would be correct if LeBron didn't already prove that statement wrong on numerous occasions. He proved you wrong this year when he broke a record regarding scoring. Not to mention he has 8 50 point games in his career. He can definitely score at well. He simply chooses not to.


----------

