He tries hard too. It'll be interesting if he can show just enough that the C's want to re-sign him, but not enough that other teams do. I think he turns into a cromulent NBA player. I'm not sure it will be with us though.Exactly. I'm generally of the opinion Wagner was basically a throw in and not going to be any sort of important piece.
But.... if you have a player that is not good overall, it's much better if he is at least competent at some things and if you squint he might improve in his problem areas. Wagner shot 3s well in college and is a good FT shooter. The guy kind of can shoot but he hasn't yet in the NBA. Maybe he gets better, maybe he doesn't. But this version of Wagner is actually pretty decent if you add in 36-38% 3 PT shooting.
You could have an equally bad player that is bad at things like being unable to defend, being too short for his position, being unathletic, can't rebound etc. A little less to dream on there.
Just because you said it in jest, doesn't mean it was received in jest, and as your second comeback suggested, there was some truth or a needle in it even the first time. So... yeah, it's a shit post... just one more view.Not the first time. It was said in jest, like it's always said. The 2nd time, sure.
I care about Tatum and Brown, and I think this version of basketball sucks. It has nothing to do with the fact that I cared about Bird or Magic (who I respected but disliked immensely). Oh, and there you go being dismissive again. You don't really know why, but you make an assumption and dismiss others. "If you liked those 8 minutes of shit it's because you are irrationally attached to it".It's almost like it's an opinion. I've watched old basketball, I don't find it as good as the current game. Old baseball is 100 times better than the current game.
Plus the last 2 minutes of the game in the 80s was just as much a slogfest as it is now. That was the whole entire point. That clip was 8 minutes long and it was 35 seconds on the clock. The end game has not changed at all.
If you think those 8 minutes were that much different, it's because you were emotionally attached to the 84 Celtics. You probably watched a lot of games. You cared about Magic and Bird. If you are just some person watching an old tape with no feelings whatsoever, that 8 minutes of tape is not compelling.
I didn't say they were shit, nice strawman. I said you are emotionally attached to it and it's no different than today's game, which you and he agree to. YMMV.Just because you said it in jest, doesn't mean it was received in jest, and as your second comeback suggested, there was some truth or a needle in it even the first time. So... yeah, it's a shit post... just one more view.
I care about Tatum and Brown, and I think this version of basketball sucks. It has nothing to do with the fact that I cared about Bird or Magic (who I respected but disliked immensely). Oh, and there you go being dismissive again. You don't really know why, but you make an assumption and dismiss others. "If you liked those 8 minutes of shit it's because you are irrationally attached to it".
Your point about it being a slogfest was accepted, and Reggie shared with you a small piece of the beauty of what that clip represented to him. The same shared thought as you might get in front of a Monet, or you might get from someone who likes a piece of music that you aren't finding enjoyable. As an example, given a $1000 bottle of wine, I very quickly would know I didn't like it because I don't like any wine. But someone else could sip from it and tell me about the grapes, and the kind of soil, and the barrel it came from, how it was blended and aged, and I'd know that I still didn't like it, but there was some substance there, and I'd know not to dismiss it - even though it did nothing for me.
Or what Reggie said. (And he knows, I think, that the original joke I made about the towel was just that, a joke. I'm glad he popped the clip in there, even one of the Bird plays was him weaving in and out of traffic to work free to get a kinda open shot something I wish the Jaylen would learn to do better).
Frankly, I think you got called on being a bit of a dink, and are doubling down on it - regardless of the validity of your actual point. YMMV
I do not, I said to dispute it that I cared about current players and yet still viewed modern basketball as shit. Your reading comprehension may or may not vary, eh?I didn't say they were shit, nice strawman. I said you are emotionally attached to it and it's no different than today's game, which you and he agree to. YMMV.
The 80s game was a better game just because for the games we saw, there was more talent on the floor. The 86 Cs were bringing HOFs and former All-Stars off the bench. That '84 Lakers team had 5 HOfs plus one of the best defensive player of his era.And sorry, but today's game is way better than the 80's. If you hate the 3, then obviously not.
Put me in the camp that the 3 is overvalued and I wouldn't shed a tear if they eliminated the corner 3.The only realistic way is to push the three point line back, which is tough to do because you can't push back the corner three, so they'd have to eliminate that which changes the court geometry wildly.
The current players didn't win a title. That's the attachment, yeah? That's what makes it special.I do not, I said to dispute it that I cared about current players and yet still viewed modern basketball as shit. Your reading comprehension may or may not vary, eh?
The attachment was the quality of the product, win or lose. They as Reggie pointed out had HOFs coming off the floor in every direction, coaches who were HOFs, hell maybe the REFs were HOF, I don't know. They had HOFs everywhere, and still played a team game. One played a half court destroy you inside and out game, and the other played a running/transition punish every mistake game. It was a slugfest of quality at every moment, a pair of missed free throws made a HOFer in Johnson question his ability to win the big one. It was drama of the highest order. And they won and lost as a team.The current players didn't win a title. That's the attachment, yeah? That's what makes it special.
I would hate a 4 pt arc, a 3 pt arc, and a 2 point area. It would turn the NBA into skee-ball.The 80s game was a better game just because for the games we saw, there was more talent on the floor. The 86 Cs were bringing HOFs and former All-Stars off the bench. That '84 Lakers team had 5 HOfs plus one of the best defensive player of his era.
Put me in the camp that the 3 is overvalued and I wouldn't shed a tear if they eliminated the corner 3.
If they aren't going to move the line back, yeah, change outside the arc to 4 points and inside the arc to 3 points and here's what I would do with FTs: if fouled inside the arc, you get 3 FTs (each a point) but if you get fouled outside the arc, you get 2 FTs (each worth 2).
I agree with @reggiecleveland that the NBA turning into a jump-shooting league is eliminating the athletic plays.
And when it's 2034 and you watching the 2020 NBA finals, there will be lots of HOFers too.The attachment was the quality of the product, win or lose. They as Reggie pointed out had HOFs coming off the floor in every direction, coaches who were HOFs, hell maybe the REFs were HOF, I don't know. They had HOFs everywhere, and still played a team game. One played a half court destroy you inside and out game, and the other played a running/transition punish every mistake game. It was a slugfest of quality at every moment, a pair of missed free throws made a HOFer in Johnson question his ability to win the big one. It was drama of the highest order. And they won and lost as a team.
That's what is special. It is what made the Spurs team that took down the Heat in the finals special. They won as a team against physically superior athletes.
I'm done... you aren't listening or even willing to listen.
Edit: and I'm not speaking for Reggie in this post, I'm guessing what made it special to him is different.
And those future 2020 HOFs will still represent ISO, PnR, 4 potted plants offense which they may win or not win with. And I will have no nostalgia for the games being played now, because it will not be an enjoyable game - I will remember the frustration during the games, knowing they could be so much more. I will admit they are HOFs by their current standards, and I will congratulate them. I will look back at the Spurs with nostalgia - theirs was a quality game being played. It's really not that complicated.And when it's 2034 and you watching the 2020 NBA finals, there will be lots of HOFers too.
It's not really fair to compare the quality of the teams in the NBA finals of 1984 to the current Boston Celtics. And even the current Boston Celtics will probably end up having 3 HOF players, a HOF coach and a HOF GM.
So if the C's won the title in the last couple years, you really think you'd have no nostalgia towards them? There's a reason you won't care about the 2020 Lakers and Heat. Would it be the same if it was the 2020 Celtics winning the title?And those future 2020 HOFs will still represent ISO, PnR, 4 potted plants offense which they may win or not win with. And I will have no nostalgia for the games being played now, because it will not be an enjoyable game - I will remember the frustration during the games, knowing they could be so much more. I will admit they are HOFs by their current standards, and I will congratulate them. I will look back at the Spurs with nostalgia - theirs was a quality game being played. It's really not that complicated.
It would remind me of the Rock and Jock Basketball game MTV used to do with the 10 point shot and the 25 point shot. Or was it 50? Maybe they had all 3, I don't know. It's slightly different as it was just a specific spot on the floor but it was absurd.I would hate a 4 pt arc, a 3 pt arc, and a 2 point area. It would turn the NBA into skee-ball.
The perimeter game and drive and dish to the corner has ruined the inside physical game (offense and defense) just about taken the low-post offense and the passing variations of it out of the game, and put a mask on the beauty of an interior passing game. IMO Its taken a lot of skill and beauty from the game and replaced it with whipping the ball around the arc and watching a guy take a corner 3.
I don't get it either. I certainly have some nostalgia of the Bird Era of my youth and there were indeed epic battles, but overall I much prefer the aesthetics of the modern NBA playoffs. I also happen to strongly believe that there's at least a half dozen teams in the league right now who would wipe the floor with the 86 Celtics and that nostalgia is the only possible reason otherwise sharp people wouldn't get this, but that's much less about aesthetics.Huh, I guess I just don’t relate at all to these criticisms. Most NBA playoff series are extremely stylistically varied and have a lot of interesting adjustments. I guess the regular season can be a bit paint by numbers.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the 3P line is 4 points, everything else in 3 points, and then you have to figure out FTs to make it work. Either that or the NBA has to move the three-point line back and eliminate corner threes. For exactly the reason you mention - the 3P shot is too valuable compared to the 2P shot and removes a lot of the mid-range and interior beauty to the game.I would hate a 4 pt arc, a 3 pt arc, and a 2 point area. It would turn the NBA into skee-ball.
The perimeter game and drive and dish to the corner has ruined the inside physical game (offense and defense) just about taken the low-post offense and the passing variations of it out of the game, and put a mask on the beauty of an interior passing game. IMO Its taken a lot of skill and beauty from the game and replaced it with whipping the ball around the arc and watching a guy take a corner 3.
If they were playing with 1986 rules, I think the Cs have a chance. (And we've had this discussion before.) Granted, modern teams might bomb away from the 3P line and win but without the freedom of movement rules, a lot of stuff that modern teams run to get shooters open wouldn't be available. Also, we'd have to assume that many of the step-aside and step-back jumpers would be called (and rightly in my opinion) travel.I also happen to strongly believe that there's at least a half dozen teams in the league right now who would wipe the floor with the 86 Celtics and that nostalgia is the only possible reason otherwise sharp people wouldn't get this, but that's much less about aesthetics.
I was mostly screwing around with skee-ball.That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the 3P line is 4 points, everything else in 3 points, and then you have to figure out FTs to make it work. Either that or the NBA has to move the three-point line back and eliminate corner threes. For exactly the reason you mention - the 3P shot is too valuable compared to the 2P shot and removes a lot of the mid-range and interior beauty to the game.
If you want more postups, bring back the illegal defense rules. If you eliminate 3s without doing that, scoring from the post becomes nearly impossible, because doubling and zoning up the weakside is trivial.I was mostly screwing around with skee-ball.
Just spitballin'
I was looking at some stats at basketball ref and the #s for teams shooting 3s has been on a steep and steady rise for the past 10-15 and has about doubled to over 35% of shots attempted. And there is no reason to believe the trend will stop. Shooters are geting better, the yield will likely rise and unless the NBA calls a tighter game on illegal screens, or the Harden kick-out gambit to get 3 FT, more and more of the game will be from beyond the arc, making for a less interesting and less skilled game for many fans to watch
Sooooo, Maybe limit the # of 3s taken in a game to six a qtr, but unlimited in the 4th qtr. (to help comebacks) After the six 3 pt shots have been taken, all shots in the qtr became 2 point shots. Theoretically it would enhance the low-post offensive threat and mid-range games as those become the higher yielding shots and more likely to draw fouls. It will never happen .
I'm not eliminating 3s, just proposing a cap on them, (24-30 shots a game) to make teams use other offensive options that have become increasingly passe in the current NBA. I enjoyed the low-post offenses, with guys screening and cutting to get open. I like interior passing. As for going back to strict man to man, I'm not sure if that's necessary. I imagine centers would find a way pass out of a double and find the open guy.If you want more postups, bring back the illegal defense rules. If you eliminate 3s without doing that, scoring from the post becomes nearly impossible, because doubling and zoning up the weakside is trivial.
(I don’t want this change)
I don’t want this either. I loved the 80s Cs game, hated Knickball and Bullyball, loved Spures, etc and go in phases on today’s 3 pt hit/miss ball.... but the ugliest version was the no-zone allowed 1on1 iso with 8 guys standing on the other side of the court. That was, for me, the almost unwatchable iteration.If you want more postups, bring back the illegal defense rules. If you eliminate 3s without doing that, scoring from the post becomes nearly impossible, because doubling and zoning up the weakside is trivial.
(I don’t want this change)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbwAlso, and I will defer to the multiple coaches in these threads, but I would eliminate back to back timeouts in the last 2 minutes. Just inbound the goddamn ball and play
Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed that clip and I can’t imagine how much wall clock that last 2 min of game clock would take today. I know cross sports posts can elicit strong sosh responses, but it almost invoked a hockey feel (and one of the best thing about that sport imo)...they just played with minimal micromanagement from official or coach in the moment.View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw
Check out the final minute of this game, which starts around the 22:00 mark. It pretty much unfolds in real time, with one timeout in what is basically a one-possession game.
Today that final minute would have taken an eternity to play.
Soccer and rugby are the same deal. The coaches have the players in practice, but they can't micromanage on game day. Though in rugby video replays have become omipresent and can destroy the flow of a game.Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed that clip and I can’t imagine how much wall clock that last 2 min of game clock would take today. I know cross sports posts can elicit strong sosh responses, but it almost invoked a hockey feel (and one of the best thing about that sport imo)...they just played with minimal micromanagement from official or coach in the moment.
The problem is that without the 3 and without illegal defense, passing out of the double doesn’t lead to a ton. The other team packs the paint, leaves some jump shooter open, and then closes out hard to try and reduce the jump shot to 37-40%.I'm not eliminating 3s, just proposing a cap on them, (24-30 shots a game) to make teams use other offensive options that have become increasingly passe in the current NBA. I enjoyed the low-post offenses, with guys screening and cutting to get open. I like interior passing. As for going back to strict man to man, I'm not sure if that's necessary. I imagine centers would find a way pass out of a double and find the open guy.
Just a thought.
The appeal of this type of game is why I enjoy the top end women's tourney games. (Talent gap beyond the 1st 6-8 seeds is still pretty wide.) I suppose like any other sport, the game seems more interesting/exciting when the ball(or puck) and players are moving.I'm not eliminating 3s, just proposing a cap on them, (24-30 shots a game) to make teams use other offensive options that have become increasingly passe in the current NBA. I enjoyed the low-post offenses, with guys screening and cutting to get open. I like interior passing. As for going back to strict man to man, I'm not sure if that's necessary. I imagine centers would find a way pass out of a double and find the open guy.
Just a thought.
Was just going to say that...he looked a lot more intriguing than Wagner. I thought he'd be way more of a stiff defensively, but it looks like he's worked on that end to the point that he can hold his own against NBA backups. Good length.Do we rename this thread for Kornet?
Kornet may have the volume but he doesn't hit them at ok success. At least not yet.Was just going to say that...he looked a lot more intriguing than Wagner. I thought he'd be way more of a stiff defensively, but it looks like he's worked on that end to the point that he can hold his own against NBA backups. Good length.
For a spacing center, it's critical that the shooting be non-theoretical: raw % matters a lot less than shooting at volume with ok success. I didn't realize how high volume a shooter Kornet is: he's putting up 8.2 3PA/36 for his career.
We'll see if anything comes of this, but if I had to make a decision, I'd probably bet on Kornet continuing to improve as a positional defender vs Wagner getting to anywhere near that kind of shooting ability.
He hit them at 35% on ~9/36 his first 2 years. That’s real floor spacing, as opposed to a guy shooting 40% on 3/game or whatever, even though people instinctively prefer the latter.Kornet may have the volume but he doesn't hit them at ok success. At least not yet.
If we do, please let it reference the 2nd Kornet line?Do we rename this thread for Kornet?
Good analysis. I was going to reference the same after looking through his B-REF this morning. The totals even bring this out a bit more.He hit them at 35% on ~9/36 his first 2 years. That’s real floor spacing, as opposed to a guy shooting 40% on 3/game or whatever, even though people instinctively prefer the latter.
I think you’re considerably underestimating how hard it is to get off that volume of 3s and hit 35% of them against NBA competition.He's definitely not afraid to shoot. He's always been a decent FT shooter but he was pretty terrible from 3 in college too. Both him and Mo are so much better than Tacko tho.
Wagner is a curious case because everything suggests he should be a decent 3 point shooter but it just hasn't happened yet.
For 3rd Center, I think either would be fine as the "stretch 5." They don't really need a stretch 5 anyway, and Theis was not a spacing center.
But he doesn't hit them at 35%. You are taking the sample size you like. He also only plays 15.6 minutes a game and most of it is garbage time. Chances are if he's playing meaningful minutes/more minutes, he's not attempting 8.2 3PA/36. He also only shot 32% on high volume in college. The last 2 seasons, he's 39/134, .291. It happened. He is a .337 shooter for his career (137/406). He could possibly improve on that number but you can say that about a lot of players, and sometimes they don't improve. He's also 26 in July so he's not exactly a prospect.I think you’re considerably underestimating how hard it is to get off that volume of 3s and hit 35% of them against NBA competition.
I'm on the Theis/Semi/Grant are not 3 point shooters bandwagon so you are preaching to the choir. I've been suggesting a trade for Lauri all year because Volume, Volume, Volume. Re: Brook Lopez, he brings other things to the court so that his 34% on 6.5/36 works. He has also played 194 games, averaged 27.6 minutes and attempted more than twice as many 3's in that period than Kornet has in his career (1036 vs 406.)To continue this point, Brook Lopez has shot 34% for Milwaukee over his time there, on about 6.5 3PA per 36. That’s fine to space an offense.
People DRASTICALLY overrate 3pt% in evaluation (past a certain threshold), and drastically undervalue ability to get the shot off.
It’s the difference between your defender being able to take an extra half step to the lane, and between having to reset the possession when the ball finds you on the perimeter.
@HomeRunBaker correctly called out PP for not being able to get his shot off enough and messing up possessions, and the principle is even more true if you want your center to be actually spacing, as opposed to Theis’ing.
(again, I’m not a Kornet fanboy, just get annoyed at how the topic of 3pt% is handled in general)
OK, I think we're mostly in agreement.I'm on the Theis/Semi/Grant are not 3 point shooters bandwagon so you are preaching to the choir. I've been suggesting a trade for Lauri all year because Volume, Volume, Volume. Re: Brook Lopez, he brings other things to the court so that his 34% on 6.5/36 works. He has also played 194 games, averaged 27.6 minutes and attempted more than twice as many 3's in that period than Kornet has in his career (1036 vs 406.)
Kornet hardly plays and gets a lot of garbage time. I don't think is 8.2 3PA/36 would hold up if he were getting quality minutes. With that said, his % might go up because he'd be getting better quality shots. I also don't think it would drop off that much. I don't question whether he can get his shot off, just if he can make it at a decent enough clip.
True, but we aren't expecting him or Wagner or whoever to play much more than garbage timeBut he doesn't hit them at 35%. You are taking the sample size you like. He also only plays 15.6 minutes a game and most of it is garbage time. Chances are if he's playing meaningful minutes/more minutes, he's not attempting 8.2 3PA/36.
Russel running the floor after a made basket at the 2:25 mark of that video is a beautiful thing to watch.View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw
Check out the final minute of this game, which starts around the 22:00 mark. It pretty much unfolds in real time, with one timeout in what is basically a one-possession game.
Today that final minute would have taken an eternity to play.
We differ in that I think it's more about success rate for both of them. I don't think volume would be a problem for Wagner, it's just Washington decided to play him inside more.OK, I think we're mostly in agreement.
If Kornet's defense is passable, I'd rather take a shot on him being able to increase his success rate than on Wagner being able to increase both his rate and volume, just because the former is so tough for bigs, and is a pre-req for real spacing. (As you note with Lauri and Brook).
To some degree it's the Theis plan: take a flyer on a ~25 year-old who has some mildly intriguing stuff going on, and who is competent enough to play against backups as needed. Sometimes it pans out--center is the position that the Celtics have the best track record with for these types.True, but we aren't expecting him or Wagner or whoever to play much more than garbage time
Right but we still might have to make a choice on Wagner or Kornet.True, but we aren't expecting him or Wagner or whoever to play much more than garbage time
I wasn't able to watch the game, but in the highlights after he hit the shots there are 3/4 highl;ights where Brown or Tatum was drive and the OKC big was two steps from Kornet. It seemed even when he made a few Theis didn't get that respect.To be clear, this is more about my pet peeve re what a “spacing center” actually is. I haven’t seen enough of Kornet on D to really go to bat for him, and that’s where his value will live or die (i.e. can he stay competent there).
And pretty much any modern MLB pitching staff would mow down the 27 Yankees lineup in a game too, because few guys threw 90 back then, let alone 100 with 90mph sliders.I don't get it either. I certainly have some nostalgia of the Bird Era of my youth and there were indeed epic battles, but overall I much prefer the aesthetics of the modern NBA playoffs. I also happen to strongly believe that there's at least a half dozen teams in the league right now who would wipe the floor with the 86 Celtics and that nostalgia is the only possible reason otherwise sharp people wouldn't get this, but that's much less about aesthetics.