4 ms·

> > The article even mentions the NBA Finals game where he made 6 threes in the first half, just because. The 6 threes are a little weird because Portland insi

by papeda 6y ago

> > The article even mentions the NBA Finals game where he made 6 threes in the first half, just because. The 6 threes are a little weird because Portland insisted on guarding him with tons of space, essentially daring him to take what they viewed as a low-percentage shot. It's doubly weird to watch them repeatedly concede open 3s now -- it's not even a result of scrambled defensive rotations, they just watch him spot up and shoot. I think I agree with you though. The fact that he had such a lovely midrange game suggests he'd have picked up the 3 if he tried. Plus that first step and the need to pack the paint to guard against those weird hanging double clutch layups, he would have had space to shoot too. So I guess I'm making the tiresome argument that "your claim is probably right, but one specific bit of evidence is weak".

dvtrn 6y ago
I mean you’re not wrong, I think it’s fair to say the three-point shooter was kind of a specialist position in that era of the NBA, which is what allowed guys like Steve Kerr to steal games in the final seconds (like he did against Utah in 97) BECAUSE nobody chased out to the perimeter, but this combined with the novelty of the Triangle Offense which exploited defenses eager to keep Mike out of the paint and kept the ball moving so that (yep, I’m going back to Phil Jackson here) “nobody felt like a spectator” just created those opportunities naturally, I think. Game is completely different now, guys like Kerr (current all time leader) and most recently Steph Curry has made perimeter defense more important than it ever has been. (Holy crap basketball analysis on HN, I’m loving this thread)
- papeda 6y ago
  Heh. I also wonder if Jordan's mentality would have let him take full advantage of the 3. This is pretty much just conjecture, but it's hard for me to square staying out and playing the math on 3s with Jordan's aggression and insistence on beating people.
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    Now THAT is a good question! He certainly wasn’t above taking a shot right in your face if you dilly dally’d around from the field. First time I saw Jordan just rip one off after toying around with a 20 year old Kobe Bryant struggling to keep pace, then stop dead in his tracks to put one up from what felt like MILES behind the line I knew I was watching peak basketball

by papeda 6y ago

dvtrn 6y ago

I mean you’re not wrong, I think it’s fair to say the three-point shooter was kind of a specialist position in that era of the NBA, which is what allowed guys like Steve Kerr to steal games in the final seconds (like he did against Utah in 97) BECAUSE nobody chased out to the perimeter, but this combined with the novelty of the Triangle Offense which exploited defenses eager to keep Mike out of the paint and kept the ball moving so that (yep, I’m going back to Phil Jackson here) “nobody felt like a spectator” just created those opportunities naturally, I think. Game is completely different now, guys like Kerr (current all time leader) and most recently Steph Curry has made perimeter defense more important than it ever has been. (Holy crap basketball analysis on HN, I’m loving this thread)

papeda 6y ago
Heh. I also wonder if Jordan's mentality would have let him take full advantage of the 3. This is pretty much just conjecture, but it's hard for me to square staying out and playing the math on 3s with Jordan's aggression and insistence on beating people.
- dvtrn 6y ago
  Now THAT is a good question! He certainly wasn’t above taking a shot right in your face if you dilly dally’d around from the field. First time I saw Jordan just rip one off after toying around with a 20 year old Kobe Bryant struggling to keep pace, then stop dead in his tracks to put one up from what felt like MILES behind the line I knew I was watching peak basketball