He didn't read well enough to ask to right question.
I'm sure you knew that, though
Caitlin's late logo three delivers win for Fever
- Thread starter DukeSlater
- Start date
I'm sure you knew that, though
They asked a question, you gave an answer to some other question. Once again you are factually inaccurate. Back to being a liar again. You just can’t help yourself.
I am glad you didn’t use bomb in your post though, it is so bad for the game.
I answered the question exactly how I wanted to because his question didn't have a thing to do with what I was already talking about.
Comprehend more.
And get a life
You may need medical intervention.
I am living my best life, thank you for the faux concern.
I chuckle at your approach of ignoring the question and just throwing out your drivel. Good to see that you are equally inaccurate in that case as well. Nice work, liar.
Another post where you didn't use bomb when referring to long basketball shots, you are growing the game.
What about the drivel he imposed into the discussion?
AGAIN, he responded to MY post, with something completely unrelated.
My response was completely in line with what the nature of the discussion had already been.
Guess you still haven't read that part well enough.
How many days do you wanted to do this for this time?
Read better, I didn’t mention anyone’s drivel other than yours.
Your mindset makes me chuckle
‘I don’t like the question so I will just throw some irrelevant drivel out there’
The good part is I have facts and accuracy on my side so I can keep going and not worry about needing to spin anything.
You on the other hand have been a documented liar so you need to try and play word games. Pro tip, you aren’t very good at it.
No. If anything, you are the liar.
If you're discussing the weather forecast, and someone attaches one of your posts, and "responds" to it by asking you how many sisters you have, might you not necesssrily feel obligated to answer that question?
I had been talking about not liking the glorification of shot distance, and the use of the term, "logo 3".
Duke butted in by asking me to name players that have been making logo 3's, which clearly had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Again, my response to Duke, in turn, was completely consistent with the nature of the particular discussion that had already been established.
I will not be explaining this to you again. You can't possibly be this dumb
Read better, that is not what Duke asked.
I have now determined you suck at analogies as well.
You are finding new things to suck at.
Still haven’t decided on the PB/CC debate yet? Even though you typed it twice.
Didn’t like a question so just made up another answer.
Bad at analogies and a liar.
Pretty solid hat trick you got going.
I will say your spelling is pretty solid so you have that going for you. If you could be accurate and not lie you could come up with your first valid post. I promise I will celebrate it when you do. Keep trying. It’s about time for your standard responses so start typing.
That's exactly what Duke asked me.
Post #21. "How many can even shoot from there, let alone make it?" "Name anyone else in women's basketball that (has been hitting logo 3's)."
Additionally, you don't seem to understand that I actually did answer Duke's question, by replying that, "many, many players have hit 3 pointers". Because a logo 3 and a common 3 are the same thing. That's the whole point
Last edited:
You need to really, really work on your honesty.
"Maybe it should be. And how many people can even shoot from there, let alone make it?"
You added the (has been hitting logo 3's)
It is entertaining to see you attempt to craft your narrative, changing the questions to fit your answer, dodging accountability, telling lies. In a battle of wits you truly are the unarmed. Keep it up. Can you at least get a little better? This is getting easier each time you try.
You really, really can't read worth a ****. And I'm beginning to think it's on purpose. You can't possibly be this dumb.
The 2nd quote you can't seem to find is in the SAME PARAGRAPH (as it is a one paragraph post) as the first quote.
The "added" part, is called a paraphrase. And it was done so completely legitimately.
GET A LIFE
JFC……it’s the GOAT argument all over again with this guy….. he’s has a clinical personality disorder or something…… he takes everything 100% literally and will argue to the ends of the earth over the literal interpretation of an arbitrary term
Figure it out people the guy loves to argue…… starting to wonder if he’s my ex-wife
don’t feed the troll
Figure it out people the guy loves to argue…… starting to wonder if he’s my ex-wife
don’t feed the trollAssuming you're talking about me, can you read?JFC……it’s the GOAT argument all over again with this guy….. he’s has a clinical personality disorder or something…… he takes everything 100% literally and will argue to the ends of the earth over the literal interpretation of an arbitrary term
Figure it out people the guy loves to argue…… starting to wonder if he’s my ex-wife
Read at least the 2 posts above your's. And tell me how at all I'm being the one made out to be out of line.
Cid is either a complete moron, or the one trolling, himself
I see one common denominator in all these stupid pissing matches….. my thumb is getting arthritic scrolling through pages of your Bullsheet
Post better. Try being honest. It’s laughable that your go to is ‘read better’ yet you answer something that is not asked or typed. Oh yeah and you lie about things you actually typed. Is the lying something you think about or does it just come naturally to you? It’s funny and sad at the same time
That is not reality.
Long three pointers are only going to become more and more a part of the game. As more kids waste their time shooting them, most will suck, but more and more will become good.
The farther out you can shoot creates more open lanes for passing.
Let me know when enough players are hitting enough 30 footers to call it "sustainable ball".
Again, the amount of "common" 3's in today's game isn't even sustainable. Ask the Spurs what happened to that 29 point lead.
Reality
Look at the history of three pointers from hardly any being shot to the leagues moving the line back every once in awhile.
It's a natural progression that they will be shot further and further back.
Let me know when:
1. 30 footers are worth more than 3 pts
2. 30 footers are sustainable ball for anyone other than Steph Curry
3. Too many 3's aren't taken in the average ballgame you flip on
4. Kids aren't shooting from too far out
5. Kids aren't taking too many long shots
Well first of...I think 30 footers are more sustainable for Curry than most.
On your first point...if/when more people can hit them they are worth more than a normal three. It stretches the D creating more passing lanes. A miss creates more offensive rebound opportunities for teams that are more smaller.
Yes, sustainable for Curry, and pretty much no one else. Not sure what you're trying to say, in regards to Curry.
Yes, we've already talked about passing lanes. The defense doesn't stretch for people that can't make the shot. And that's pretty much everyone other than Curry.
Again, those added passing lanes for a select couple of players, do nothing to make 30 footers an overall sustainable part of the game.
And they aren't worth enough to account for the amount of overvaluing and glorification of shot distance that is taking place. (Which leads to a lot of awful basketball that the added passing lanes don't make up for either).
And your point about offensive rebounds is not only beyond a reach, but inaccurate. You don't justify shooting a 30 footer because a smaller team might be able to more easily get an offensive rebound. Good Lord, that's laughable. No one plans on missing. (Although, when 30 footers get launched, maybe they should).
First off, if a 30 footer gets launched, a smaller team better be sprinting their asses back on D.
Yes, some longer rebounds can be created by longer shots. But guess who's going to get those type of boards? Not only will it be the more athletic defensive team, but a long rebound will already have put them in the open court.
Add in the fact that most 30 footers are taken in transition, and the shot does nothing but feed into an open court game for the more athletic opponent.
Then there's the reality that the easiest way to get offensive rebounds is by having put the D into rotation, most preferably by having broken it down with penetration. 30 foot settles create about as little offensive rebound opportunity as any offensive action.
Nice try, though
Last edited:
It’s called evolution of the game. Goaltending used to be legal. Dunks were against the rules in college for awhile. Hook shots and 2 handed set shots have all but disappeared. Most teams don’t run the football 90+% of the time (like you would do) anymore.
Who are you to say what is “terrible basketball” and what isn’t? YOU don’t make those decisions. It’s a game…that’s all. And the way games are played change over the years. Basketball isn’t played with peach baskets anymore. Teams don’t run the wing T in football. You are stuck in the 1950’s. Sorry, those days are gone and aren’t coming back.
Players are bigger, faster, and stronger. They can do things that players 50 years ago couldn’t. And since it’s only a game, meant for the ENJOYMENT of players and fans…if they want dunks and 30 foot shots…if they want to see passes in a football game…then fine.
You don’t like it? Tough. Don’t watch. YOU don’t get to decide how games “should” be played. You have your opinions and that’s fine. It doesn’t mean you are “right”, and your opinions are no better or worse than anyone else’s. There are things I don’t care for but you know what? There isn’t anything I can do about it.
The 3 point shot is here to stay. Deal with it, or quit watching.
Once again, you've missed the entire point. And of course, added in some unnecessary mischaracterization.
Glorification of shot distance, in this case by the OP, is not something that has to be "here to stay." It’s something that doesn't have to take place at all.
Adults have the ability to set proper examples for kids. This is not difficult.
Yes, kids taking too many long shots, and taking shots that are WAY out of their range, is terrible basketball, and always has been.
You're welcome that I've put effort into setting good examples for good quality of play/product, for everyone's enjoyment. I'm not sure what rock you live under, but MANY people have quit watching the NBA because too many 3's are shot.
Refer to post #101, and let me know
That's not what you said. Even if you meant the opposite of what you wrote.
I have no clue what you're even trying to say.
My position is that 30 footers are sustainable ball for no one other than Curry.
Do you have contention with that?
No, I didn’t miss the point or mischaracterize.
YOU don’t decide what is terrible basketball and what isn’t for ANYONE but yourself. Many disagree with you. Doesn’t mean they are wrong. Or that you are right. It’s all relative.
You say adults have the ability to “set the proper examples.” Define proper examples. Proper according to who? You? Again…YOU don’t decide what is proper for anyone but yourself.
You claim that you have put in the effort into setting examples of “good quality play for everyone’s enjoyment.” Everyone? Since when do YOU decide what “everyone” should enjoy? Again….you have given your opinions, which many people do not agree with. Doesn’t make them wrong, or you right.
No, the 3 point shot isn’t statistically the best shot to take. I’m not a fan of it myself. So what if it isn’t sustainable? Maybe someday it will be. Kid’s like to shoot them. And if it makes the game more fun for THEM…fine! Or do you want to suck the fun out of playing? Maybe kids today don’t want to play the way YOU say they should.
I hate to break it to you….but the game isn’t played the way it was 50 years ago. As much as you would like to control things, those days ARE gone and will never come back.
You don’t decide how sports should be played. You don’t decide what is fun. You don’t dictate what is enjoyable and what isn’t. Period. End of story. Get off your high horse.
And that’s all I am going to say. Continue your p*ssing match with someone else.
Last edited:
There are others that can hit deep threes, more and more.
And these players happen to have names,
correct?
Not, "can...., more and more". Lol, what does that even mean?
Every player in the NBA "CAN" make it from 30. They can all make it from half court, for that matter.
Who, other than Curry has been able to make 30 footers a sustainable brand of ball?
Distance means nothing. How often is the ball going in?
None of those players are in the same stratosphere as Curry, as a shooter.
I'm pretty sure for both Curry and Clark, their percentage from 30 is about the same as their percentage on all other 3's.
Clark is a 32% career 3pt shooter. Curry 42%. And Curry takes shots that have much more degree of difficulty.
Not as sure about the distance breakdowns for Young and Lillard. But Young is a career 35% shooter from 3. Lillard 37%.
At 32% from 30, it can be argued that those launches by Clark are simply, bad ball. Yes, the increased spacing does create wider passing and driving lanes. But those 30 footers are rarely coming out of half court action.
In CC's case, given that she transfers the momentum of the transition push, into her 30 footers, almost all of her launches from that distance, come in transition.
Launching from 30 in transition forfeits the opportunity to probe for a better shot. It forfeits the opportunity to make the defense work harder in the half court. It forfeits the opportunities to get to the FT line, and draw fouls on the D. Forfeits the opportunities to run clock, or stunt momentum, when needed. Etc., etc., etc.
Given all that, are 30 footers something CC should be shooting at all? That's a discussion for another time.
But the point is, if only a couple pros can even come close to making it work, certainly shooting from extreme distance is nothing but bad ball, at the youth levels
Yes, you've continued to miss the point. Trust me, I know what my points are.
Correct, I don't decide anything. Nor have I attempted to. I have merely tried to appeal to adults, to be conscious about the examples they are setting for kids. (What outrage that should cause, I know!) You guys will do with my plea what you wish.
So, top to bottom, as usual.
Paragraph:
2/3. Stop. Kids shooting way too many shots from way too far out, has always been bad basketball. Nothing relative about it. You understand these shots are not going in, correct?
4. "Everyone", as in the players and fans referred to as, "EVERYONE", in your post #104, as I was turning your language back onto you, as that seems to have been too subtle for you.
But since you mention it, haven't I asked you the same, when it comes to what one enjoys? I have long argued with you and others that lack of being entertained has been no justification for the level of negativity that the football program has endured at times. As for one thing, not every football fan is most entertained by the same type of game. Some fans prefer low-scoring slugfests.
5. Actually, the metrics think quite highly of the 3ball.
I've never said I have a problem with the play. And was one of the few to have shot from extended range, in my day.
It's the bastardizing of an incomplete understanding of the metrics, that is hurting the game.
I never said the 3 isn't sustainable. I said 3 spamming isn't sustainable. And 30 footers aren't sustainable.
"So what if it's not sustainable?" Well again, there's that enjoyment part, you speak of for fans. And again, there's that part where people have quit watching (stopped enjoying) because of 3 spamming.
You're right, it's not me deciding. It's large groups of the public.
IIRC, you don't watch the NBA. So it makes sense that you don't seem to understand what I'm talking about.
But people are most likely going to tell you they quit watching the NBA recently, or after Jordan retired.
Many couldn't stand the one-on-one ball that the league had become. But highlight ball was exactly the type of game that had been glorified for over a decade. Only problem was, not everyone is MJ.
Do you think logo3's would be as much fun for kids had shot distance never been glorified? Of course not. Remember, we're almost always talking about misses. Sure, kids aren't shooting from the logo a lot. But they want to. And they want to shoot from too far out, no matter what that distance may be.
6. Again, 3 spamming is a current crises. It has nothing to do with 50 years ago. And should also be mentioned, to present real concern at the college and youth levels.
It's interesting how you paint me out to be some old-timer. It comes down to good ball vs not. And I'm pretty sure I'm quite bit younger than you
What is 3 spamming?
While we are at it
Ban the dunk, kids can’t do it, sets a bad example for them
Ban being tall, most kids won’t get that tall, sets a bad example, unrealistic expectations
Ban any video of Bob Cousy, Pete Maravich, Jerry West, MJ….. kids will never be them and trying to be them will only set a bad example. Surprised the game has survived with all of those horrible examples.
I wonder how the game has evolved all these years. We want mandatory two hand chest passes, set shots and a two dribble max rule. Fundamentals only!!!!
Clark is not in top 20 for 3pt percentage.
which is surprising to me. Maybe she just isn’t as good at it as we are led to believe.
which is surprising to me. Maybe she just isn’t as good at it as we are led to believe.
Spamming 3's is what many NBA teams have become. Continue to launch, regardless of game specifics. No additional way to explore good offense. Fire, fire, fire away. The amount of attempted 3's has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY, in the past couple years, in the NBA. Spamming - it's real simple. Shooting too many 3's.
We don't have the opportunity to ban the dunk. But we do have the opportunity to not glorify and overvalue the dunk, as it's only worth 2 points. And I've already spoken about talented kids that never learn the game/build their skills because they spend too much time dunking. Do you think those kids would have ever developed their infatuation with dunking, had the dunk never become a play that's been glorified? Of course not.
There's nothing wrong with being tall.
Parents have the ability to choose what videos their kids watch. What kind of videos are they? Are they educational videos, or strictly highlight videos? And parents have the opportunity to comment on what's valued in the video, and how it's presented, and ultimately, how it gets used. All in line with my previous sentiments about setting good examples.
But additionally Cousy and Pistol, etc, were able to bring things of value and necessity to the game. Behind the back dribbles and no look passes help with angles, and unlock a whole other world of ability to create, that is necessary fundamental skill in today's game.
Everyone trying to dunk like MJ, didn't do anything for the game. It hurt the game, as those chasing that glorified 2 points (dunk) ran themselves into crowds of defenders, with no other plan, if they were lucky enough to have not already turned the ball over. The head would go down, the ball would stop moving. It was one-on-one time.
All a bunch of stuff that wasn't worth being in the game, without it being executed by the greatness of MJ. It was a pocket of devolution in the game. Again, MANY quit watching, and nobody any longer uses the iso-ball model.
Similar to a dunk only being worth 2 points, a logo 3 is only worth 3. So it is being presented in an overvalued fashion to kids. Which yes, is making it more common in the game. But it doesn't add anything of value or necessity to the game.
Even at the pro level, where added spacing is a real dynamic, there are parts of the game that get lost by 30 footers getting launched. At the youth level, all those elements of the game get lost for the sake of kids shooting from too far out. Which naturally, amounts to a bunch of missed shots.
So why are we letting kids get the wrong ideas and hurt our game? Why are we glorifying shooting from too far out, especially when the game is already suffering from too many 3's being shot?
Were already in the midst of another pocket of devolution in the game, that has again cost the game many fans.
Analytics and 3pt metrics are being completely misinterpreted and misapplied at a mass level. 3 point spamming is occurring at every level of basketball. Not everyone is the Splash brothers.
The game is in a vulnerable place. Set proper examples for kids by glorifying an entire game that deserves to be glorified, and that will allow the kids to become better basketball players
You mean, not the greatest women's basketball player of all-time?
No ****.
And that's nothing against CC. But completely a commentary on the fans who have Ied others to believe, and those who have chosen to believe
The NBA needs to raise the basket a foot. Today's players are simply bigger and more athletic than their predecessors. It would enhance the game by requiring more "team" basketball. Today's game unfortunately has turned into a 3-point shooting and dunking contest.
