Vanderbilt Game & Other Dribbles ...

[Joe the Panther Fan]

44% of Gonzaga's total shots this year are from the midrange. And that is the #1 offense in the country. Gonzaga has had the #1 offense in all of college basketball 4 straight years in a row.



Is anyone going to bet on Nate Oats and his non midrange shooting Alabama team to beat Gonzaga? Ill take some of that action in the NCAA Tournament.

The percentage of Gonzaga's shots that are three pointers is almost exactly the NCAA average so far this season.

Last season their percentage of shots that were three pointers was well above the NCAA average. The season before they were 7th in the country in the percentage of their shots that were three pointers.

The notion that Gonzaga is some sort of proof that teams should be shooting more from the mid-range is one of those completely ridiculous things that you come up with that doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny at all. Gonzaga scores lots of points from the mid-range for the same reason that the score lots of points from three and lots of points at the rim and lots of points from the line. They have a really, really good offense.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

** I remarked during the under 8 timeout that were soon going to find out what kind of team we can be. At the next TV timeout, it was time to go home. It was a big turkey one might say. Or maybe a chicken since we certainly laid an egg. Disappointing. Very disappointing.

It was 44-42 after Burton scored at 7:58. At 1:57 Vandy made a couple foul shots to make it 64-46. So over almost exactly 6 minutes they outscored us 20-4.

The biggest part of that for the Vandy offense was that Trey Thomas, who up until that point was 1-17 on threes for the season went 4-4 on them in a span of about 4-1/2 minutes.

It would be like as if Will Jeffress made four threes in four minutes!

Except to be fair to Thomas, he was much better from three last year than he has been this year, even with last night's outburst.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Yeah but i think you know what this staff is going to do.

If you are interested in Jordan and in the midrange or anyone that wants to understand just how great Jordan was shooting the basketball from the midrange, watch this.

Most people remember Jordan for high flying dunks, clutch moments in the playoffs, etc. I remember Jordan's midrange game like it was yesterday. This video will explain to you why. If Jordan played in todays NBA, he would score 45-50+ points every single game, destroying defenses from the midrange.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

If you are interested in Jordan and in the midrange or anyone that wants to understand just how great Jordan was shooting the basketball from the midrange, watch this.

Most people remember Jordan for high flying dunks, clutch moments in the playoffs, etc. I remember Jordan's midrange game like it was yesterday. This video will explain to you why. If Jordan played in todays NBA, he would score 45-50+ points every single game, destroying defenses from the midrange.

View embedded media

Boy how horrible would it be to have 2 or 3 guys who could knock down mid range jumpers ! ( even 1 would be nice )

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Boy how horrible would it be to have 2 or 3 guys who could knock down mid range jumpers ! ( even 1 would be nice )

Yeah, if we could just get a guy as good as Michael Jordan to play for us we'd be set. We'd probably let him take as many shots as he wanted from wherever on the court that he wanted to!

 

[Drew1208]

The percentage of Gonzaga's shots that are three pointers is almost exactly the NCAA average so far this season.

Last season their percentage of shots that were three pointers was well above the NCAA average. The season before they were 7th in the country in the percentage of their shots that were three pointers.

The notion that Gonzaga is some sort of proof that teams should be shooting more from the mid-range is one of those completely ridiculous things that you come up with that doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny at all. Gonzaga scores lots of points from the mid-range for the same reason that the score lots of points from three and lots of points at the rim and lots of points from the line. They have a really, really good offense.

Yeah, if we could just get a guy as good as Michael Jordan to play for us we'd be set. We'd probably let him take as many shots as he wanted from wherever on the court that he wanted to!

And kobe

 

[Vader_Storm]

The percentage of Gonzaga's shots that are three pointers is almost exactly the NCAA average so far this season.

Last season their percentage of shots that were three pointers was well above the NCAA average. The season before they were 7th in the country in the percentage of their shots that were three pointers.

The notion that Gonzaga is some sort of proof that teams should be shooting more from the mid-range is one of those completely ridiculous things that you come up with that doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny at all. Gonzaga scores lots of points from the mid-range for the same reason that the score lots of points from three and lots of points at the rim and lots of points from the line. They have a really, really good offense.

I could put a lot more effort into this if I wanted to Joe, but,

UCLA made the Final 4 last year. And 49.9% of UCLA's total shots for the entire season last year were from the midrange.

Alabama made the Sweet 16 last year. And 15.4% of Alabama's shots for the entire season last year were from the midrange. And Nate Oats talked about how the midrange is dead.


UCLA BEAT Alabama in the Sweet 16 last year in the NCAA Tournament. So much for the midrange game being dead.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

Yeah, if we could just get a guy as good as Michael Jordan to play for us we'd be set. We'd probably let him take as many shots as he wanted from wherever on the court that he wanted to!

He’d commit get us all excited and then change his mind !

 

[Franb]

I could put a lot more effort into this if I wanted to Joe, but,

UCLA made the Final 4 last year. And 49.9% of UCLA's total shots for the entire season last year were from the midrange.

Alabama made the Sweet 16 last year. And 15.4% of Alabama's shots for the entire season last year were from the midrange. And Nate Oats talked about how the midrange is dead.


UCLA BEAT Alabama in the Sweet 16 last year in the NCAA Tournament. So much for the midrange game being dead.

What is really dead is this horse - stop beating it.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

Can we please leave philosophy and personal beliefs out of the discussion about Capel. Your views on these subjects are well known and I’d rather not have the thread soiled in that way.

I've been around and supporting this Pitt program a lot longer than most on here. I think longer than you. I do not like seeing the program I support "soiled" as you put it by some coach that is ruining the program even further than it already was ruined by his predecessor.

Besides, my question was about his coaching philosophy and beliefs, nothing about his personal beliefs. I don't care about that in this discussion. If you think it was about something other than that, you unfortunately misunderstood me and I apologize for the misunderstanding. It wasn't my intention.

 

[DT_PITT]

I've been around and supporting this Pitt program a lot longer than most on here. I think longer than you. I do not like seeing the program I support "soiled" as you put it by some coach that is ruining the program even further than it already was ruined by his predecessor.

Besides, my question was about his coaching philosophy and beliefs, nothing about his personal beliefs. I don't care about that in this discussion. If you think it was about something other than that, you unfortunately misunderstood me and I apologize for the misunderstanding. It wasn't my intention.

Fair enough.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I could put a lot more effort into this if I wanted to Joe, but,

UCLA made the Final 4 last year. And 49.9% of UCLA's total shots for the entire season last year were from the midrange.

Alabama made the Sweet 16 last year. And 15.4% of Alabama's shots for the entire season last year were from the midrange. And Nate Oats talked about how the midrange is dead.


UCLA BEAT Alabama in the Sweet 16 last year in the NCAA Tournament. So much for the midrange game being dead.

You could, but it would just continue to expose the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.

UCLA was 35th in the country last season shooting threes and 144th in the country shooting twos. One of those things is a lot better than the other. The fact that UCLA did shoot a comparatively greater number of twos rather than threes wasn't what was helping them win. What helped them win was having enough really good players to overcome a suboptimal offensive strategy from their head coach.

And to go a step further, Alabama didn't win games because of their 101st in the country three point shooting. Alabama won games because they rebounded well and they were one of the best defensive teams in the country.

But yeah, the fact that UCLA beat Alabama in overtime in a game that UCLA actually shot MORE threes than Alabama really proves your point.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

And by the way, last season UCLA shot 37.2% on threes and 50.3% on all twos, including shots at the rim as well as jumpers. You do understand that 37.2% on three is better than 50.3% on twos, right? And not just by a little, right?

 

[Vader_Storm]

You could, but it would just continue to expose the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.

UCLA was 35th in the country last season shooting threes and 144th in the country shooting twos. One of those things is a lot better than the other. The fact that UCLA did shoot a comparatively greater number of twos rather than threes wasn't what was helping them win. What helped them win was having enough really good players to overcome a suboptimal offensive strategy from their head coach.

And to go a step further, Alabama didn't win games because of their 101st in the country three point shooting. Alabama won games because they rebounded well and they were one of the best defensive teams in the country.

But yeah, the fact that UCLA beat Alabama in overtime in a game that UCLA actually shot MORE threes than Alabama really proves your point.

Im talking midrange shots. And only midrange shots. Im not talking about 2 vs 3 splits. Im not talking about layups, dunks, or shots within 5 feet. I am talking midrange shots.

Just like with Michael Jordan making the most midrange shots over everybody and having the 3rd highest efficiency doing it, I am talking midrange shots.

The stats that I posted were 100% midrange shots only. All this other stuff is non-sense. Stick to the midrange shots.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Im talking midrange shots. And only midrange shots. Im not talking about 2 vs 3 splits. Im not talking about layups, dunks, or shots within 5 feet. I am talking midrange shots.

Just like with Michael Jordan making the most midrange shots over everybody and having the 3rd highest efficiency doing it, I am talking midrange shots.

The stats that I posted were 100% midrange shots only. All this other stuff is non-sense. Stick to the midrange shots.

It's as if you don't understand that by including shots at the rim that I'm actually making the numbers look closer than they actually are, and that if you only consider mid-range jumpers versus three pointers that the disparity tips even more in favor of three pointers.

And at this point it's pretty obvious that the reason that it seems that way is that you actually DON'T understand that.

I mean good god, you think that the fact that the greatest basketball player of all time was a really good shooter from the mid-range proves that mid-range shots are better than threes. I'd say you can't be dumb enough to think that that proves anything as an argument, and yet here we are.

Your understanding of the advanced stats that you continually quote to try to make your points is a mile wide and an inch deep.

If that.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

UCLA shot 41.7% on their two point jump shots last season. They shot 37.2% on their three pointers. Do you really not understand that 37.2% on threes is way better for your offense than 41.7% on twos of any sort?

 

[Vader_Storm]

It's as if you don't understand that by including shots at the rim that I'm actually making the numbers look closer than they actually are, and that if you only consider mid-range jumpers versus three pointers that the disparity tips even more in favor of three pointers.

And at this point it's pretty obvious that the reason that it seems that way is that you actually DON'T understand that.

I mean good god, you think that the fact that the greatest basketball player of all time was a really good shooter from the mid-range proves that mid-range shots are better than threes. I'd say you can't be dumb enough to think that that proves anything as an argument, and yet here we are.

Your understanding of the advanced stats that you continually quote to try to make your points is a mile wide and an inch deep.

If that.

You dont seem to understand the fact that UCLA attempted 1445 shots last year total for the entire season, and 741 attempts were from the midrange. UCLA used the midrange in their offense all season long, and went to the Final 4 doing it.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You dont seem to understand the fact that UCLA attempted 1445 shots last year total for the entire season, and 741 attempts were from the midrange. UCLA used the midrange in their offense all season long, and went to the Final 4 doing it.

Simple question, which is better, shooting 41.7% on two point jump shots or shooting 37.2% on threes? Which of those is more likely to help you win games?

You just continue to prove the point that you have no idea what so ever what these numbers you keep quoting actually mean.

 

[Vader_Storm]

Simple question, which is better, shooting 41.7% on two point jump shots or shooting 37.2% on threes? Which of those is more likely to help you win games?

You just continue to prove the point that you have no idea what so ever what these numbers you keep quoting actually mean.

The point is UCLA's offense is built around a midrange game, and Alabama's offense and the word midrange is almost non existent at Alabama because they barely shoot any shots from the midrange!

The 3's are irrelevant because I am only talking about which teams actually use a midrange game to win the game.

UCLA takes 50% of all their shots from the midrange. UCLA's offense is built around using midrange shots.

Alabama's offense is built around 3 point shots and shots within 5 feet. The midrange game is dead to Nate Oats.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The point is

The point is that you have two options here, to answer the question and depending on how you answer either admit that you are wrong or look like a moron , or you can ignore the question and pretend like it doesn't matter.

So yeah, I get why you won't answer the question.

Don't worry, everyone with a functioning brain knows what the answer is.

 

[Vader_Storm]

The point is that you have two options here, to answer the question and depending on how you answer either admit that you are wrong or look like a moron , or you can ignore the question and pretend like it doesn't matter.

So yeah, I get why you won't answer the question.

Don't worry, everyone with a functioning brain knows what the answer is.

For anyone that wants to spot check me and question what I am posting regarding midrange numbers above, anyone can actually access all the stats I posted above for free on a site like torvik.

Happy Thanksgiving all.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

For anyone that wants to spot check me and question what I am posting regarding midrange numbers above, anyone actually access all the stats I posted above for free on a site like torvik.

Happy Thanksgiving all.

No one is disputing the numbers. I'm pointing out that you have NO IDEA what the numbers mean. Anyone who knows anything at all about basketball knows that shooting 37.2% on threes is better, much, much better in fact, that shooting 41.7% on twos of any sort.

The fact that YOU can't comprehend that doesn't mean that there is something that someone else is missing, it means that you don't understand what the numbers that you post actually mean and how those numbers relate to winning and losing basketball games.

 

[BreakingPitt]

capel imo is a good coach, he just needs more time, lol.

 

[Drew1208]

I mean does anyone think that no player should ever have a mid range greenlight ever again?
A singular player.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

I mean does anyone think that no player should ever have a mid range greenlight ever again?
A singular player.

Nope.

the funniest part about this is the analytics guy taking the hard stance that mid range jumpers are a great shot because the greatest player of all time shot them 30 effing years ago.

1. if Michael Jordan played today he would shot a ton more 3’s like Lebron changed his game

2. Please don’t ever use analytics in your posts again because you don’t understand them.

 

[Fsgolfdr]

It’s quite obvious shooting 3’s successfully is a far better strategy than focusing on midrange shots not only do you get the advantage of scoring 3 pts vs 2pts you open the court up . The issue is do you have the personal to do it ?

Pitt shoots 21% from 3 , this wouldn’t be a very effective strategy for the Panthers .

Statistics say in golf that going for par 5’s in two and getting the ball as close as possible to the flag on every shot is the most effective way to score . (A strategy employed by Bryson . ) However if your 100yd shots are better from the fairway than your shorter shots from wherever they end up your better off laying up to 100yds . Everything depends on your abilities to hit certain shots . What works for you is different than what works for me .Same as a teams shot selections in bb . Doesn’t mean that under the right circumstances you don’t go for the green in 2 or put up a 3 pt shot .

Had X and Trey ever learned to effectively use the midrange jumper instead of just barreling into the paint both would’ve been much better players and much more difficult to defend .

 

[Vader_Storm]

Nope.

the funniest part about this is the analytics guy taking the hard stance that mid range jumpers are a great shot because the greatest player of all time shot them 30 effing years ago.

1. if Michael Jordan played today he would shot a ton more 3’s like Lebron changed his game

2. Please don’t ever use analytics in your posts again because you don’t understand them.

My stance is about winning the actual basketball game and taking the best shot to do so based off an individual players level of ability and what that player brings to the table.

And the reality is, you don't even understand Jordan as a player.


Michael Jordan averaged 8.2 free throw attempts in his entire career and that included the Wizards. And that was during the big boy era of basketball and not this cupcake era we play in today, players got hurt going to the rim back in those days. Hand checks, and all the other rule difference. If Jordan played in todays NBA, he would be shooting 25-30 free throw attempts every single game. Every Game! Because there are only 2 options with Jordan, let him score at will from the midrange, or foul him.

Jordan wouldnt need all these 3 pointers in this current era, because he would have double or triple the fouls shots alone in this era in comparison to someone like Lebron James. And he would be fouling out all the opposing players. Either that, or players like Jordan and Reggie Miller are going to score at will every single time shooting the ball. This is the difference in actual spacing that is allowed today with the rule changes. You give Jordan or Miller todays spacing, its over.


If you seriously think Jordan would come into todays NBA and just jack up 3's like other players, you should maybe consider retiring from that assistant high school level basketball position you have.


People say all the time Bulls vs Warriors, who you got. Jordan used to dunk on people like 7'3 Dikembe Mutumbo. What the heck do you think Jordan is going to do with 6'6 Draymond Green in the paint and all these small centers in todays game. Its almost laughable, Jordan would dunk all over these guys driving into the paint at will if he isnt burying midrange shots or foul shots all game long. And all the best players would stand there and let him do it, or foul out trying to stop him.


Jordan wouldnt change for todays NBA jacking up 3s. The current NBA would change for Jordan. Understand that.

 

[Drew1208]

Sounds like we probably all agree that sometimes some players in some situations should take mid 2s.

I'm not even sure anyone is truly disagreeing with eachother much here.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

My stance is about winning the actual basketball game and taking the best shot to do so based off an individual players level of ability and what that player brings to the table.

And the reality is, you don't even understand Jordan as a player.


Michael Jordan averaged 8.2 free throw attempts in his entire career and that included the Wizards. And that was during the big boy era of basketball and not this cupcake era we play in today, players got hurt going to the rim back in those days. Hand checks, and all the other rule difference. If Jordan played in todays NBA, he would be shooting 25-30 free throw attempts every single game. Every Game! Because there are only 2 options with Jordan, let him score at will from the midrange, or foul him.

Jordan wouldnt need all these 3 pointers in this current era, because he would have double or triple the fouls shots alone in this era in comparison to someone like Lebron James. And he would be fouling out all the opposing players. Either that, or players like Jordan and Reggie Miller are going to score at will every single time shooting the ball. This is the difference in actual spacing that is allowed today with the rule changes. You give Jordan or Miller todays spacing, its over.


If you seriously think Jordan would come into todays NBA and just jack up 3's like other players, you should maybe consider retiring from that assistant high school level basketball position you have.


People say all the time Bulls vs Warriors, who you got. Jordan used to dunk on people like 7'3 Dikembe Mutumbo. What the heck do you think Jordan is going to do with 6'6 Draymond Green in the paint and all these small centers in todays game. Its almost laughable, Jordan would dunk all over these guys driving into the paint at will if he isnt burying midrange shots or foul shots all game long. And all the best players would stand there and let him do it, or foul out trying to stop him.


Jordan wouldnt change for todays NBA jacking up 3s. The current NBA would change for Jordan. Understand that.

1. I watched Jordan live not his highlights on youtube
2. If Lebron changed because the NBA changed because of Curry to win championships, Jordan would change.
3. I’m not saying don’t attack the rim, which is where Jordan was fouled 95 percent of the time. I’m saying don’t rely on stupid 2 point jump shots. It’s not efficient
4. Jordan changed his game. He was a high flier who attacked the rim at will and realized in the playoffs he couldn’t do it. He got stronger, he became a better shooter, developed different moves.

If the rules allowed the freedom of movement they do today and steph curry and Klay Thompson were running circles around the bulls which they would, you think MJ would just say oh, let me go work on my 15 footers and smoke cigars. The most competitive player of all time
Would just lay down? No he’d adapt his game again. You can’t be this dense.

5. Steph curry is a 58 percent EFG. Michael Jordan is 51 percent EFG. Do you think Michael would adapt with the times yet? 3’s are worth more than 2’s, especially hard 2’s. Do you know math?

6. You using the greatest player of all time shooting some mid ranges from 30 years ago in his prime should be all you need to know about how dumb your argument outlier is. I think you have beaten into everyone’s heads you know very little about actual basketball, but this is seriously embarrassing.

 

[Vader_Storm]

1. I watched Jordan live not his highlights on youtube
2. If Lebron changed because the NBA changed because of Curry to win championships, Jordan would change.
3. I’m not saying don’t attack the rim, which is where Jordan was fouled 95 percent of the time. I’m saying don’t rely on stupid 2 point jump shots. It’s not efficient
4. Jordan changed his game. He was a high flier who attacked the rim at will and realized in the playoffs he couldn’t do it. He got stronger, he became a better shooter, developed different moves.

If the rules allowed the freedom of movement they do today and steph curry and Klay Thompson were running circles around the bulls which they would, you think MJ would just say oh, let me go work on my 15 footers and smoke cigars. The most competitive player of all time
Would just lay down? No he’d adapt his game again. You can’t be this dense.

5. Steph curry is a 58 percent EFG. Michael Jordan is 51 percent EFG. Do you think Michael would adapt with the times yet? 3’s are worth more than 2’s, especially hard 2’s. Do you know math?

6. You using the greatest player of all time shooting some mid ranges from 30 years ago in his prime should be all you need to know about how dumb your argument outlier is. I think you have beaten into everyone’s heads you know very little about actual basketball, but this is seriously embarrassing.

Lebron James isnt Jordan, stop it. I stopped reading after that.

 

[PittMan 72]

Sounds like we probably all agree that sometimes some players in some situations should take mid 2s.

I'm not even sure anyone is truly disagreeing with eachother much here.

Of course that’s correct. There are lots of good 2 point shots. But that’S GENERALLY speaking and not necessarily within the context of the disparities this current Pitt team has faced and likely will face all season.

And also, math don’t lie. Vs Vandy, Pitt would‘ve needed to make 12 more 2’s just to STAY EVEN with the points Vandy scored from 3.

Additionally, with the make up of this Pitt team right now, the fact that there are absolutely NO consistently reliable deep shooters to even create a threat to a defense, the opponent can concentrate on defending a much smaller area.

So the problem is that if the other team makes 3x or 4x the number of 3’s that Pitt does in any given game (Vandy made 5x the number on Tues) Pitt needs to make so many more 2’s just to keep pace. And with this particular Pitt team that just doesnt seem reasonably possible or feasible. Pitt only made 18 total FG’s in the game against Vandy. Asking for 12 MORE 2 pointers just to stay even was a HUGE reach.

It is what it is. Pitt has to deal with the odds and will face many more extremely difficult challenges. Especially so unless or until they can become less 1 dimensional as far as where they are capable of threatening an opponent by scoring from. If that’s even possible? 🤷‍♂️

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Lebron James isnt Jordan, stop it. I stopped reading after that.

He’s the second greatest player of all time and probably the most gifted. You’re the dumbest person on Pantherlair and it’s not close.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Of course that’s correct. There are lots of good 2 point shots. But that’S GENERALLY speaking and not necessarily within the context of the disparities this current Pitt team has faced and likely will face all season.

And also, math don’t lie. Vs Vandy, Pitt would‘ve needed to make 12 more 2’s just to STAY EVEN with the points Vandy scored from 3.

Additionally, with the make up of this Pitt team right now, the fact that there are absolutely NO consistently reliable deep shooters to even create a threat to a defense, the opponent can concentrate on defending a much smaller area.

So the problem is that if the other team makes 3x or 4x the number of 3’s that Pitt does in any given game (Vandy made 5x the number on Tues) Pitt needs to make so many more 2’s just to keep pace. And with this particular Pitt team that just doesnt seem reasonably possible or feasible. Pitt only made 18 total FG’s in the game against Vandy. Asking for 12 MORE 2 pointers just to stay even was a HUGE reach.

It is what it is. Pitt has to deal with the odds and will face many more extremely difficult challenges. Especially so unless or until they can become less 1 dimensional as far as where they are capable of threatening an opponent by scoring from. If that’s even possible? 🤷‍♂️

Correct. Any person could figure this out except Vader. He’s the least knowledgeable person on this board about anything in college hoops. Congrats @Sean Miller Fan ! You’re off the hook

 

[Vader_Storm]

He’s the second greatest player of all time and probably the most gifted. You’re the dumbest person on Pantherlair and it’s not close.

Defensively,

Michael Jordan- NBA defensive player of the year, 9 time 1st Team All NBA Defensive team, 3rd all time in NBA steals history, top 5 defensive player, ever

Scottie Pippen- 8 time defensive 1st Team All NBA, 2 time 2nd team All Defensive NBA, 7th All time in NBA steals history, top 5 defensive player, ever

Dennis Rodman-7 time defensive 1st Team All NBA, 1 time 2nd Team All Defensive NBA, 7 times NBA rebound Champion, top 5 nba defensive player, ever



Players like Lebron James, Steph Curry, or anybody else from this current era, isn't even in the same stratosphere as these 3 players on defense.


And if Jordan's Bulls played the Warriors or any dream team Lebron James was on, Jordan would win in 5 games or less every single time. The Warriors might win 1 game in a 7 game series.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Defensively,

Michael Jordan- NBA defensive player of the year, 9 time 1st Team All NBA Defensive team, 3rd all time in NBA steals history, top 5 defensive player, ever

Scottie Pippen- 8 time defensive 1st Team All NBA, 2 time 2nd team All Defensive NBA, 7th All time in NBA steals history, top 5 defensive player, ever

Dennis Rodman-7 time defensive 1st Team All NBA, 1 time 2nd Team All Defensive NBA, 7 times NBA rebound Champion, top 5 nba defensive player, ever



Players like Lebron James, Steph Curry, or anybody else from this current era, isn't even in the same stratosphere as these 3 players on defense.


And if Jordan's Bulls played the Warriors or any dream team Lebron James was on, Jordan would win in 5 games or less every single time. The Warriors might win 1 game in a 7 game series.

Lol. You’re right dude. Hopefully MJ, Pippen Rodman play for Pitt tomorrow. Maybe we’ll beat mighty UMBC.

Congrats on being dead wrong on every argument we had over the last 3 years. Capel era is over. The players he recruited stink. He can’t coach. Way to go man. MJ ain’t walking thru that door

 

[Chescat]

Correct. Any person could figure this out except Vader. He’s the least knowledgeable person on this board about anything in college hoops. Congrats @Sean Miller Fan ! You’re off the hook

I take a day off from this board
for Thanksgiving, return and
what's going on? The usual,
Vader attempting to defend
the indefensible.

"the least knowledgeable
person on this board." Well
maybe not, but he just
might be the most insistent.
I've given him props over
and over for providing info
regarding the world of
recruiting. Vader, if you're
listening.... stick to what
you know...the recruiting
world. Your analytics are
not accepted because you
rely way too much on them.
You've OVER hyped numerous
Pitt players who have failed
here, Drumgoole, Coulibaly,
Payton, etc. I really believe
you never touched a basketball,
played at any meaningful
level, and coached beyond Rec
League (if that). There's a number
of posters here who HAVE done
those things. Those posters
know and understand hoops.
Give us a break, and TAKE a
break from your nonsensical
rants.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

I take a day off from this board
for Thanksgiving, return and
what's going on? The usual,
Vader attempting to defend
the indefensible.

"the least knowledgeable
person on this board." Well
maybe not, but he just
might be the most insistent.
I've given him props over
and over for providing info
regarding the world of
recruiting. Vader, if you're
listening.... stick to what
you know...the recruiting
world. Your analytics are
not accepted because you
rely way too much on them.
You've OVER hyped numerous
Pitt players who have failed
here, Drumgoole, Coulibaly,
Payton, etc. I really believe
you never touched a basketball,
played at any meaningful
level, and coached beyond Rec
League (if that). There's a number
of posters here who HAVE done
those things. Those posters
know and understand hoops.
Give us a break, and TAKE a
break from your nonsensical
rants.

He has relied on OTRG and other analytics when it fits his point. Now he won’t accept basic analytical principles that open 3’s are better than 2’s.

here’s some analytics for ya: a corner 3 is worth 1.3 PpP. Any other 3 is around 1.13. Besides uncontested layups, nothing else is over 1 PPP. So he’s just simply wrong. Again. And I’m done replying.

 

[Vader_Storm]

He has relied on OTRG and other analytics when it fits his point. Now he won’t accept basic analytical principles that open 3’s are better than 2’s.

here’s some analytics for ya: a corner 3 is worth 1.3 PpP. Any other 3 is around 1.13. Besides uncontested layups, nothing else is over 1 PPP. So he’s just simply wrong. Again. And I’m done replying.

Not once did I talk about 3's in this thread with regard to an actual team. Joe kept bringing it up and I kept ignoring him.

I simply talked about certain teams and what percentage of their total actual shots for an entire season happened to come from the midrange. I talked about which teams use a midrange game more than others, that's it.

Go back and read everything that was written, you and chescat, and Joe. I said nothing about 3's here. Simply midrange shots. Perhaps some of you were drinking and not reading what I actually wrote.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Not once did I talk about 3's in this thread. Joe kept bringing it up and I kept ignoring him.

I simply talked about certain teams and what percentage of their total actual shots for an entire season happened to come from the midrange. I talked about which teams use a midrange game more than others, that's it.

Go back and read everything that was written, you and chescat, and Joe. I said nothing about 3's here. Simply midrange shots. Perhaps some of you were drinking and not reading what I actually wrote.

No, most don’t read your whole posts because A) they’re too long
B) they’re ALWAYS wrong.

you love to see yourself type yet you’ve never been right

 

[Vader_Storm]

No, most don’t read your whole posts because A) they’re too long
B) they’re ALWAYS wrong.

you love to see yourself type yet you’ve never been right

The ignore button works fine, use it.