2024-25 Hornets General Discussion

Hornets Talk
383

Where I agree with you:

If you dropped today’s players into the 80s/90s, they wouldn’t have many teammates shooting the three, so they would have to operate in a clogged space. They would need that midrange game and low post game. They might be called for travel with some of their 2020s go to moves. They would have to contend with hand checking for much of that period. Perhaps also some hard fouls. They might have lesser shoes and medical care. Their coaches wouldn’t let them jack up many threes, unless they were playing for Don Nelson maybe.

Today’s players have the 3-ball, the eurostep, the floaters, etc. down pat. They have the skills for this era. Yes, it’s questionable whether they have the skills for the game of the past.

That said…

Today’s 3 point percentage is only slightly higher but, in fairness, WAY more players are shooting them now, way more often.

384

I think eliminating/lessening the corner three should be looked into. Just keep the same 23’9" distance and have a true semi circle. That virtually eliminates the deep corners, unless someone with tiny feet is a deadly shooter. At the very least you make it a harder shot and a risk for stepping out of bounds.

Low post play would flourish again, and if that clogs the lane too much, then you just widen the lane to solve that problem.

Only downside is that you would no longer have those occasional exciting, last second game winning deep corner threes caught from passes under the basket, but that is a small price to play.

385

Comparatively, today’s players have no idea how to actually play basketball. By that, I mean moving without the ball, freeing up off-ball people for shots in the paint and mid-range.

And they have no idea how to play defense.

The vast majority of today’s players would be absolutely lost in a game with yesteryear’s rules.

I think they would eventually adapt, but basketball IQ is way low comparatively.

387

Regarding today’s defense:

We now have a sport where a layup, a dunk attempt, or an open midrange is often a “defensive positive” because (yay!) a 3-pointer was prevented. It goes against that human instinct of defending your interior turf, something football taps into very well. We have basketball players who won’t rotate on D because their man is too dangerous from 3 point range, much more so than the past.

A humble question. How much of the current situation is:

Low defensive IQ/skills.
vs.
Modern “defenders” have WAY too much ground to cover now.
vs.
The territory situation has gotten especially weird in the 3-ball era.

?

388

Great question and interesting.

It is probably a healthy mix of all three.

Honestly the NBA could fix a ton by allowing more contact, SOME hand checking and impeding cutting

1 Like
390

Yes, I do miss that brand of defense.

An additional change is the Rick Barry rant a few years back. Give the defense a fighting chance by clamping down on illegal/moving screens. His take was “just call illegal screens according to the rules!” which goes back to VanderbiltGrad’s take on the quality of officiating.

391

I think that skills, depending on how we’re characterizing it, is what contunually grows higher and higher as you go into the future. I do think breaking it down into talent and basketball IQ maybe more what you’re getting at, as has been brought up in the discussion.

Talent in terms of physical talent is higher, as humans tend to get bigger/faster/stronger over generations, plus athletes procreating with other athletes keeps the genetic lottery winners on a higher level than the rest of us non free throw jumping, reverse east bay, 360 windmill dunking humans. But relative to other professional athletes, I don’t know if the spread is appreciably wider than before.

But skills in terms of dribbling and shooting and footwork I’d argue continue to get better and always will. The talent for the older generations was there for them to be good at these skills, as I’m sure Bob Cousy today would’ve been able to dribble left handed, and there’s no doubt Wilt had the mindset to be a better 3 point shooter than any other big. It was just what was taught and available to them at the time.

Until the first player jumped for a shot, nobody else even knew they could do this. This allowed evolution as the variables of jumping forwards, backwards, sideways, off one foot, off the off foot, with a euro step… all new tools available with the evolution of time. Same with the wizardry of dribbling BETWEEN your legs. Then behind your back! A spin move. The Steve Smith fake spin baseline move!

So to me, more skills doesn’t mean more talent, it means more tools available that athletes acquire much easier and much younger. Majority of PGs, PF’s, and Centers did not have great shooting ability beyond 20 feet back then. The skills that are developed today, now everyone can. And not just stand up shots, its movement shots, off the dribble shots, off balance shots, catching from different pockets and getting it off.

The dribbling skills are insanely better than the past. In the before times, the ballhandling of Isiah Thomas, Allen Iverson, and Kyrie Irving were left only to the wizardry of the professional mystics. Now you have YouTubers explaining through intricate breakdown how to copy the moves and add it to your bag.

Now here’s where the basketball IQ comes barging into the equation… just because you have all the fancy new tools, you have to know when and how to use it. A flamethrower is nice to clear debris for agricultural burns, or to fight off hordes of enemies, but won’t work for a 3 year old’s birthday candles.

Drawing the defense in to make a great pass to a teammate for a wide open 15 footer won’t get noticed by the cheerleaders, or make it on the highlight package of the local news. Crossing someone to the ground and firing a fade away 30 footer over 3 people will definitely get oohs and ahhs, even if it takes you 7 attempts to get it. So, stupid basketball pays off to your ego and approval of peers, which seems to be the primary driver of a lot of younger athletes, rather than the win at all cost mindset.

So the skills (aka tools) are available to anyone, and most kids who want to be good make sure to learn all these advanced moves, just as any quantum physicist needs to understand Einsteins crowning achievement as your simple basic building block to enter the introductory class in school.

To me, basketball IQ, teamwork, discernment, and motivation are things that are much different than from the good old days of basketball. Focus on personal branding and personal achievements take precedence over making smart, unselfish plays. The payoff seems to favor getting your shots off, even at the expense of winning.

Nobody likes losing, but it seems less players hate losing these days.

2 Likes
392

Amen brother

393

Happy New Year ladies and gents!

1 Like
394

I see your general point about how the game has evolved. But while evolution does bring about a collective expansion of knowledge, or skill, in the case of sports, it can also result in the extinction of certain skills at an individual level.

In my grandparents’ day, many people were skilled in various trades. My grandfather could lay brick, repair an engine and re-route the plumbing in his house. My grandmother could create a dress or suit from a piece of fabric. I, however, can’t do any of these things. Due to various factors, as society evolved and technological advancements were made, it was no longer the norm for the average person to learn these skills. So does the fact that I live in a time that is far more advanced than the time they lived in make me more skilled than my grandparents were? I don’t think so. Because even though I could look up step by step instructions on YouTube, I don’t personally have the skills to do those things, but they did.

Applying that to the sports realm, I suppose you could say that the cumulative skill of all of the players who have ever played basketball is greater today because to your point, that’s just how evolution works. It’s an accumulation of knowledge and learned behavior over time. But as that evolution occurred in basketball and long range shooting was prioritized, certain other skills like post play, have been lost. Today’s players are aware of the concept of post play, just like I’m aware of what my grandmother’s sewing machine could do. It’s not a novel concept, but they don’t know how to do it.

My grandparents aren’t less skilled than me just because they couldn’t figure out how to change the settings on their remote, and Kevin McHale and Al Jefferson aren’t less skilled than today’s bigs just because they didn’t shoot 3s.

2 Likes
395

I see what you’re saying, and I agree with the sentiment. I guess I still feel there is a distinction, maybe I’m parsing ability and capability from skills.

Also, to clarify, more skills doesn’t mean better player. A jack of all trades has more skills, but are not necessarily masters at any one thing (and mastering a single skill may get you in the league better than being pretty decent at everything). A general contractor has knowledge about just about everything in a house, but you’d still hire a plumber or electrician to take care of those issues.

So as to your example

I definitely would say of course they have just as much, if not more ability than today’s bigs. McHale had hall of fame footwork, basketball IQ, and competitive fire. Al Jefferson’s post game was a throwback unmatched by his peers. But their limitations on dribbling, passing, and shooting are skills gaps that other all-star bigs have now.

Julius Randle has pretty good abilities and moves in the post (obviously not at the same level - due to modern basketball focusing on efficiency of scoring with points per shot and possessions per game, they don’t have time for a post player to take 10 seconds for a shot attempt). But he’s more skilled than Al because of his ball handling, shooting, and passing. Jokic is more skilled because he has the post game, plus his passing and shooting abilities.

Now someone like McHale always had the capabilities to learn these things, and if they were growing up now, he’d be able to apply the new skill sets to his generational footwork talent, spatial genius, and freaky length.

But overall, most burly PFs back in the day were like PJ Brown, or Charles Oakley, Rick Mahorn, AC Green - strong, athletic, and capable of learning new skills if needed. But now these PF/C size men gained guard skills to where you have LeBron, Durant, KAT, Paolo, now freaky ass Wemby able to handle the ball against pressure, hit clutch 3s, drive and score at all 3 levels with ease.

I absolutely believe Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Ewing, David Robinson would be dominating todays game, not because they were more skilled, but because they had more ability and capability to utilize every resource available to them to dominate, and learning todays skills would make them more dominant than ever.

Just as your grandparents maybe mastered certain crafts that were necessary back then, but aren’t applied to the modern era due to advancements in technology, etc., whereas your mastery of modern tools like computers and phones, and any other electrical wizardry we have make you more skilled in the modern era. But if they grew up now, they’d have the capabilities to acquire all these skills and be more skilled.

I’m not sure if that clarifies, but maybe I’m viewing skills as the accumulation of all acquired potential tools, but nothing to do with the application of said tools.

396

Great discussion! By that definition I see what you’re saying, although I’d say when I think of “skill” I tend to define it as how effectively a person can apply the tool. Either way, I think what we’ve highlighted is that different skills have been emphasized in different eras, but no era has mastered all the skills. That’s why I have a hard time saying one is necessarily more or less skilled than the other.

But shifting back to the original discussion of 3-pt shooting, I agree that 3s were underutilized in the 80s and 90s, but are overemphasized now. The balance that’s been referenced numerous times in the conversation here, as well as the one currently being had league wide, is what’s lacking. Miles’ box score against the Bulls where he went 2-13 is one of the better examples of this. He’s a capable 3-pt shooter, but not a particularly efficient one. There’s no era of basketball where a career 34% shooter from 3 (28% this season) should be taking 13 3s in a game. He should primarily be attacking the rim or getting to the mid-range, and the majority of his 3 attempts should either be taken by 40% 3pt shooters or converted to post attempts. There’s room in the game for all of the various skills.

2 Likes
397

Please please please let it be so

2 Likes
398

Micic AND Miles for Randle? OMG, sign me up today! I’ll throw in some cash myself to sweeten the deal and open up WolvesPlanet.com for them.

4 Likes
399

Yes! In fact, let’s expand it and try to get DiVincenzo. Always liked him.

400

Is this a “legit” rumor? (as far as one can guess?)

401

.pt domain, so probably suspect.

402

As in pro trades. Totally legit lol

403

It’s legit because I want it to happen. That’s how the Internet works

2 Likes
404

Make it legit, wish it into existence

1 Like