Redick and necessary context
While debates about the G.O.A.T have been frequent, recently debates concerning older players has been centerstage. Former NBA player JJ Redick argued that Larry Bird was not a top three point shooter based on stats. Yet his stats mar anyone before the past decade to be considered in the conversation.
Redick’s comment is genuine by his metrics: volume and percentage. Applying his logic, even greats such as Ray Allen and Reggie Miller would be omitted for their lack of qualification. Steve Kerr with the highest career percentage doesn't make the cut. Only the past half decade with the surge in three point shooting are acceptable. His metrics are fair but longevity and normality provide a lethal leverage that bemoans any pastime. The lack of volume and practice to perfect the shot is an unfair advantage that cannot be accepted across the board. Being a good shooter is the ability to make them not the inflated result from an obsessed era.
Context is important. Redick leaves out so many details. Firstly, everyone is shooting threes. Even big man need to be able to do so efficiently to keep their spot. It is a right of passage that was non-existent a decade ago. Endless practice to perfect the shot is an advantage not afforded to past players. Even players like Wade and LeBron were disadvantaged as their slashing ability was quickly overhauled with three pointers. Ray Allen only transitioned later in his career to a spot up shooter. His excellence drew from his consistent practice. His priority was three pointers and he drilled them. This was not the focus fifteen years ago.
In addition to three pointers priority which again watching players persistently shoot them pushes youngsters to do so as well. Entering the league with a youthful experience of three point practice. The three point barrage has spaced the court so much that scoring has become so much easier. This year there are multiple players averaging over thirty a game. The ease of spacing plus the sagging defence and defensive three seconds gives more leeway to score. Loosening the rules on travelling with the gather step and step back jumper allows a player more space and openness to score. Looking at the current euro league, though a step down from the NBA, no one scores over twenty points due to suffocating defences and limited court spacing.
Three pointers were introduced in 1979. They were not a fundamental part of the game. Teams gradually introduced their use over the next decades. If the league plays the game a certain way with less threes, it does not make them a worse three point shooter for not attempting more. The ability to excel in a system plagued against your strengths is heavily better than faltering in a system pushed for an agenda. To put this in perspective James Harden was the three king in 2017 and 2018 shooting 265 and 378 threes on a meagre 36.7% shooting. Stephen Curry won his seventh on 38% shooting. For Larry Bird, both of his were over 40% despite shooting under a 100 threes.
Penalising Bird because he shot less threes is unfair given that he was shooting them in a discouraging system. The idea that if he shot more he would miss more does not hold up. Given Curry’s highest volume and best statistical season with 402 makes out of 886 attempts on 45% shooting. Both could be true. Playing against the norm is not simple nor reassuring. Judging his ability by his career average belittles his true ability as his poor first seasons were at the onset of its use and less accustomed to its use. By the second half of his career he had won the three point contest three years in a row, had two straight 50/40/90 seasons, was the three point king twice and with the exception of the 1989 season shot over 40% for the rest of his career.
Bird’s efficient shooting of 50% despite an abysmal 28.6% from three is quite telling of his introduction to the three pointer. The fact he led the league two years in a row with around eighty three pointers underscores its near irrelevance. His percentage was always way above league average towards the second half of his career. He played in six games in the 1988 season before a season ending injury and did not attempt a single three, something unprecedented today. Bird’s efficiency in an unfocused era is tremendous. Context is key to recognising excellence in a restricted era. He shot one three a game and did it well. If he could win those contests so smoothly who isn’t to say with a more charged league he wouldn’t have excelled.
There is little doubt that today is the most talented of ball players. Growing up in competitive AAU leagues with contemporary medicine to enhance their capabilities. Yet this means that each player is placed horizontally to his competition. Bird’s excellence to his opponents correlates to Curry’s success. There are variables today that recognise incredible leaps in higher shooting percentage. Yet the less talented Bird against less talented competition cannot be ignored. Upholding Redick’s part time plumbers claim works both ways. Meaning that Cousy was a plumber too. That he was not so great. Yet given his limitations and excellence against his era, with modern standards would excel as well.
Comparing Bird to Curry is unfair under Redick's analysis. To give Redick is due, it is fair to claim that today's shooters are better than past timers. By virtue of more practice and centrality on the three point shot, they are better. While it is plausible that some past players could have been better three point shooters if they were given the chance whether that be Bird, Hodges or Price they didn't have that opportunity. Whether they could've been is not the same as being. Without statistics to prove otherwise it mere conjecture. That being said, if a player shot a low volume but did so efficiently then high volume may have also been compatible. The claim that he wasn't guarded because players weren't afraid of that kind of shot is disproven by game film. For Bird, condensing his entire career his shooting was poor but those were the first years of its introduction and his injury-riddled end. At his peak he was hitting efficiently.
This idea that old players would fail in the modern era and vice versa is dubious. Would certain players fit better yes. Bird and Miller would be far more deadly today while LeBron and Wade would have had more success in the 90s. Still his overall success against his lacklustre talent and tormenting defences produced incredible results. Even someone like Shaq could prevail if need be just remember Orlando Shaq following a similar transformation of Giannis. The best against their era is sole method of delineation. Having the same limitations and capabilities. Throwing shade is one thing but discredit without context is unfair and deceptive.
What can be judged is the data that we have. Yet proper fair context must be incorporated. If a player's percentage rises tremendously over the years either he has improved and/or he focused more on that part of his game. Could MJ have been a good three point shooter maybe. He played point guard for the final quarter of a season and averaged a triple double. Numbers eclipsing LeBron's. Against Clyde and the Blazers he hit six threes. Wilt was a terrible free throw shooting but tried underhand for a little while and brought his percentage up infinitely but refused to continue out of embarrassment. Consecutive peaks are a better measure since especially in these examples they demonstrate a chosen direction that began bumpy and excelled in the long run. Yet for each whether it was injuries, coach change or shame they switched back to the old the ways.
To be fair, was MJ a good point guard or Wilt a good free throw shooter is in the negative for the latter and uncertain for the former. MJ didn't spend enough time at the point guard there was a glimpse of Magic jr and proto-LeBron numbers. Wilt's unwillingness to continue his hot streak ended a positive shift in his percentage. Larry on the other hand did spend consecutive years excelling. Bird's percentage is better than Harden's overall. Looking at Bird's development, the more threes he shot the better his percentage. The only reason his percentage was bad was because he shooting under one a game. Consistent growth and stability is the correct marker.
There is a lot of "what if" possibilities and those are fun to watch analysts yell at one another for an entire hour. If three point shooting was pushed in the 80s maybe are past superstars would have more points and more accolades. Yet it is a problem to look on data monolithically. Did Bird shoot a low volume? Yes. Was three point shooting part of the game? No. Was the three pointer regulated when he was drafted? No. Therefore, it is only fair to consider he statistics as he actually shot threes when was actually committed to it. Looking at the data in this consecutive peak though with a low volume is quite good. Is Bird at the top of the list? No. Given the context he isn't that far down. Yearly statistics aren't everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment