Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[NBA] Thread: Like a Woj Bomb in the Night

1434446484980

Posts

  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    He maximized the chances of it going in by arcing it as high as possible

    A really high arc is actually less conducive to getting a favorable bounce. It was a ridiculous and wonderful shot, but it was a hell of a lucky-ass bounce. I don't say that to take away from it, it can be all of those things at once.

  • OctavianOctavian Registered User regular
    Kasyn wrote: »
    He maximized the chances of it going in by arcing it as high as possible

    A really high arc is actually less conducive to getting a favorable bounce. It was a ridiculous and wonderful shot, but it was a hell of a lucky-ass bounce. I don't say that to take away from it, it can be all of those things at once.

    This is not true at all. Good shooters aim to have a higher arc on their shot, and a backspin from their shot. The goal of this is for the ball to hit the rim as vertically as possible, and then for that backspin to counteract the remaining horizontal momentum, so the ball bounces vertically over the rim, and has a chance to drop in. You sometimes hear this called a shooters roll. In addition, dropping from above makes the rim closer to a circle instead of an oval from the basketball's perspective. Also better for shot making. Universally you will hear bad shooters pointed out by saying how 'flat' their shot is. No arc.

    KW is a good shooter, and that shot was mechanically just barely good enough to counteract it not being perfectly on target, and Embiid's solid contest probably had a lot to do with that.

    Those 2 game 7s were a ton of fun to watch. I'm sure it helps that the two teams I was rooting for won, but still, I didn't feel great about it. Those games were incredibly close.

    PSN: TitusPullo13
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    You obviously need some kind of arc in order to make a shot in the first place, and then I'm sure that increasing the angle of attack can help, just like I'm sure that you eventually hit a point of diminishing returns (if not a reversal) given most people can't consistently make shots throwing the ball up at an 85 degree angle.

    Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.
  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    ball go down the hole

    BahamutZERO.gif
    Captain InertiaMagellDixonNiryaThe Cow KingEinzelRaijin QuickfootLost CanuckWeedLordVegetaXehalus
  • burboburbo Registered User regular
    There is a point of reversal. At a certain angle, the penalty of the ball having to travel a longer distance (thus tightening all of the good angle ranges) and falling at a greater velocity counteracts the benefit from having a more circular landing zone.

  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    It's a bell curve, basically. The idea that more arc = better doesn't hold forever. Too much arc and your control over the depth of the shot is lessened, and - as was mentioned directly above - the added velocity starts to hurt you. One way it hurts you is that your bounce off the rim is going to be less soft. Kawhi's shot clanked pretty hard and he still got the bounce. It was a pretty fkn improbable bounce, is all I'm saying.

  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator mod
    why is it that every cool shot this playoffs has featured at least three days worth of "but was it a good shot" debate each time

  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    petitioning the league to take all points away for shots that are not statistically optimal

    BahamutZERO.gif
    DhalphirMagellBobbleburbo
  • existexist Registered User regular
    DJ Eebs wrote: »
    why is it that every cool shot this playoffs has featured at least three days worth of "but was it a good shot" debate each time

    playoffs bring out the armchair analysts/managers/coaches/refs every year

    UmPiq.png
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Hi

    Inquisitor77
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    Hi

    Hi

    Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.
    Captain Inertia
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    DJ Eebs wrote: »
    why is it that every cool shot this playoffs has featured at least three days worth of "but was it a good shot" debate each time

    I haven't seen that taking place with this shot. Really, just the Lillard one - and that debate stuck in the media cycle for a day or two because of Paul George's comments after the game.

    My comments are more to the effect of - that was a completely nutty and favorable bounce. Never seen anything even close to it in a situation with even remotely similar stakes. Crazy.

  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited May 14
    banked three pt gamewinners are the only ones I can think of that come anywhere close since by definition a banked three is just a miss that got lucky

    Dhalphir on
    burbo
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    It really is a pretty crazy bounce. The first bounce it lands ever so slightly on the outside of the rim, but the spin sends it vertical. The second time it lands on the middle, and the spin sends it towards the bucket. Don't think you can do that on purpose if you try.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • burboburbo Registered User regular
    exist wrote: »
    DJ Eebs wrote: »
    why is it that every cool shot this playoffs has featured at least three days worth of "but was it a good shot" debate each time

    playoffs bring out the armchair analysts/managers/coaches/refs every year

    We don't have to take away all the points. Just convert them all to the expected points value for that shot. It'll be called the Rocket Revolution

    Kasynexist
  • burboburbo Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    banked three pt gamewinners are the only ones I can think of that come anywhere close since by definition a banked three is just a miss that got lucky

    Banked threes aren't just any lucky miss either. They are wildly, wildly off target misses.

    Someone had like three of those on the Thunder in the blazer series, can't remember who though.

    burbo on
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    burbo wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    banked three pt gamewinners are the only ones I can think of that come anywhere close since by definition a banked three is just a miss that got lucky

    Banked threes aren't just any lucky miss either. They are wildly, wildly off target misses.

    Someone had like three of those on the Thunder in the blazer series, can't remember who though.

    I've always wondered how often players deliberately go for a bank shot, in those or other situations. Duncan is about the only player I can think of who I'd give the benefit of the doubt to.

  • Raijin QuickfootRaijin Quickfoot I'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    One of the more intriguing draft lotteries in awhile.

    HEY SATAN! HERE'S MY WISHLIST! GO NUTS YOU DEVIL!

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
    Bobble
  • Goose!Goose! That's me, honey Show me the way home, honeyRegistered User regular
    Excited for the Knicks to find out they pick 5th and the Mavericks pick 1st

    Nintendo Switch FC: SW-5618-5257-5789 | Amazon Smile List
    jkylefulton
  • Raijin QuickfootRaijin Quickfoot I'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Let the T-Wolves pull out a miracle and get Zion

    HEY SATAN! HERE'S MY WISHLIST! GO NUTS YOU DEVIL!

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
  • MaximumMaximum Registered User regular
    Boston, so Danny Ainge can trade him for more lottery picks.

  • Raijin QuickfootRaijin Quickfoot I'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Maximum wrote: »
    Boston, so Danny Ainge can trade him for more lottery picks.

    Whose lottery pick do they have?

    HEY SATAN! HERE'S MY WISHLIST! GO NUTS YOU DEVIL!

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
  • BobbleBobble Registered User regular
    edited May 14
    Maximum wrote: »
    Boston, so Danny Ainge can trade him for more lottery picks.

    Whose lottery pick do they have?

    Sacramento's... kind of:
    By virtue of the Markelle Fultz trade two years ago, the Celtics will get this pick if it stays at No. 14 or moves up to the fourth, third or second pick. But if it climbs all the way to No. 1, it goes to the Philadelphia 76ers.
    http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26733868/stake-biggest-nba-draft-lottery-years

    So I am definitely rooting for Sacramento's name to not be revealed at 14, because that means chaos.

    Bobble on
    jkylefulton
  • Raijin QuickfootRaijin Quickfoot I'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    So what if it falls between 5-13?

    HEY SATAN! HERE'S MY WISHLIST! GO NUTS YOU DEVIL!

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Kasyn wrote: »
    burbo wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    banked three pt gamewinners are the only ones I can think of that come anywhere close since by definition a banked three is just a miss that got lucky

    Banked threes aren't just any lucky miss either. They are wildly, wildly off target misses.

    Someone had like three of those on the Thunder in the blazer series, can't remember who though.

    I've always wondered how often players deliberately go for a bank shot, in those or other situations. Duncan is about the only player I can think of who I'd give the benefit of the doubt to.

    There were a lot more in the past like Scottie Pippen but with the way the game has changed bank-shooting is a bit of a lost art.

    No one ever tries to go off the glass from three though.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    So It Goes
  • BobbleBobble Registered User regular
    So what if it falls between 5-13?

    I don't think it can. My (possibly incorrect) understanding of the lottery is that you start with the 1-14 reverse order from the standings, and then the ping-pong balls are pulled for the top 4 picks (previously they only did the top 3). Once you've got your top four, you just fill in the teams that still have picks left based on the standings after that.

  • Raijin QuickfootRaijin Quickfoot I'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Bobble wrote: »
    So what if it falls between 5-13?

    I don't think it can. My (possibly incorrect) understanding of the lottery is that you start with the 1-14 reverse order from the standings, and then the ping-pong balls are pulled for the top 4 picks (previously they only did the top 3). Once you've got your top four, you just fill in the teams that still have picks left based on the standings after that.

    That's right! I forgot about that. They don't pick a number every team

    HEY SATAN! HERE'S MY WISHLIST! GO NUTS YOU DEVIL!

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/1JI9WWSRW1YJI
  • Goose!Goose! That's me, honey Show me the way home, honeyRegistered User regular


    God the Knicks are dumb. The star fucking thing has never worked. Nobody wants to play for Dolan.

    Nintendo Switch FC: SW-5618-5257-5789 | Amazon Smile List
    jkylefulton
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    LOL it would be such a Knicks thing to do, though.

    Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.
  • BobbleBobble Registered User regular
    If they knew Davis would sign an extension, it's a good move.

    If they know Davis would sign an extension and it would land them KD, it's a no-brainer.

    Then again, it's the Knicks. It's more likely they're just flying by the seat of their pants.

  • Goose!Goose! That's me, honey Show me the way home, honeyRegistered User regular
    Bobble wrote: »
    If they knew Davis would sign an extension, it's a good move.

    If they know Davis would sign an extension and it would land them KD, it's a no-brainer.

    Then again, it's the Knicks. It's more likely they're just flying by the seat of their pants.

    KD isn't coming, and nothing will convince me otherwise until they have an introductory press conference with him there (but they won't because he's not coming).

    They went and traded their best shot at being relevant any time soon and have clearly shown they're not interested in building a team up properly.

    Nintendo Switch FC: SW-5618-5257-5789 | Amazon Smile List
  • MaximumMaximum Registered User regular
    Take the once in a generation talent and build around him you gigantic dummies! Oh no, we can trade him for AD lol. Better off giving the pick to the Kings, at least they would do something funny with it.

    jkylefulton
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    anointing zion as a once in a generation talent already is a bit much.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    Potential once in a generation talent for a proven generational talent. A 1:1 trade wouldn't be that stupid in a vacuum, though the end result will of course look bad because whoever the Knicks end up with will get hurt or flame out.

    They should still probably just build around Zion if they get the pick, but it's not that dumb, IMO, unless they have some kind of ironclad knowledge that he's not going to extend with them.

  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    For a franchise like the Knicks, I think rooting for / hoping for a generational talent to develop would be better than trading that possibility away for Davis and then adding Kyrie or KD. I don't know that AD/KD or AD/Kyrie gets past a fully operational Giannis in the next few years (I'm assuming Giannis improves his three point shooting in the off season).

    tOkYVT2.jpg
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    Kasyn wrote: »
    burbo wrote: »
    Dhalphir wrote: »
    banked three pt gamewinners are the only ones I can think of that come anywhere close since by definition a banked three is just a miss that got lucky

    Banked threes aren't just any lucky miss either. They are wildly, wildly off target misses.

    Someone had like three of those on the Thunder in the blazer series, can't remember who though.

    I've always wondered how often players deliberately go for a bank shot, in those or other situations. Duncan is about the only player I can think of who I'd give the benefit of the doubt to.

    On a three, literally never, no matter what they might claim after the fact.

  • SirToastySirToasty Registered User regular
    If the Hornets somehow got the 1st pick I would be briefly excited but then would soon resign myself to the fact that Zion playing for the Hornets basically guarantees he's gonna bust. I think literally every other team he becomes a star.

    Alternatively, we pick first and draft Hachimura because we didn't work out anybody near the top. At which I point I will pass into the aether.

  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    I'll never understand the idea that you wouldn't trade a pick for a proven superstar in a 1:1 hypothetical.

    Zion Williamson may be a potential generational talent, but so is Anthony Davis and if you have the chance to trade an unproven generational talent for a proven one, you do it every time.

    Is the chance of Zion being 10% better than AD worth the substantial risk that he's 1000% worse? Players bust all the time.

    burboBobble
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    You're potentially trading that generational talent for one year of Anthony Davis. In seven seasons, AD has played more than 74 games twice.

    tOkYVT2.jpg
  • Goose!Goose! That's me, honey Show me the way home, honeyRegistered User regular
    Not only that, the potential talent is cheaper than the proven talent and you can afford to put better other pieces around them.

    Nintendo Switch FC: SW-5618-5257-5789 | Amazon Smile List
    jkylefultonBahamutZEROTrajan45
Sign In or Register to comment.