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.
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
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
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.
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.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2019
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
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.
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.
0
Options
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
One of the more intriguing draft lotteries in awhile.
+1
Options
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
Excited for the Knicks to find out they pick 5th and the Mavericks pick 1st
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.
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.
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.
0
Options
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
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
0
Options
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
anointing zion as a once in a generation talent already is a bit much.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
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.
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).
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
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.
Posts
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.
playoffs bring out the armchair analysts/managers/coaches/refs every year
Hi
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.
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
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.
Whose lottery pick do they have?
Sacramento's... kind of: 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.
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.
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
God the Knicks are dumb. The star fucking thing has never worked. Nobody wants to play for Dolan.
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.
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.
On a three, literally never, no matter what they might claim after the fact.
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.
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.