Author Topic: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable (Read 41238 times)

Mikey · « **Reply #15 on:** October 07, 2017, 05:51:51 pm »

Quote from: adarqui on October 07, 2017, 02:46:25 pm

Quote from: fast does lie on October 07, 2017, 02:41:04 pm
exactly, it's more complicated than a specific trait.... brb going to go train....

if it's more complicated than a specific trait or traits, then you're basically agreeing that it's more complicated than genetics, which would mean you're starting to agree more with me that culture & training are probably more important.

have a good session.

Agreed.

When I was looking up Mugsby Bogues (he was before my time) I came across this article about the rapper Master P almost making the NBA at 31.
http://www.complex.com/sports/2015/08/master-p-nba-career-oral-history

"Culled from interviews with over a dozen former colleagues, coaches, and executives, here is the scouting report on Percy Miller: Master P could shoot. He could spot-up or shoot off the dribble. If a defender went under a screen or rotated off him to double-team the post, P could hit the open jumper. He didn’t have the quickest release, and his range was limited to 20 feet with a hand in his face, but he could shoot. He had adequate ball-handling skills, a decent handle. When driving to the hoop, he didn’t rely on athleticism. He had a sneaky old-man game similar to Andre Miller, a mix of guile and pump fakes that allowed him to get his shot off. He was a big guy—a sturdy 6’3”—who knew how to use his body. He was also fit and had surprising strength and stamina. Above all, P was a great competitor who played with confidence—he was far from humble. Master P believed he belonged in the NBA.

As for his weaknesses, P lacked explosiveness. He was a good athlete, he just wasn’t an NBA athlete. For all his craftiness, finishing at the rim was a challenge. He wasn’t dunking on anybody. He was also slow for a guard, which led to trouble on defense; you can’t hide on that end of the floor in the NBA. More than anything, he lacked fundamentals, the result of playing mostly pick-up ball in recent years. He struggled reading screens, and coming off screens. He didn’t understand proper spacing or how to find the right shot on offense—little things that seem inconsequential but are foundations of the game".

Mikey · « **Reply #16 on:** October 07, 2017, 07:11:20 pm »

Quote from: fast does lie on October 07, 2017, 06:46:59 pm

Quote from: Mutumbo000 on October 07, 2017, 05:51:51 pm
Quote from: adarqui on October 07, 2017, 02:46:25 pm
Quote from: fast does lie on October 07, 2017, 02:41:04 pm
exactly, it's more complicated than a specific trait.... brb going to go train....

if it's more complicated than a specific trait or traits, then you're basically agreeing that it's more complicated than genetics, which would mean you're starting to agree more with me that culture & training are probably more important.

have a good session.

Agreed.

When I was looking up Mugsby Bogues (he was before my time) I came across this article about the rapper Master P almost making the NBA at 31.
http://www.complex.com/sports/2015/08/master-p-nba-career-oral-history

"Culled from interviews with over a dozen former colleagues, coaches, and executives, here is the scouting report on Percy Miller: Master P could shoot. He could spot-up or shoot off the dribble. If a defender went under a screen or rotated off him to double-team the post, P could hit the open jumper. He didn’t have the quickest release, and his range was limited to 20 feet with a hand in his face, but he could shoot. He had adequate ball-handling skills, a decent handle. When driving to the hoop, he didn’t rely on athleticism. He had a sneaky old-man game similar to Andre Miller, a mix of guile and pump fakes that allowed him to get his shot off. He was a big guy—a sturdy 6’3”—who knew how to use his body. He was also fit and had surprising strength and stamina. Above all, P was a great competitor who played with confidence—he was far from humble. Master P believed he belonged in the NBA.

As for his weaknesses, P lacked explosiveness. He was a good athlete, he just wasn’t an NBA athlete. For all his craftiness, finishing at the rim was a challenge. He wasn’t dunking on anybody. He was also slow for a guard, which led to trouble on defense; you can’t hide on that end of the floor in the NBA. More than anything, he lacked fundamentals, the result of playing mostly pick-up ball in recent years. He struggled reading screens, and coming off screens. He didn’t understand proper spacing or how to find the right shot on offense—little things that seem inconsequential but are foundations of the game".

Lol, at least Master P even got a chance to be analyzed by NBA scouts. There are probably thousands of players that are better than Master P, have much better bball resume, experience, the whole 9 yards, that scouts wouldn't even look bother looking at.

Fame and publicity can get you pretty far.

Exactly the NBA is a business at the end of the day so anything that can boost their publicity and draw more attention to their product will get a look in.

From all reports Mugsy Bogues was an incredible athlete especially with his speed and agility. I still think he'd be a defensive liability though simply for the fact that taller PG's could shoot over him all day due to superior length. If he only played a season in the NBA I'd say it was a publicity stunt but he had a good career so it would be unfair to write him off like that.

Mikey · « **Reply #17 on:** October 07, 2017, 07:18:15 pm »

Quote from: fast does lie on October 07, 2017, 06:30:57 pm

Yes, but all of the specific traits working in unison gives one an advantage in the game of basketball.

It all depends though. If my team had Shaq, Anthony Davis, and Kevin Durant, the need for say a Karl Anthony Towns is greatly diminished. The need for a Jeremy Lin is much higher now, even though Karl Anthony Towns is a much bigger assett than Jeremy Lin (KAT can shoot anywhere from point blank to deep 3s with accuracy and almost led the league in points in the paint, he also won the NBA skills challenge as a 7fter)

All else being equal height is always an advantage for basketball. 2 players same skill, same shooting %, same style one is 5'11 the other is 6'4 teams will always pick the 6'4 guy all day. It's just the way it is. Like in that video I posted before people use Steph Curry as an example of someone with amazing skill and not the greatest athleticism but he's still a great athlete maybe just not compared to other NBA athletes and he is still 6'3, which is hardly 'short'.

Mikey · « **Reply #18 on:** October 07, 2017, 07:41:53 pm »

Quote from: adarqui on October 07, 2017, 08:58:53 am

Quote from: Mutumbo000 on October 07, 2017, 08:46:18 am
Of course basketball is a skill based sport but someone that is 7'0 tall will always have a huge advantage over someone that is 5'6 predominantly on the fact that there are a lot less 70 people on the planet than 5'6 people.

right but you also said:

Quote
The only sports where training>genetics are skill based sports like golf, tennis etc. imo

so someone 5'6 from the philipines should be able to get into the league if he has Mugsy Bogues like skill, no?

again I think throwing genetics into all of this, causes everything to get murky. Sure being taller gives you a better chance of doing something in basketball, it's most often an advantage in a "taller sport". There's also plenty of incredible goofy uncoordinated people who probably wish they were a bit shorter too, that couldn't do anything in basketball, i've seen plenty of them growing up.

fixed:

Quote
The only sports where training>genetics are skill based sports like golf, tennis, basketball, futbol, cricket, hockey, baseball, rugby, ping pong, etc. imo

for all of those sports, training > genetics, but some genetic factors do provide advantages / disadvantages, but it's not a given.

peace

I largely agree. You need to train to take advantage of the genetics in the first place.

We might agree to disagree but I still believe that 80% of champions are born and not made. Take rugby. With rugby it does take skill but another huge factor is size and that's a major contributor as to why rugby is increasingly becoming dominated by Polynesians who make up a huge presence in professional leagues. Obviously there's also cultural aspects to it as well but having natural size and power is a huge advantage in the sport. Personally I just don't have the frame or the genetics to be big naturally and while fairly fast I don't have the speed to be elite and make up for my shortcomings in size. Now people would say but you don't eat properly or train properly etc. but the fact is even at 26 years old now I have friends that were the same size as me when they were 14!!!

Mikey · « **Reply #19 on:** October 07, 2017, 09:52:20 pm »

Quote from: fast does lie on October 07, 2017, 09:32:18 pm

Quote
With rugby it does take skill but another huge factor is size and that's a major contributor as to why rugby is increasingly becoming dominated by Polynesians who make up a huge presence in professional leagues.

I wonder how the genetic trait was able to be passed on with the Samoans.... cause many other Islanders who don't have that trait, like the Philippines, or japan ,etc.

Its not just Samoans it's Tongans, Cook Islanders and to a lesser extent Maoris. I know there are plenty of massive Maoris but imo Maoris tend to be smaller than Islanders. My partner is from the Cook Islands so hopefully my son inherits her genetics (I'm 5'11 and my girlfriend is 5'9 so my son should theoretically end up being at least 6'1)

I'm not sure why they are so big when I ask them they joke about eating Taro (it's a vegetable similar to a potato and tastes very bland).

Searching on google I found this:

"Pacific islanders are a surprisingly new group of people, but they are a very separate ethnic group to east-Asian peoples like Malays or Filipinos. Originally they lived on what is now Taiwan, and for some reason, around about 1000 BC, these Taiwanese aborigines left Asia and headed to Polynesia. If you've seen a map, you can see how far New Zealand is from China, and so the journey was insanely perilous. Sailing across the enormous pacific was considered dangerous to the rest of the world even when we were cruising across it in steamers and frigates, so the fact that these aborigines managed to get to Polynesia at all is fairly amazing. As such, its likely that only very strong, hardy people were able to make it to their new homes in the pacific. Furthermore, after arriving at their new homes (as late as 1300 AD in the case of New Zealand) most pacific islanders continued living tribal lifestyles which required great strength".

Mikey · « **Reply #20 on:** October 07, 2017, 09:58:01 pm »

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270288637_Body_composition_characteristics_of_elite_Australian_rugby_union_athletes_according_to_playing_position_and_ethnicity#pfa

“Polynesians are predisposed to possess physical characteristics potentially beneficial to rugby union performance”. They are heavier, have more muscular limbs and smaller proportions of body fat, and can produce “greater force in explosive movements” than players of other ethnicities. This combination of impact and agility has also been useful in other sports. A number of Tongans and Samoans have played in the National Football League, including Super Bowl winners Troy Polamalu and Haloti Ngata. One of the world’s most famous wrestlers, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, has a Samoan mother.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaFdvrILYPc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaFdvrILYPc</a>

Adarq.org

News:

Author Topic: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable (Read 41238 times)

Mikey

Re: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable

Mikey

Re: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable

Mikey

Re: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable

Mikey

Re: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable

Mikey

Re: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable

Mikey

Re: Double EastBay on 10ft rim is definitely Doable