blackjack, math and basketball
my poison of choice while going against the house is blackjack (though apparently i am supposed to be genetically inclined to baccarat). perfect strategy in blackjack is 'boring'. mathematically, every hand has an optimum statistical outcome, so it's rather an automatic game - not inclusive of counting of course. to most people much of the
( Read more... )
how can you say that quitting on your team doesn't lead to bad basketball decision? it is by definition, they cannot be mutually exclusive. if you mentally check out, decide that you don't want to hustle or shoot or pass the ball - that's bad basketball.
those two examples support what i say as well. the three pointers were taken when he was open and i would hazard that he's a better % shooter when open. the signature move against the lakers? the reason why he changed hands is because he believed he was going to be blocked, you know that. he was thinking about it and made the right basketball decision.
jordan wasn't the best decision maker on court, i never said he was, but he was/is definitely better than kobe and it is a big reason why one is the goat and the other isn't. for the eye test, when push came to shove, jordan would pass the ball to the open man. kobe rarely does that which is why many laker highlights are off his missed shots (which does have value since he's double or triple teamed, but not good basketball).
the game didn't change. they didn't add a four point line :) they removed handchecking, allowed a weak zone defense, that's how it changed. the blueprint was the same in the jordan era. jordan didn't win alone, he had a team with him, and if anything this is another reason why he's the goat. he lost in the playoffs over and over to better teams but not better individual than him early in his career. then the switch flipped.
i've been waiting for that switch to flip in kobe's game for years. his game never changed in that regard, even when he won without shaq, they simply got better talent.
Reply
As for the open threes, I (and I think most coaches) will argue that even if Jordan was open for a three, as long as there is time on the shot clock, he should have attacked the basket. He shot .270 from behind the arc, and while he was not terrible, he was never known as a three point shooter. Good basketball decisions tend to be the aggressive one -- attacking the basket and either 1) scoring, 2) drawing a foul, or 3) kicking out for the corner trey (shortest distance to the basket and the signature Spurs move).
As for his move against the Lakers, please check this clip (the play starts at the 4m30s mark),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBseRlgoSLc
Please tell me who was going to block him?
The switch never really flipped for him. He still took his fair share of bad shots, but he made them. He never really evolved to the team player that you claim he was, at least in my opinion.
If you don't think the game changed, then why is the post-Jordan era generally regarded as the worst modern NBA era (until the current batch of superstars started maturing)? Players like Allen Iverson were tolerated because GMs thought they could replicate the Jordan model.
Jordan was unique, Jordan was arguably the greatest, but let's not make him what he was not -- a team player with great basketball IQ.
Ok, I'm done with this argument. Neither of us is ever going to change our minds on this issue.
Reply
Leave a comment