Gervin wants an asterisk on Klay's record quarter

[Dr.J4ever]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/george-gervin-wants-an-asterisk-on-klay-thompson-s-single-quarter-scoring-mark-033207475.html

Excerpt:

For instance, these two players should not be criticized for their relationship to the three-point shot when they are both products of their era. Gervin's scoring record came the season before the NBA instituted the three-point line, but he did play 11 seasons over his combined ABA and NBA career during which the shot was legal. Over that time, he 27.1 percent from beyond the arc (122-of-451), never making more than 32 in a season or three in a single game. Still, Gervin came of basketball age at a time when the three-point shot was not a particularly common weapon in the sport. By contrast, Thompson has only known a basketball culture that values the triple, to the point where he could tailor his career to his shooting skills from a very early age. In short, Gervin can bring up how the three aided Thompson if he wants, but that would be like criticizing Gervin for taking advantage of holes in '70s defensive strategy. Players learn strengths based on what they have experienced in hundreds of games.

Another:

What Gervin doesn't mention, but what David Thompson did in a 2013 article for NBA.com, is that Gervin scored his 63 points on 23-of-49 shooting from the floor, a solid but by no means incendiary mark of efficiency. In other words, his record was the product of a specific effort to beat Thompson. It could be said that Klay Thompson's performance on Friday came in the flow of the game and stands out as a seemingly random occurrence not dependent on chasing some other total. From that perspective, Klay's 37-point quarter is purer than that of the Iceman.

Agree or disagree?

[navy]

No asterisk, but yes context should be acknowledge when talking about records.

[UK2K]

He has a point.

And when the 4 point line comes into play, the players may not adjust immediately, but soon you'll have guys bombing from there too.

[CavaliersFTW]

lol, i love the "holes in defensive strategy" slight the journalist mentions.

What holes in strategy?" The game was played at the highest level possible in the NBA and yes even the ABA given the talent and rules of every era. If there's players exploiting a particular thing in a particular era it's because of rules and individual abilities not lack of strategy (be it defense or offense). Coaches and players knew X's and O's very well they weren't retarded, they probed for weaknesses on offense and patched them on defense, they knew how to best play the game.

[Magic731]

Who cares. He sounds salty that his record was broken. There is no asterisk. Klay did it completely within the rules, that's all there is to it. Is it as impressive as Gervin's effort? Maybe not but that's not the point. Klay has the record and I assume he will for a long time.

[G0ATbe]

:kobe: Klays era>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gervins era.

If anything Gervins record should have had an asterisk.

[niko]

He was joking.

[Kblaze8855]

Gervin wasnt gonna be shooting threes anyway. A guy like Pistol Pete has a bigger case for a thing like this. You can see he had 3 point range. Only took 15 in his career and made 10. Only played like 40 games with the line.

Anyway...im sure the 3 lets guys who are streaky pile up points faster...but it also created a generation of people who settle for shots they tend to miss so often their games dont develop in ways that let them get a good shot under durress.

Plus you have athletic gods like Rose, Westbrook, and Baron Davis just pull up for 4-5 threes in a half at times as if they didnt notice they can blow past everyone who ever guarded them.

How many otherwise layups or made pullup jumpers have been thrown away....and the points from possible FTs...by potentially great slashers taking shots anyone can get?

Russell Westbrook in the 80s west where he might just take 50 threes all year and run out on every break?

Russell might have put up 32/8/6 one of those years.

Imagine Russell vs the Nuggets trying to put up 120. Or the later Nuggets who gave up 130 a game? Warriors giving up 120?

The Nuggets gave up 194 points one preseason game.

They gave up 112 points one half.

The Suns gave them 186 the next night.

First 7 games of the season they allowed 160+ three times. In 7 games. They allowed 173 to the Suns who gave them 107 in the first half.

They played a game vs the Warriors where...and im 100% serious...there were almost 200 fast break points between the teams. Final score was like 160-155. In regulation.

Put Westbrook in that conference without him growing up shooting threes....

An all out attacking Westbrook vs teams that dont mind letting you run even on made baskets?

He might have a 30 point quarter himself.

[SugarHill]

:kobe: Klays era>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gervins era.

If anything Gervins record should have had an asterisk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb9HcOHXRzw

7:20 - 8:50

:lol

laz/cavs check it out

[Breezy]

I have a question. How many of Gervin's 33 came at the free throw line?

However even if it is Zero, Klay Still had a more impressive quarter. Hitting 9 3's in a row and going 13 for 13 is (even considering era's) a greater feat.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Then I want an asterisk next to any blocks/rebounds accumulated before the 3 point line was introduced.

[CavaliersFTW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb9HcOHXRzw

7:20 - 8:50

:lol

laz/cavs check it out
9:00

"I guarantee you a thousand years ago almost everybody raped. You know like really primitive man."

C'mon those guys are clueless who gives a shit what they think about Wilt Chamberlain :oldlol:

[SugarHill]

9:00

"I guarantee you a thousand years ago almost everybody raped. You know like really primitive man."

C'mon those guys are clueless who gives a shit what they think about Wilt Chamberlain :oldlol:
They're stand up comedians. They're not serious lol

[CavaliersFTW]

They're stand up comedians. They're not serious lol
Literally they sounded like they post on ISH though :lol

[comerb]

I don't think they even played defense in the 70s

[They Won]

What a baby.

[3ball]

He has a point.

And when the 4 point line comes into play, the players may not adjust immediately, but soon you'll have guys bombing from there too.


indeed.. emailed this to the author, Mr. Freeman - a mish-mash of ISH posts... he almost certainly won't read past the first couple paragraphs, but you never know:


Dear Eric Freeman,

In your article, you mentioned that there were "holes" in the 70's defenses, but offered no specifics on this - you stated your subjective opinion with no backup, which is along the lines of what you semi-criticized Gervin for doing.

Do you realize that today's defensive strategies were only developed to combat spacing, and are not applicable to no-spacing environments when the 3-point shot wasn't used? 27% of all shot attempts today are 3-pointers, which forces defenders to cover more ground and a larger surface area. Naturally, they need additional strategy to do it - but the additional strategy only allows today's defenses to maintain the same level of effectiveness as previous era defenses who didn't have to guard 3-pointers.

In addition to combating the spacing, today's defensive strategies were specifically conceived to combat the new rules introduced in 2001 (implemented in 2005), which included a new defensive 3 seconds rule... The new rule required defenders to remain within "armslength" of their man to stay in the paint, which amounts to a very strict brand of man-to-man - essentially, today's defenses allow zone anywhere on the floor, except the most important area, the paint... Here is a link to an NBA.com webpage that explains the "armslength" rule... http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html

A man's arm is 3 feet long, so today's defenders must stay within 3 feet of their man at all times while inside the paint. Since the paint is a massive 16 feet by 19 feet, defenders must literally cling to their man even when their man is already inside the paint. Hug your man, or get out of the paint - those are today's rules. The armslength requirement is why today's defenders must tippy-toe in and out of the paint. They can't just stand there like previous eras.

Contrastingly, defenders in previous eras didn't have to be within armslength of their man to stay in the lane... They could be well out of armslength reach, which is the very definition of a zone... Specifically, the NBA rulebook stated that defenders could stay in the lane as long as their man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=363929.

Technically, since the paint is 16 feet wide, defenders in previous eras could be 19 feet away from their man and still remain in the paint (as long as they weren't violating other rules by doing so, namely becoming a 2nd defender on someone who doesn't have the ball). The 3 feet distance outside the paint on both sides was denoted by mere hash marks on the baseline. Accordingly, referees were understandably lax enforcing the rule, which is why defenders frequently camped in the paint while their man was behind the 3-point line: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10695139&postcount=1

(these GIF's aren't cherry-picked - severe paint-camping happened on every play back then, so they were easy to find.. I just picked a random highlight video and found 10 plays very easily - the only purpose of the GIF's is to demonstrate the concept for people who aren't already aware that it happened routinely).

Keep in mind that when a defense can camp in the lane, they don't have to move when the ball is swung - they can just turn their head and body like a swivel chair while remaining stationary - this is stark contrast to today's game, where players must move from outside the paint on one side, to outside the paint on the other side, every time the ball is swung.

Ultimately, today's strategies merely ensure that defensive effectiveness doesn't fall off and remains the same as previous eras when defenders didn't guard the 3-point line and could camp in the paint. After all, does it LOOK like a strong-side flood is needed here?... http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=365647... That would be like telling a girl with massive double FF's that she needs a boob job. Today's defensive strategies only became necessary to combat the new rules, the 3-point shot, and the subsequent advent of spacing and spacing strategy. Intuitively, in the absence of the rule changes or spacing, the strategies aren't needed.

Regarding Gervin vs. Klay - I suppose it depends what you prefer and respect - personally, I respect the more diverse offensive skill it takes to score 33 points on all two-pointers, since it requires players to create a much higher proportion of their own shots. Contrastingly, hitting 9 three-pointers requires a simpler skill set and amounts to play-finishing from getting assisted. It's not even close for me - and some of those guys back then managed 60% TS on all two-pointers. That's just an amazing display of true basketball skill.

Keep in mind that the topic of physicality hasn't been broached yet, and how the NBA banned physicality as part of the rule changes (hand-checking, bumping cutters, etc.). Today's defensive strategies were designed to compensate for this too.

However, many NBA personnel, media and fans are not fully aware of how the stylistic changes (3-pointers, spacing) and regulatory changes (defensive 3 seconds, physicality ban) have actually impacted the game. Some people are aware though, such as GM Daryl Morey, who said "A lot of defensive strategies you see now are a natural evolution from rule changes." http://www.quotetimes.com/people/51429/daryl-morey

Of course, the NBA commissioner and the very people that instituted the new rules certainly know why they did it - and they say defensive 3 seconds was meant to "open up the game" as it states in the Rules History section on the NBA.com website, under 2001 rules: http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

Here's Stu Jackson talking about why the new rules were initiated: "All changes were passed with the idea of trying to encourage more free-flowing five-man offenses, open up the lanes for cutting and passing and speed up the game by encouraging teams to get into their offenses quicker." Essentially, the new rules made offense easier, and defense harder (i.e. not getting to swivel chair anymore when the ball is swung). The link to Stu's comments is below.

Stu Jackson also says the physicality ban was meant to make penetration easier and increase the quality of shots: "Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble-penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler..."http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html

The physicality ban that Stu said was meant to make penetration easier, worked in concert with the spacing and defensive 3 seconds to make penetration AUTOMATIC in today's game - penetration is essentially built into the game. The best and smartest teams (Spurs) initiate every single offensive possession with some sort of action going to the basket - they take advantage of the stylistic and regulatory environment that favors penetration better than any team.
.

[SugarHill]

You emailed what? lol

[navy]

You emailed what? lol
That nikka crazy :roll:

[Dr.J4ever]

He may just read 3ball's entire email. Eric Freeman seems to be a basketball historian of sorts. He contributed to the well respected "Ultimate Guide to Pro basketball History". Here's the way he describes himself:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Hey-everyone-it-s-Eric-Freeman?urn=nba-284638

"I’ve been a part of the basketball blogoworld for almost 3 1/2 years. Most of my time has been spent at FreeDarko, where I’ve written on everything from dinosaurs to NBA Jam. I also contributed to the site’s newly published "Undisputed Guide to Pro Basketball History," which you may have seen mentioned on this fair blog before. Up until mid-August, I was also the lead writer at SportingNews.com’s now-defunct The Baseline. Once upon a time, I even wrote for FanHouse under the pseudonym “Ty Keenan.” So I’ve been around the cyber block.

Even so, you probably still want to know my biases before we get this going. Let’s be honest: All writers have them -- even if they say they don’t -- and it’s best if we get everything on the table early. For instance, I’m a Warriors fan, so you don’t have to worry about my playing favorites come playoff time.

There’s a lot more, though. I’m a huge fan of the Lakers and Celtics. You can bet that when I give one team credit I’m damning the other, and vice-versa. The same goes for Kobe Bryant
and LeBron James

. Count the rings! Except if you’re the Chosen One!

Let’s get down to brass tacks. I love basketball, particularly when it unleashes all its bizarre fury. I’m interested in every crossover between the sport and other parts of the domestic and international world. I think Ron Artest’s
post-championship interviews are among the best moments in league history. All my favorite players in history are small guards who can’t shoot, like Rajon Rondo, because they have to attack the rim at every opportunity. This is where cra-mazing happens, and that’s what the NBA is all about."

[Dr.J4ever]

Here's the reviews and press on the book, "Ultimate Guide to Pro basketball History" where Eriv Freeman contributed.


The New York Times

“Baseball has its numbers and football has its hard hits, but basketball, more than those sports, has style. And no one has done more to try to capture that than the collection of bloggers known as Freedarko."
Full Interview

line
Sports Illustrated

“To say that they've written one of the most enlightening books on the game's evolution (which they have) is to miss the point. The books isn't intended solely to educate; it's also meant to entertain, and to that end it suceeds wildly."
Full Review — Page Scan

line
The New Yorker

"'The Undisputed Guide' brings this kind of endearing obsessiveness to bear on the history of the game, from the barnstorming era to the ultmate formation of a single league, and to the personalities that range from Mikan to Magic to Shaq."
Full Review

line
New York Magazine

"FreeDarko isn't standing outside the mainstream of basketball discussion: It's driving it ... This is a history of basketball told straight, but smartly, with wit and detail and undeniable affection....Any NBA fan can read this: It's not for grad students and stoners and revisionists; it's for everyone ... We are now living in a FreeDarko world. Hail, hail."
Full Review

line

The Run of Play

"This is a history of basketball written with a degree of conceptual complexity that’s just about unique in the canon of the sport. But it’s also an inviting, accessible narrative that doesn’t have to be praised in terms of baroque sociology... It’s also, and by some distance, the prettiest sports book I’ve ever seen... It’s like a McSweeney’s you don’t have to pet."
Full Review

line

The Portland Mercury

"The book is an essential guide to the NBA as seen through the eyes of brilliant outsiders—writers, statisticians, and illustrators—unwilling to describe the contents of the game in the typical language of the sports section. If you are watching basketball without the guidance of FreeDarko, you are simply doing it wrong."
Full Review

line

Maxim

“A highly graphic look at both well-and lesser-known moments in the pro game’s past, written by the sport’s most entertaining bloggers. Get infotained with illustrated awesomeness.”

[Dr.J4ever]

Not saying I agree with everything Freeman said, but I would give it significant weight just as Free Darko and that book is well respected amongst the big boys.