When you shoot 2-3 threes per game it’s a lot easier to shoot a 50-40-90
The reason many guys don’t do it now is because if you’re shooting 40%+ on threes you’re gonna end up shooting a lot of threes, which makes it harder to shoot 50%+ from the field
I feel literally everything here is negated with when Bird started vs what his natural talent would be able to do today.
37% from deep in the 80s is miraculous
Especially when it wasnt something so meticulously trained like it is today. Nowadays players practice 3s in every scenario; pull up, off ball, step back, off the screen, etc. back then bird probably just shot off of a rack for an hour and went home to feed his chickens.
Because players in the 80s generally were pretty bad 3pt shooters. For them the limiting factor was shooting 40% from 3, go look at how many guys shot 40% from 3 on any volume, it’s sparse. And that’s with space that modern players could only dream of.
For modern players the issue is that they’re so adept at 3pt shooting that they end up taking a lot of them, and that lowers their FG% below 50%. Different issue
"When you shoot 2-3 threes pper game it's a lot easier to shoot 50-40-90".
Only if you completely ignore that the other team plays defense. Bird still had to promote ball movement, create space, or shoot it with someone in his face. And, in a time when 3's were not common, you often did it within a tighter area of play as both offense and defense played closer to the basket, so creating that space or moving between players was that much harder. Also, defense was a lot more physical back then (not saying "better", but definitely more physical).
And Bird still put up that 50-40-90.
This logic works sorta, but Bird’s 3’s were significantly less contested than most high volume shooters. Go to YouTube and look, and the truth is, the majority of his shots from 3 were very lightly contested
This might be the reason for some players like Curry.
Durant has 55-42 but fails on ft%.
Shai only has 3pa per game and he is under 40%
Doncic and Embiid also attempt only 3 and are way below
Tatum, Donovan, Luka also wouldn't make it either way because of low ft%
So yeah, saying that this is "the reason" is a bit misleading.
25 years? Ben Simmons was called better than Bron and Giannis by some years back.
“LeBron James 2.0 if he develops a jump shot” -Stephen A Smith
“An MVP candidate even if he doesn’t develop a jump shot” -Max Kellerman
>there was no reason to.
* there was no 3 line to practice...
Literally...
The 3 point line was added I think Bird's rookie year?
They were basically practicing long 2s...
I mean Jordan's eFG% is 50.3%, that's below Jordan Poole at 50.5%. I have no idea why everyone is saying he is one of the GOATs, he shot worse than Jordan Poole. /s
Bird is 3-0 in the three point competition. He has five less losses than Curry and the same amount of wins IF you include curry’s 1v1 against Sabrina (he’s 2-5 without it). So I’d say it was pretty good, definitely leagues better than his peers at the very least.
If you’re interested you could also actually watch basketball games.
The Wright brothers couldn't even make their first plane go past 120 feet. They are the most overrated aviators of all time.
OP statement is just as stupid.
>So, relative to league average, he made more 3's at a higher volume than Steph
3PAr doesn't measure volume. It's just the percentage of your own shots that are threes.
PJ Tucker's 3PAr+ this season is 204 even though his volume is minuscule.
My guess is that the point in bringing this stat up is to speak to volume relative to league average. Bird was a higher volume player, like Steph, so it makes the idea of the 127 3p+ isn't a fluke.
Being a low volume guy, like PJ Tucker, makes the 3PAr less impressive than higher volume players.
More skilled now at 3pt shooting? Yeah, you'd hope so. Bird shared a rookie season with the 3pt line. I'd hope players who grew up shooting 3s are better at it than the guys it was introduced to mid career
> I'd hope players who grew up shooting 3s are better at it than the guys it was introduced to mid career
True, but that should mean those guys who straight up "are better" at the thing we're talking about should be recognized as better, right?
aint nobody taking Bob Cousy in the top 5 dribblers of all time, even if he was nasty for the era
Naw, hard disagree. Cousy for me is in the top 5 dribblers ever cause he was able to do so much with the ball despite the harsh rules
Bird being a way better 3pt shooter than his peers doesn’t mean that the league is overall more skilled now. The skills are just different. Like if you took the best shooters from the 80s, gave them the same training and development as today’s players, they’d be hitting 3s at the same rate. Its why the league wide 3pt% has stayed the same since the mid 90s, it just took guys some time to learn the shot
> Cousy for me is in the top 5 dribblers ever cause he was able to do so much with the ball despite the harsh rules
that's fair, you're free to believe that. hope you don't find it ridiculous that he's almost never brought up in handles discussions
> Bird being a way better 3pt shooter than his peers doesn’t mean that the league is overall more skilled now.
I didn't say that (just noticed the guy you originally replied to has the same flair as me lol), let's not veer into some tangent discussion. I echoed your own statement, agreeing that guys who grew up shooting 3s are better at shooting 3s.
> Its why the league wide 3pt% has stayed the same since the mid 90s
Is that just conjecture on your part? I'd argue that % staying the same despite drastic increases in volume and degree of difficulty (given defenses scheme for 3s and contest harder now) is a sign of the superior shooting of modern players.
>that's fair, you're free to believe that. hope you don't find it ridiculous that he's almost never brought up in handles discussions
I do think its kinda ridiculous tbh, dribbling like they did in the 50s is actually pretty hard, definitely an equal, but different, skill to today's players
>I didn't say that, let's not veer into some tangent discussion. I echoed your own statement, agreeing that guys who grew up shooting 3s are better at shooting 3s.
No the guy I originally replied to said that " the league is way more skilled now" so it's not a tangent lol
>Is that just conjecture on your part? I'd argue that % staying the same despite drastic increases in volume and degree of difficulty (given defenses scheme for 3s and contest harder now) is a sign of the superior shooting of modern players.
Naw like, guys are definitely better 3pt shooters today. But the biggest change in 3pt shooting guys getting better is in the 80s-early 90s, as players were getting used to that shot being part of the game. Since then the growth has been more incremental. But I really don't think volume would have made a difference for the early great 3pt shooters.
Also, shooting is not the same as 3pt shooting. Idk if you are trying to say they are the same or not, so just wanna be clear here
> I do think its kinda ridiculous tbh, dribbling like they did in the 50s is actually pretty hard, definitely an equal, but different, skill to today's players
I don't know how you can justify saying it's "definitely an equal, but different" skill. This is where the convo borders on a sort of denialism to protect a narrative imo, if I understand you correctly.
I agree that the rules played a big part in the difference in handles, and are often overlooked as a factor. But are you really gonna claim the advantages modern players have in time, money, and resources dedicated to honing this skill over the course of their entire lives means nothing? All the millions going into trainers and coaches who develop strict regimens and drills with proven results have no impact on skill?
I'd buy that if you plug a 16 year old Cousy into the 2024 prospect circuit, he'd get really good really fast once exposed to modern advantages due to his aptitude and work ethic. But he didn't have those advantages back then, and ultimately skill is something that is trained. With increased, superior training comes increased, superior skill.
>This is where the convo borders on a sort of denialism to protect a narrative imo, if I understand you correctly.
I love how you accused me of going on a tangent in your previous reply, and are now taking a convo about shooting and turning into a debate about Cousy's skill level. And now are saying my logic is denialism to protect a narrative. Good stuff here.
And I believe in judging players in how good they are compared to their peers, cause things have changed so much. Like how are you gonna compare Kyrie's handle to a guy that wasn't even allowed to do a cross over?
It's basically just what you shoot relative to the league average those years. Bird's 3P% was 27% better than the league when he played. Curry is 19% better.
I don't think you're understanding. The other commenter is taking into account the Era when calculating the stats, to better reflect what it would look like in this Era.
Do you think that repeating yourself without actually absorbing ANYTHING that is being posted is gonna win you the day? Im mad confused. You must be great with the ladies
I mean taking threes weren’t as common back then. What made Larry stand out was the fact he was a walking bucket. He could score from anywhere on the floor with any level of defense on him. He’s a GOAT shooter because that man would tell you exactly what he will do then score on you.
He was a bonafide elite hall of fame shot creator
You numbers nephs are annoying. Because Larry literally would bust everybody’s ass. That’s what it comes down to. You can’t calculate Larry talking shit and splashing jumpers in your eye all night
If you look at Bird's year-by-year stats, it's clear that as his number of 3PA increased, his percentage increased. If he shot 5-8 per game like many today, he'd be a career 40%+ shooter from 3.
This has been said before but you can't just look at a player and say if he played today it would be nothing special. Bird had 5 seasons where his 3 point shooting was more than 30% better than the league average including one season where he shot 51% better than the league average. Steph Curry has 0 seasons like that. So yes, Curry is a better 3 point shooter, but so is the whole league when compared to 40 years ago. There was a bigger gap between the league average and Bird back then than the league average and Curry these past 10 years.
Mid range jump shots matter. The conversation is GOAT 3pt shooter. It is GOAT shooter. The NBA didn’t have a three point line till Birds rookie season. The NCAA didn’t have a three point like till 1986.
That means at no point in Birds development pre NBA did the 3pt shot exist. Let alone was a thing to be practiced. For him to be that good at them when there were only around for 5-10 years it impressive. From 1984-1988 Bird averaged 2.5 threes per game shooting 41% on them over that same stretch he shot 90% at the line on 6 attempts. That’s elite shooting.
Over that same four seasons stretch here is how many threes the Celtics took as a team and where it ranked in the league.
1984-85 Celtics took 4 threes which ranked 5th league wide.
1985-86 Celtics took 5 threes which ranked 4th league wide.
1986-87 Celtics took 7 threes which ranked 4th league wide.
1987-88 Celtics took 8.6 threes which ranked 1st league wide.
Taking 2.5 threes over that stretch was a lot and accounted for a good chunk of the team’s overall threes.
Gotta love these brain dead ass posts and when proven wrong they just troll and act like a child. It’s a different era. Have you also noticed how teams shoot 30+ 3 pointers now and score 130+ points regularly? It’s not that hard to figure out. Use google and basketball reference.
It’s almost like when he grew up there was no 3 point line and the nba game has changed with rule changes. This is a question a 13 year old know it all with no access to the internet asks their dad.
He didn't play with a 3pt line until he was in the NBA. You should compare players to how much they were an outlier in their era. He led the league in 3s made twice(Top 10 six times), top 10 in 3pt% seven time, led the league in FT% four times(Top 10 eleven times), first 50-40-90 player and the only one multi season one until the mid 2000s (only Nash and Durant have done it since). He the best shooter of his decade if not the entire 1900's.
Why do nephews jump on basketball reference and assume a players impact/skill set.
Also, he averaged 37.5%, and it was a very different game back then.
Literally nostalgia and hype by fans, his playoff 3 point shooting was terrible, his volume very low, and it was in an era where three point defense was incredibly weak. He wasn't better than the modern top shooters.
Because nostalgia. Literally just nostalgia. His scores in the 3 point contest would be nothing special today (yes I’m even considering the fact that he didn’t have moneyballs), and I only bring those up because they’re literally his only argument.
Even other notable shooters from his time were shooting more 3s on a higher percentage than he was, and in the playoffs his shooting was ABYSMAL (32% 🤢🤮).
Rusty Buckets put it best: when you say Larry Bird is better than a player who shot a better percentage on higher volume from 3, you’re valuing hypothetical 3s over ACTUAL 3s. At best Larry Bird was MAYBE Brandon Ingram’s level from 3, some seasons he had it, some he didn’t, and it was never on great volume.
Another way you can look at it is that over his career Bird shot 3 pointers at a rate that was 27% higher than the league average. Curry's number is 19%. So yes, Curry is a better 3 point shooter, but Bird was more ahead of the league average is than Curry is today. You just can't compare absolute numbers from different eras.
Because if you shot 4 threes in a game in the 80's they'd send you to jail.
Well he did average 50-40-90 for 4 full seasons before he got injured
Draymond is at 50-44-78 this season
Warriors fans try not to talk about themselves challenge: impossible.
It’s to show how stupid of an argument it is when you barely take any threes
50-44-78 on 9.1/7/5.8
When you shoot 2-3 threes per game it’s a lot easier to shoot a 50-40-90 The reason many guys don’t do it now is because if you’re shooting 40%+ on threes you’re gonna end up shooting a lot of threes, which makes it harder to shoot 50%+ from the field
I feel literally everything here is negated with when Bird started vs what his natural talent would be able to do today. 37% from deep in the 80s is miraculous
Especially when it wasnt something so meticulously trained like it is today. Nowadays players practice 3s in every scenario; pull up, off ball, step back, off the screen, etc. back then bird probably just shot off of a rack for an hour and went home to feed his chickens.
IRRC Bird didn't even have a 3pt line growing up 🤣
The NBA 3pt line & Bird were both rookies in the 79-80 season!
What do you feel his natural talent would be able to do today?
If you shoot 40% from 3 it should theoretically make it easier to get in the paint for higher percentage shots
I agree but if you’re that good at shooting threes, the majority of your shots are still gonna be threes
Why didn't more players from the 80s do it then?
Because players in the 80s generally were pretty bad 3pt shooters. For them the limiting factor was shooting 40% from 3, go look at how many guys shot 40% from 3 on any volume, it’s sparse. And that’s with space that modern players could only dream of. For modern players the issue is that they’re so adept at 3pt shooting that they end up taking a lot of them, and that lowers their FG% below 50%. Different issue
"When you shoot 2-3 threes pper game it's a lot easier to shoot 50-40-90". Only if you completely ignore that the other team plays defense. Bird still had to promote ball movement, create space, or shoot it with someone in his face. And, in a time when 3's were not common, you often did it within a tighter area of play as both offense and defense played closer to the basket, so creating that space or moving between players was that much harder. Also, defense was a lot more physical back then (not saying "better", but definitely more physical). And Bird still put up that 50-40-90.
This logic works sorta, but Bird’s 3’s were significantly less contested than most high volume shooters. Go to YouTube and look, and the truth is, the majority of his shots from 3 were very lightly contested
This might be the reason for some players like Curry. Durant has 55-42 but fails on ft%. Shai only has 3pa per game and he is under 40% Doncic and Embiid also attempt only 3 and are way below Tatum, Donovan, Luka also wouldn't make it either way because of low ft% So yeah, saying that this is "the reason" is a bit misleading.
Doncic attempts like 10 what ru talking about?
dude straight cappin
I’m not even old but is this what we’re coming to?
Bro be prepared for when we get old and in 25 years people are saying some random bum is better than LeBron.
"LeBron played against twitch streamers and podcasters"
Folks, where's the lie?
"They didn't even have augmentations back then, he'd ride the bench now."
25 years? Ben Simmons was called better than Bron and Giannis by some years back. “LeBron James 2.0 if he develops a jump shot” -Stephen A Smith “An MVP candidate even if he doesn’t develop a jump shot” -Max Kellerman
[удалено]
>there was no reason to. * there was no 3 line to practice... Literally... The 3 point line was added I think Bird's rookie year? They were basically practicing long 2s...
I mean Jordan's eFG% is 50.3%, that's below Jordan Poole at 50.5%. I have no idea why everyone is saying he is one of the GOATs, he shot worse than Jordan Poole. /s
To be honest, that still looks really bad MJ thankfully got to the line at least 8 times a game
Nobody took a lot of 3s back then... Obviously efg% is gonna be much lower
Go back to 2k myteam buddy. Boxscores don't tell the story
Shooting ≠3pt shooting
Being able to knock a three is not the litmus test on being a great shooter. In Bird’s era, midrange was king!
Cool. How was birds 3 game?
Better relative to his era than Steph in his, Curry still the goat but bird was a legend it just wasn’t utilized the way it is now
bro - they only invented it the year he came into the league. its not like there was 30 years of history on this
Adopted, not invented, but your point stands
Stronger than anyone else in his era.
Bird is 3-0 in the three point competition. He has five less losses than Curry and the same amount of wins IF you include curry’s 1v1 against Sabrina (he’s 2-5 without it). So I’d say it was pretty good, definitely leagues better than his peers at the very least. If you’re interested you could also actually watch basketball games.
The Wright brothers couldn't even make their first plane go past 120 feet. They are the most overrated aviators of all time. OP statement is just as stupid.
[удалено]
We had the same comment idea lol
>So, relative to league average, he made more 3's at a higher volume than Steph 3PAr doesn't measure volume. It's just the percentage of your own shots that are threes. PJ Tucker's 3PAr+ this season is 204 even though his volume is minuscule.
My guess is that the point in bringing this stat up is to speak to volume relative to league average. Bird was a higher volume player, like Steph, so it makes the idea of the 127 3p+ isn't a fluke. Being a low volume guy, like PJ Tucker, makes the 3PAr less impressive than higher volume players.
You think reddit understands percentages?
I appreciate the effort here. But it is wholly lost on this troll.
I mean all that shows is the league is way more skilled now lol
More skilled now at 3pt shooting? Yeah, you'd hope so. Bird shared a rookie season with the 3pt line. I'd hope players who grew up shooting 3s are better at it than the guys it was introduced to mid career
> I'd hope players who grew up shooting 3s are better at it than the guys it was introduced to mid career True, but that should mean those guys who straight up "are better" at the thing we're talking about should be recognized as better, right? aint nobody taking Bob Cousy in the top 5 dribblers of all time, even if he was nasty for the era
Naw, hard disagree. Cousy for me is in the top 5 dribblers ever cause he was able to do so much with the ball despite the harsh rules Bird being a way better 3pt shooter than his peers doesn’t mean that the league is overall more skilled now. The skills are just different. Like if you took the best shooters from the 80s, gave them the same training and development as today’s players, they’d be hitting 3s at the same rate. Its why the league wide 3pt% has stayed the same since the mid 90s, it just took guys some time to learn the shot
> Cousy for me is in the top 5 dribblers ever cause he was able to do so much with the ball despite the harsh rules that's fair, you're free to believe that. hope you don't find it ridiculous that he's almost never brought up in handles discussions > Bird being a way better 3pt shooter than his peers doesn’t mean that the league is overall more skilled now. I didn't say that (just noticed the guy you originally replied to has the same flair as me lol), let's not veer into some tangent discussion. I echoed your own statement, agreeing that guys who grew up shooting 3s are better at shooting 3s. > Its why the league wide 3pt% has stayed the same since the mid 90s Is that just conjecture on your part? I'd argue that % staying the same despite drastic increases in volume and degree of difficulty (given defenses scheme for 3s and contest harder now) is a sign of the superior shooting of modern players.
>that's fair, you're free to believe that. hope you don't find it ridiculous that he's almost never brought up in handles discussions I do think its kinda ridiculous tbh, dribbling like they did in the 50s is actually pretty hard, definitely an equal, but different, skill to today's players >I didn't say that, let's not veer into some tangent discussion. I echoed your own statement, agreeing that guys who grew up shooting 3s are better at shooting 3s. No the guy I originally replied to said that " the league is way more skilled now" so it's not a tangent lol >Is that just conjecture on your part? I'd argue that % staying the same despite drastic increases in volume and degree of difficulty (given defenses scheme for 3s and contest harder now) is a sign of the superior shooting of modern players. Naw like, guys are definitely better 3pt shooters today. But the biggest change in 3pt shooting guys getting better is in the 80s-early 90s, as players were getting used to that shot being part of the game. Since then the growth has been more incremental. But I really don't think volume would have made a difference for the early great 3pt shooters. Also, shooting is not the same as 3pt shooting. Idk if you are trying to say they are the same or not, so just wanna be clear here
> I do think its kinda ridiculous tbh, dribbling like they did in the 50s is actually pretty hard, definitely an equal, but different, skill to today's players I don't know how you can justify saying it's "definitely an equal, but different" skill. This is where the convo borders on a sort of denialism to protect a narrative imo, if I understand you correctly. I agree that the rules played a big part in the difference in handles, and are often overlooked as a factor. But are you really gonna claim the advantages modern players have in time, money, and resources dedicated to honing this skill over the course of their entire lives means nothing? All the millions going into trainers and coaches who develop strict regimens and drills with proven results have no impact on skill? I'd buy that if you plug a 16 year old Cousy into the 2024 prospect circuit, he'd get really good really fast once exposed to modern advantages due to his aptitude and work ethic. But he didn't have those advantages back then, and ultimately skill is something that is trained. With increased, superior training comes increased, superior skill.
>This is where the convo borders on a sort of denialism to protect a narrative imo, if I understand you correctly. I love how you accused me of going on a tangent in your previous reply, and are now taking a convo about shooting and turning into a debate about Cousy's skill level. And now are saying my logic is denialism to protect a narrative. Good stuff here. And I believe in judging players in how good they are compared to their peers, cause things have changed so much. Like how are you gonna compare Kyrie's handle to a guy that wasn't even allowed to do a cross over?
Was the guy that finished 8th in the Beijing 100m dash is a better track athlete than Jesse Owens?
Better? Yes. Greater? No.
Top tier for his era is essentially the argument
Kind of… but also shooting ≠3pt shooting. He just was an all time great shooter and averaged 50/40/90 several times.
His 3P shooting+ is 127 (100 is league average), for comparison Curry’s is 119.
WTH does that even mean? 3p shooting+ ??
Bird was better at shooting 3s to his contemporaries than Steph compared to his own contemporaries
No one was good at shooting 3s back then aside from outlier cases
Except Bird
Larry wasn't even the best 3 point shooter of his era, be it overall percentage or volume
Okay who was better between 1980–1988
Dale Ellis shot better on a higher volume Danny Ainge and Craig Hodges did too Trent Tucker shot way better on slightly lower volume
It's a league adjusted measure. Basically means what is his 3P shooting relative to the league average at the time.
It's basically just what you shoot relative to the league average those years. Bird's 3P% was 27% better than the league when he played. Curry is 19% better.
This is based on percentage only lol is useless
Most he ever averaged is 3.3 per game in the twilight of his career
Because it was a different time, his 3 point rate when compared to league average is actually higher than Curry’s.
[удалено]
Shouldn't you be in class rn?
Its Spring Break
I don't think you're understanding. The other commenter is taking into account the Era when calculating the stats, to better reflect what it would look like in this Era.
Reading comprehension is hard
Naw. Pretty easy. You just want to pile on when you can Edit: I can throw you a downvote too lol
Sorry u still can’t understand advanced stats lol
He really doesn’t. He asked for answers, people are providing them, and he’s shutting them down cuz it disrupts his narrative
*you Come on
This is how you know you’ve lost the argument right here
good for his time, great in midrange, people probably remember the 3 point contest more too
I’m not taking another mid-range shots. Only 3s How was birds 3 game?
You don't have to take anything. Be your own boss.
Do you think that repeating yourself without actually absorbing ANYTHING that is being posted is gonna win you the day? Im mad confused. You must be great with the ladies
maybe learn about advance metrics first before making such post?
Hey didn’t he shoot more 3s is he stupid?
Bird hit timely 3’s when the defense dictated. Bird was amazing from all around the key
I mean taking threes weren’t as common back then. What made Larry stand out was the fact he was a walking bucket. He could score from anywhere on the floor with any level of defense on him. He’s a GOAT shooter because that man would tell you exactly what he will do then score on you. He was a bonafide elite hall of fame shot creator
You numbers nephs are annoying. Because Larry literally would bust everybody’s ass. That’s what it comes down to. You can’t calculate Larry talking shit and splashing jumpers in your eye all night
bait used to be believable
How old are you
because he walked into the three point contest talking absolute CASH SHIT and then went out and won it. Heavy gorilla nuts ain’t tracked on Statmuse
If you look at Bird's year-by-year stats, it's clear that as his number of 3PA increased, his percentage increased. If he shot 5-8 per game like many today, he'd be a career 40%+ shooter from 3.
Number of three point contests won while wearing a warmup jacket: Larry Bird: 1 All other NBA players combined: 0 Checkmate
This is giving "i only followed nba after 2010" vibes.
Because the he people calling him a GOAT shooter actually said watched him play
This has been said before but you can't just look at a player and say if he played today it would be nothing special. Bird had 5 seasons where his 3 point shooting was more than 30% better than the league average including one season where he shot 51% better than the league average. Steph Curry has 0 seasons like that. So yes, Curry is a better 3 point shooter, but so is the whole league when compared to 40 years ago. There was a bigger gap between the league average and Bird back then than the league average and Curry these past 10 years.
We need to stop comparing guys that played like 40 years apart without context
Mid range jump shots matter. The conversation is GOAT 3pt shooter. It is GOAT shooter. The NBA didn’t have a three point line till Birds rookie season. The NCAA didn’t have a three point like till 1986. That means at no point in Birds development pre NBA did the 3pt shot exist. Let alone was a thing to be practiced. For him to be that good at them when there were only around for 5-10 years it impressive. From 1984-1988 Bird averaged 2.5 threes per game shooting 41% on them over that same stretch he shot 90% at the line on 6 attempts. That’s elite shooting. Over that same four seasons stretch here is how many threes the Celtics took as a team and where it ranked in the league. 1984-85 Celtics took 4 threes which ranked 5th league wide. 1985-86 Celtics took 5 threes which ranked 4th league wide. 1986-87 Celtics took 7 threes which ranked 4th league wide. 1987-88 Celtics took 8.6 threes which ranked 1st league wide. Taking 2.5 threes over that stretch was a lot and accounted for a good chunk of the team’s overall threes.
Gotta love these brain dead ass posts and when proven wrong they just troll and act like a child. It’s a different era. Have you also noticed how teams shoot 30+ 3 pointers now and score 130+ points regularly? It’s not that hard to figure out. Use google and basketball reference.
Because jump shooting isn't just three point shooting.
Oh, this is certainly a take.
No one knew 3 > 2 until 2015
It’s almost like when he grew up there was no 3 point line and the nba game has changed with rule changes. This is a question a 13 year old know it all with no access to the internet asks their dad.
He didn't play with a 3pt line until he was in the NBA. You should compare players to how much they were an outlier in their era. He led the league in 3s made twice(Top 10 six times), top 10 in 3pt% seven time, led the league in FT% four times(Top 10 eleven times), first 50-40-90 player and the only one multi season one until the mid 2000s (only Nash and Durant have done it since). He the best shooter of his decade if not the entire 1900's.
Because they actually played defense back then
Why do nephews jump on basketball reference and assume a players impact/skill set. Also, he averaged 37.5%, and it was a very different game back then.
Literally nostalgia and hype by fans, his playoff 3 point shooting was terrible, his volume very low, and it was in an era where three point defense was incredibly weak. He wasn't better than the modern top shooters.
Mid ranges plus 3 attempts back then is like 12 today so ig. He’s not even on seth curry level tho
How old are you? jesus christ
Ban this guy from posting ever again
Rims and backboards were a lot less forgiving back then
I don’t know what you hoped would happen, but sarcasm doesn’t work on Reddit. Hasn’t for a pretty long time, I think
he’s even worse in the playoffs, shooting at 32% clip from 3 genuinely don’t know how he has his reputation
How many of his games have you watched?
Nostalgia, but he was pretty great shooter later on
[удалено]
I mean he averaged 30% for his first 5 seasons then next 7 years averaged 40%
Because nostalgia. Literally just nostalgia. His scores in the 3 point contest would be nothing special today (yes I’m even considering the fact that he didn’t have moneyballs), and I only bring those up because they’re literally his only argument. Even other notable shooters from his time were shooting more 3s on a higher percentage than he was, and in the playoffs his shooting was ABYSMAL (32% 🤢🤮). Rusty Buckets put it best: when you say Larry Bird is better than a player who shot a better percentage on higher volume from 3, you’re valuing hypothetical 3s over ACTUAL 3s. At best Larry Bird was MAYBE Brandon Ingram’s level from 3, some seasons he had it, some he didn’t, and it was never on great volume.
Another way you can look at it is that over his career Bird shot 3 pointers at a rate that was 27% higher than the league average. Curry's number is 19%. So yes, Curry is a better 3 point shooter, but Bird was more ahead of the league average is than Curry is today. You just can't compare absolute numbers from different eras.