Romeo Langford

[KoB2011]

16 hours ago, dgambill said:

Maybe...but if he works on his jumper he honestly has the body and athleticism to be the next Charles Barkley. Sadly he will likely stand around the 3pt line like the rest of the NBA and shoot a putrid percentage instead of working on dominating the 10-18 foot range like he should.

Exactly. NBA teams and execs are so dumb, it's clearly more efficient to play in the midrange than it is to shoot threes and drive.

[Stromboli]

31 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Exactly. NBA teams and execs are so dumb, it's clearly more efficient to play in the midrange than it is to shoot threes and drive.

My favorite take on this:

 

 

[IUredhead]

Hi,  I apologize if this has been mentioned anywhere else.  

Today is Romeo Langford's birthday, if anyone wants to send him birthday wishes on social media, here are his accounts.

Twitter: @yeahyeah_22

Instagram: @yeah_yeah22

--Jeri

[dgambill]

4 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Exactly. NBA teams and execs are so dumb, it's clearly more efficient to play in the midrange than it is to shoot threes and drive.

Worked pretty well for Karl Malone and Tim Duncan. I don't mind having guys that shoot from 3 and those that slash...but when everyone is trying to do the very same thing and forcing every player to fit as a square peg in a round hole it doesn't make sense to me....and honestly the game isn't all that interesting to watch either.

[IU Scott]

31 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Worked pretty well for Karl Malone and Tim Duncan. I don't mind having guys that shoot from 3 and those that slash...but when everyone is trying to do the very same thing and forcing every player to fit as a square peg in a round hole it doesn't make sense to me....and honestly the game isn't all that interesting to watch either.

Totally agree with you because I would rather have someone making  around 60% of their 2's than a person hitting around 40% of their 3's.  That is two more misses every 10 shots which gives you opponents more chances to run and get easy baskets off of your misses.  Also if everyone is around the 3 point line you don't have a great chance on getting the offensive rebound.  What I use to like about basketball was that teams played a lot fo different styles but today it seems like everyone is trying to play the same way which gets boring.

[KoB2011]

36 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Worked pretty well for Karl Malone and Tim Duncan. I don't mind having guys that shoot from 3 and those that slash...but when everyone is trying to do the very same thing and forcing every player to fit as a square peg in a round hole it doesn't make sense to me....and honestly the game isn't all that interesting to watch either.

The Romans had a great society without automobiles or cell phones, doesn't mean we should try it. 

[KoB2011]

7 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Totally agree with you because I would rather have someone making  around 60% of their 2's than a person hitting around 40% of their 3's.  That is two more misses every 10 shots which gives you opponents more chances to run and get easy baskets off of your misses.  Also if everyone is around the 3 point line you don't have a great chance on getting the offensive rebound.  What I use to like about basketball was that teams played a lot fo different styles but today it seems like everyone is trying to play the same way which gets boring.

The problem is no one makes 60% of their post up shots. 

[IU Scott]

19 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

The problem is no one makes 60% of their post up shots. 

Maybe not now but players like Malone an Duncan did as well as a lot of the great centers of the 80's.  I just think it is better when teams can do both and not just rely on the 3 to win.  Last year Houston lost game 7 against GSW because they only shot 3's and when they missed them they have no backup plan.

[KoB2011]

10 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Maybe not now but players like Malone an Duncan did as well as a lot of the great centers of the 80's.  I just think it is better when teams can do both and not just rely on the 3 to win.  Last year Houston lost game 7 against GSW because they only shot 3's and when they missed them they have no backup plan.

No, they didn't. That's just a flat out falsehood. 

And when you talk about the 80s, teams couldn't do both. Or at least, didn't do both. 

[Stromboli]

44 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Worked pretty well for Karl Malone and Tim Duncan. I don't mind having guys that shoot from 3 and those that slash...but when everyone is trying to do the very same thing and forcing every player to fit as a square peg in a round hole it doesn't make sense to me....and honestly the game isn't all that interesting to watch either.

So, you're saying Zion Williamson, one of the most exciting above-the-rim prospects in recent memory, needs to shoot more 10-18' jump shots, because it will be more interesting for you?  And that somehow that would not be forcing a square peg into a round hole?  A 2pt shot from anywhere but at the rim is the worst shot in basketball.  That's great that Karl Malone liked it.  

 

Let's just say I disagree.  The NBA is more fun now than ever.  Following along how the stats have impacted the game, and the way the teams that have embraced stats have succeeded, just makes the whole thing more fun

 

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Maybe not now but players like Malone an Duncan did as well as a lot of the great centers of the 80's.  I just think it is better when teams can do both and not just rely on the 3 to win.  Last year Houston lost game 7 against GSW because they only shot 3's and when they missed them they have no backup plan.

.  

Those teams you're romanticizing would have gotten smoked by teams now.  No shame in it, just that the league has gotten better.  That's what we want, right?  I think it's awesome that the game is changing for the better.  

 

And also, I think your memory is playing tricks on you.  Malone and Duncan weren't quite as efficient as you remember.

 

https://the-cauldron.com/most-valuable-shot-charts-613ae6f392cf

 

(Click on each MVP season, and then you can click on the interactive image for percentages)

 

In his MVP 02 season, Duncan was 58.9% at the rim, and that doesn't even account for a percentage that were uncontested.  So the true "post up" percentage would be lower.  Not only that, that percentage isn't significantly higher than league average.  He was significantly better than the league average at a 2pt baseline jumper, but even then he only made 45% of them, making it a terrible shot to take.  Every time Tim Duncan took a 2pt baseline jumper, he was hurting his team.  Same goes for Malone.  He did shoot significantly higher percentage on 2pt jump shots than the rest of the league, but even at 45%, he was hurting his team with every attempt.

[IU Scott]

7 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

No, they didn't. That's just a flat out falsehood. 

And when you talk about the 80s, teams couldn't do both. Or at least, didn't do both. 

Bird and many others was very good out side shooters but did not shoot the 3's as much.  Being a great shooter does not just mean being a 3 point shooter.

[IU Scott]

10 minutes ago, Stromboli said:

So, you're saying Zion Williamson, one of the most exciting above-the-rim prospects in recent memory, needs to shoot more 10-18' jump shots, because it will be more interesting for you?  And that somehow that would not be forcing a square peg into a round hole?  A 2pt shot from anywhere but at the rim is the worst shot in basketball.  That's great that Karl Malone liked it.  

 

Let's just say I disagree.  The NBA is more fun now than ever.  Following along how the stats have impacted the game, and the way the teams that have embraced stats have succeeded, just makes the whole thing more fun

 

.  

Those teams you're romanticizing would have gotten smoked by teams now.  No shame in it, just that the league has gotten better.  That's what we want, right?  I think it's awesome that the game is changing for the better.  

 

And also, I think your memory is playing tricks on you.  Malone and Duncan weren't quite as efficient as you remember.

 

https://the-cauldron.com/most-valuable-shot-charts-613ae6f392cf

 

(Click on each MVP season, and then you can click on the interactive image for percentages)

 

In his MVP 02 season, Duncan was 58.9% at the rim, and that doesn't even account for a percentage that were uncontested.  So the true "post up" percentage would be lower.  Not only that, that percentage isn't significantly higher than league average.  He was significantly better than the league average at a 2pt baseline jumper, but even then he only made 45% of them, making it a terrible shot to take.  Every time Tim Duncan took a 2pt baseline jumper, he was hurting his team.  Same goes for Malone.  He did shoot significantly higher percentage on 2pt jump shots than the rest of the league, but even at 45%, he was hurting his team with every attempt.

I disagree with you about 2 point shots being bad because any good shot you hit is a good shot.  I am so tired of all of you analytic people thinking they invented the game and think their way of playing is the only way to play.  There was plenty of great basketball before people try to over think things and make up different stats to try to back up their theory.  IU's 92-93 team was a great team and shot a lot of 15 foot jumpers from Cheaney, Anderson and Henderson.

 

To me analytics is taking the fun and the creativity away from the game and trying to make everyone into a robot.  Coaches now just go by what their sheet tells them instead of going by the feel of the game or how your team is playing at the time.  Look at the Dodgers manager taking out all of their great left handed hitters just because they are facing a left just because that is what the analytics tell you to do.

 

Also the Lakers, Celtics and the Bulls of those days would totally control the teams of today and to me it is not even be a close series.  Today it is a lot easier to play the game today because everyone is so protected and you can't even touch a player and players don't fear going down the lane.  I think you are mistaken athletic ability for making a player a better basketball player but I totally disagree with that.

[IU Scott]

Some of the up about post was just a tongue   in cheek post because it is easy for anyone to make an absolute comment on their beliefs but it does not make them true.  it is all what the individual believes in and enjoys but when people try to make their opinion as a fact does not sit well with me.  Like me saying without a doubt that the Lakers or the Celtics would win is not a fact but it is how I see it happening.  Just like some really enjoy the new analytics and thinks it makes sports better but that is not a absolute fact either but just your opinion.

[5fouls]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

The Romans had a great society without automobiles or cell phones, doesn't mean we should try it. 

On the flip side, they had a very low highway fatality rate and talked to each other at the dinner table.

[rico]

20 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

On the flip side, they had a very low highway fatality rate and talked to each other at the dinner table.

Post of the day!!!!!!!!!  But they did have an early form of NASCAR!!!!!!!

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

They also murdered each other for sport. But I suppose we have football...

[IU Scott]

5 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

They also murdered each other for sport. But I suppose we have football...

Or every night on the eastside of Indy

[CauseThatsMyDJ]

Just now, IU Scott said:

Or every night on the eastside of Indy

That's not for sport, Scott!

[PoHoosier]

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

To me analytics is taking the fun and the creativity away from the game and trying to make everyone into a robot.  Coaches now just go by what their sheet tells them instead of going by the feel of the game or how your team is playing at the time.  Look at the Dodgers manager taking out all of their great left handed hitters just because they are facing a left just because that is what the analytics tell you to do.

I think of it as game prep.  A forecast for game time.  You do what gives you the best chance to win.  I get it from the standpoint that you do not need the analytics to tell you that player 'x' gives you the best chance to win when it's Jordan or someone who is at the top of their craft.

It's much the same as a golfer who makes a club selection given atmospheric conditions.  You may not like it, but like many things, it's part of the landscape of today's business sport adding to hightened competition.

As a Colt's fan, there is not much greater than beating NE Patriots.  When the Colts defense beat Brady, Belichik, and the analytics on 4th and 2....  Look at the 2 way street, when your team overcomes the analytics you hate, it's a win / win.

[Reacher]

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Or every night on the eastside of Indy

Your talking about mere shootings. For a murder a day, you have to be in Chicago!

[KoB2011]

3 hours ago, IU Scott said:

 

To me analytics is taking the fun and the creativity away from the game and trying to make everyone into a robot.  Coaches now just go by what their sheet tells them instead of going by the feel of the game or how your team is playing at the time.  Look at the Dodgers manager taking out all of their great left handed hitters just because they are facing a left just because that is what the analytics tell you to do.

Imagine a world where IU didn't let a deserving student in, despite all the imperical evidence saying she deserves to be admitted, because their gut says she'll never adapt to modern college life because of her genetics. 

[IU Scott]

13 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Imagine a world where IU didn't let a deserving student in, despite all the imperical evidence saying she deserves to be admitted, because their gut says she'll never adapt to modern college life because of her genetics. 

How about the university doesn't give a kid a chance just because the numbers say they are not qualified to enter that university..  Some people might not look good on paper but they have the intangibles that will let them succeed in college and life.

[Brass Cannon]

48 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

How about the university doesn't give a kid a chance just because the numbers say they are not qualified to enter that university..  Some people might not look good on paper but they have the intangibles that will let them succeed in college and life.

Pretty sure that’s how it actually works

[cybergates]

18 hours ago, Stromboli said:

 

In his MVP 02 season, Duncan was 58.9% at the rim, and that doesn't even account for a percentage that were uncontested.  So the true "post up" percentage would be lower.  Not only that, that percentage isn't significantly higher than league average.  He was significantly better than the league average at a 2pt baseline jumper, but even then he only made 45% of them, making it a terrible shot to take.  Every time Tim Duncan took a 2pt baseline jumper, he was hurting his team.  Same goes for Malone.  He did shoot significantly higher percentage on 2pt jump shots than the rest of the league, but even at 45%, he was hurting his team with every attempt.

This is a bit narrow minded IMO and taking the analytics too far. How does Duncan win the MVP if he's hurting his team with so many shot attempts? Not sure if you're referring to 01-02 or 02-03 seasons since he won MVP in both, but he also led Spurs to a title in 02-03 by hurting his team. 

Analytics tell us that the best shot in the game is the corner 3 by looking at all players shooting it. If a terrible shooter takes it, it no longer is the best shot in the game. Analytics tell us that 2 pointers are bad shots unless they are uncontested at the rim. Tim Duncan taking post move shots is not the same as Furkan Korkmaz taking a 2 pointer. However, analytics lump all players into the analysis and make oversimplified statements. 

[KoB2011]

5 minutes ago, cybergates said:

This is a bit narrow minded IMO and taking the analytics too far. How does Duncan win the MVP if he's hurting his team with so many shot attempts? Not sure if you're referring to 01-02 or 02-03 seasons since he won MVP in both, but he also led Spurs to a title in 02-03 by hurting his team. 

Analytics tell us that the best shot in the game is the corner 3 by looking at all players shooting it. If a terrible shooter takes it, it no longer is the best shot in the game. Analytics tell us that 2 pointers are bad shots unless they are uncontested at the rim. Tim Duncan taking post move shots is not the same as Furkan Korkmaz taking a 2 pointer. However, analytics lump all players into the analysis and make oversimplified statements. 

You realize we can still look at the percentages for individual players, right?