ImageImageImage

Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post)

Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks

KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 18,846
And1: 4,661
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#41 » by KGdaBom » Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:40 am

winforlose wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
winforlose wrote:
This is where we disagree. Players don’t play barefoot or in socks. They play in shoes. Their actual playing height is what their natural height is + the height their shoes add. Who cares if Dlo is 6’2 if he plays at 6’4? Who cares if Ant is actually 6’5 if his shoes make him 6’7? If you want to separate them into actual height and playing height that is fine. The only number I care about and will ever care about within the context of basketball is playing height.

Regarding reach and eye level, reach is better known as wingspan and is a huge deal. The 6’4 Josh Okogie was playing PF because he had a 7 foot wingspan. But his smaller body and lanky body type also came at the cost of bulk. Being fat wouldn’t help him, and bulking up in the gym and would have cost him speed. His frame was not right for a PF, thus he flamed out and ended up in Phoenix. Reach allows for smaller guys to defender bigger guys, but it is better to allow bigger guys who are quick to defend smaller guys. MCD is a perfect SF because he can guard 1-3 with both a height and wingspan advantage. Add natural shot blocking and you hit the trifecta.

You can disagree all you want WFL. To me it's kind of embarrassing that you buy into that ridiculous argument. A persons height does not include any enhancements to their height. Anybody can manipulate height in shoes to be whatever they want it to be. The player has no obligation to wear the exact shoes they're measured in for games. Shoe thickness is not a constant so should never be included in a players height. D'Lo wearing thicker shoes is not going to help him play taller than Ja Morant. Also thicker shoes are very unlikely to help a player play taller. In most cases they would diminish the players vertical leap.


This is my last word on this subject. Actual height and game height are different because shoes (any kind of shoe,) adds at least 1-2 inches. If you stand taller your wingspans/reach is obviously boosted by that amount as well. Actual height is irrelevant to anything other than trivia, and biographies. While it is true that shoe height can vary, it is also true that most players won’t wear lifts to play. You could take the actual height and add two inches to approximate game height. But an easier way is to ask the players to wear the shoes they will use for the combine and then get a close approximation of in game height.

Wingspan is the measurement from the tip of one hand to the tip of the other. Wingspan is NOT affected. Standing reach would be.
winforlose
General Manager
Posts: 8,163
And1: 3,154
Joined: Feb 27, 2020

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#42 » by winforlose » Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:11 am

KGdaBom wrote:
winforlose wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:You can disagree all you want WFL. To me it's kind of embarrassing that you buy into that ridiculous argument. A persons height does not include any enhancements to their height. Anybody can manipulate height in shoes to be whatever they want it to be. The player has no obligation to wear the exact shoes they're measured in for games. Shoe thickness is not a constant so should never be included in a players height. D'Lo wearing thicker shoes is not going to help him play taller than Ja Morant. Also thicker shoes are very unlikely to help a player play taller. In most cases they would diminish the players vertical leap.


This is my last word on this subject. Actual height and game height are different because shoes (any kind of shoe,) adds at least 1-2 inches. If you stand taller your wingspans/reach is obviously boosted by that amount as well. Actual height is irrelevant to anything other than trivia, and biographies. While it is true that shoe height can vary, it is also true that most players won’t wear lifts to play. You could take the actual height and add two inches to approximate game height. But an easier way is to ask the players to wear the shoes they will use for the combine and then get a close approximation of in game height.

Wingspan is the measurement from the tip of one hand to the tip of the other. Wingspan is NOT affected. Standing reach would be.


Fair enough.
shrink
RealGM
Posts: 54,642
And1: 13,990
Joined: Sep 26, 2005

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#43 » by shrink » Sat Sep 24, 2022 5:58 pm

Heights without shoes matter in player comparisons. Every quarter of an inch goes into evaluations these days (Kobe was 6’4.75 inches). Height comparisons never matters more than when teams are deciding what 18 year old to draft, and kids this age certainly aren’t tied to a particular type of shoe for the rest of their lives.

Shoes vary. A non-elevated shoe like the KB Mentality adds 0.7 inches. LeBron 17’s add 1.5 inches. Many shoes offer 2+. Thinner shoes may be more responsive and allow a person to jump higher, while a thicker shoe may have more padding and comfort, and reduce impact when a player lands. You can see why players may change their shoes over their careers.

Anyway, when we compare players, I think it matters that we are all starting from the same point. It is a lot harder to change your barefoot height than it is to change your shoes.
fattymcgee
Senior
Posts: 518
And1: 274
Joined: Apr 03, 2008

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#44 » by fattymcgee » Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:51 am

Players used to be measured in shoes because their standing reach has to be measured in shoes for vertical testing.

It was nice the also started measuring barefoot so you cooks get a true comparison, but a lot of players were never measured at the combine so we still don't truly know how tall some players are.
winforlose
General Manager
Posts: 8,163
And1: 3,154
Joined: Feb 27, 2020

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#45 » by winforlose » Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:18 am

shrink wrote:Heights without shoes matter in player comparisons. Every quarter of an inch goes into evaluations these days (Kobe was 6’4.75 inches). Height comparisons never matters more than when teams are deciding what 18 year old to draft, and kids this age certainly aren’t tied to a particular type of shoe for the rest of their lives.

Shoes vary. A non-elevated shoe like the KB Mentality adds 0.7 inches. LeBron 17’s add 1.5 inches. Many shoes offer 2+. Thinner shoes may be more responsive and allow a person to jump higher, while a thicker shoe may have more padding and comfort, and reduce impact when a player lands. You can see why players may change their shoes over their careers.

Anyway, when we compare players, I think it matters that we are all starting from the same point. It is a lot harder to change your barefoot height than it is to change your shoes.


But, no plays barefoot and the shoes do add between .5 and 2+ inches. As we both stated, standing reach is also affected by standing taller in the shoes. I think the best compromise is to say for drafting purposes actual height matters, for playing purposes height in shoes matters (even though it fluctuates.)
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 18,846
And1: 4,661
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#46 » by KGdaBom » Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:39 pm

winforlose wrote:
shrink wrote:Heights without shoes matter in player comparisons. Every quarter of an inch goes into evaluations these days (Kobe was 6’4.75 inches). Height comparisons never matters more than when teams are deciding what 18 year old to draft, and kids this age certainly aren’t tied to a particular type of shoe for the rest of their lives.

Shoes vary. A non-elevated shoe like the KB Mentality adds 0.7 inches. LeBron 17’s add 1.5 inches. Many shoes offer 2+. Thinner shoes may be more responsive and allow a person to jump higher, while a thicker shoe may have more padding and comfort, and reduce impact when a player lands. You can see why players may change their shoes over their careers.

Anyway, when we compare players, I think it matters that we are all starting from the same point. It is a lot harder to change your barefoot height than it is to change your shoes.


But, no plays barefoot and the shoes do add between .5 and 2+ inches. As we both stated, standing reach is also affected by standing taller in the shoes. I think the best compromise is to say for drafting purposes actual height matters, for playing purposes height in shoes matters (even though it fluctuates.)

WFL you said you were done commenting on this, but since you're not done I will make a counterpoint to this argument. Thicker shoes may give an extra inch of standing reach, but I believe as Shrink mentioned they would likely reduce a players jumping reach and be a net negative in that aspect. Per this study barefoot and minimalist footwear produced the best verticals.

Effects of different footwear on vertical jump and landing parameters
Joe W LaPorta 1, Lee E Brown, Jared W Coburn, Andrew J Galpin, James J Tufano, Vanessa L Cazas, Jeremy G Tan
Affiliations expand
PMID: 23254549 DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318280c9ce
Abstract
Little is known about the effects of different footwear on anaerobic performance variables. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different footwear on vertical jumping and landing parameters. Ten men and 10 women participated. After a dynamic warm-up, subjects performed a vertical jump (VJ), depth drop (DD), and Bosco test on a force plate in 3 different conditions, on 3 separate days: bare feet (BF), minimalist footwear (MF), and tennis shoes (TS). Bare feet had greater relative peak power (relPP) in the VJ (men: BF, 59.87 ± 5.09 W⋅kg(-1); MF, 58.39 ± 5.69 W·kg(-1); TS, 57.70 ± 6.54 W·kg(-1); women: BF, 45.26 ± 4.10 W·kg(-1); MF, 45.06 ± 3.53 W·kg(-1); TS, 44.77 ± 4.55 W·kg(-1)), while for men, jump height (JH) was also greater in BF and MF (BF, 44.5 ± 4.46 cm; MF, 43.47 ± 5.5 cm; TS, 41.47 ± 14.45 cm). Results of the Bosco test revealed average relPP was greatest in BF compared with MF and TS (men: BF, 19.70 ± 3.01 W·kg(-1); MF, 19.28 ± 3.00 W·kg(-1); TS, 18.93 ± 3.33 W·kg(-1); women: BF, 14.68 ± 1.41 W·kg(-1); MF, 13.97 ± 1.56 W·kg(-1); TS 13.62 ± 1.67 W·kg(-1)), while for JH, BF and MF were greater than TS (men: BF, 28.62 ± 5.0 cm; MF, 27.78 ± 5.09 cm; TS, 26.54 ± 5.1 cm; women: BF, 18.60 ± 1.97 cm; MF, 17.86 ± 6.35 cm; TS, 17.35 ± 2.47 cm). No differences in relative impact force were seen during the DD between conditions. Therefore, athletes and coaches interested in enhancing single and multiple VJs might consider either BF or minimalist shoes.
winforlose
General Manager
Posts: 8,163
And1: 3,154
Joined: Feb 27, 2020

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#47 » by winforlose » Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:41 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
winforlose wrote:
shrink wrote:Heights without shoes matter in player comparisons. Every quarter of an inch goes into evaluations these days (Kobe was 6’4.75 inches). Height comparisons never matters more than when teams are deciding what 18 year old to draft, and kids this age certainly aren’t tied to a particular type of shoe for the rest of their lives.

Shoes vary. A non-elevated shoe like the KB Mentality adds 0.7 inches. LeBron 17’s add 1.5 inches. Many shoes offer 2+. Thinner shoes may be more responsive and allow a person to jump higher, while a thicker shoe may have more padding and comfort, and reduce impact when a player lands. You can see why players may change their shoes over their careers.

Anyway, when we compare players, I think it matters that we are all starting from the same point. It is a lot harder to change your barefoot height than it is to change your shoes.


But, no plays barefoot and the shoes do add between .5 and 2+ inches. As we both stated, standing reach is also affected by standing taller in the shoes. I think the best compromise is to say for drafting purposes actual height matters, for playing purposes height in shoes matters (even though it fluctuates.)

WFL you said you were done commenting on this, but since you're not done I will make a counterpoint to this argument. Thicker shoes may give an extra inch of standing reach, but I believe as Shrink mentioned they would likely reduce a players jumping reach and be a net negative in that aspect. Per this somewhat complicated study barefoot and minimalist footwear produced the best verticals.

Effects of different footwear on vertical jump and landing parameters
Joe W LaPorta 1, Lee E Brown, Jared W Coburn, Andrew J Galpin, James J Tufano, Vanessa L Cazas, Jeremy G Tan
Affiliations expand
PMID: 23254549 DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318280c9ce
Abstract
Little is known about the effects of different footwear on anaerobic performance variables. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different footwear on vertical jumping and landing parameters. Ten men and 10 women participated. After a dynamic warm-up, subjects performed a vertical jump (VJ), depth drop (DD), and Bosco test on a force plate in 3 different conditions, on 3 separate days: bare feet (BF), minimalist footwear (MF), and tennis shoes (TS). Bare feet had greater relative peak power (relPP) in the VJ (men: BF, 59.87 ± 5.09 W⋅kg(-1); MF, 58.39 ± 5.69 W·kg(-1); TS, 57.70 ± 6.54 W·kg(-1); women: BF, 45.26 ± 4.10 W·kg(-1); MF, 45.06 ± 3.53 W·kg(-1); TS, 44.77 ± 4.55 W·kg(-1)), while for men, jump height (JH) was also greater in BF and MF (BF, 44.5 ± 4.46 cm; MF, 43.47 ± 5.5 cm; TS, 41.47 ± 14.45 cm). Results of the Bosco test revealed average relPP was greatest in BF compared with MF and TS (men: BF, 19.70 ± 3.01 W·kg(-1); MF, 19.28 ± 3.00 W·kg(-1); TS, 18.93 ± 3.33 W·kg(-1); women: BF, 14.68 ± 1.41 W·kg(-1); MF, 13.97 ± 1.56 W·kg(-1); TS 13.62 ± 1.67 W·kg(-1)), while for JH, BF and MF were greater than TS (men: BF, 28.62 ± 5.0 cm; MF, 27.78 ± 5.09 cm; TS, 26.54 ± 5.1 cm; women: BF, 18.60 ± 1.97 cm; MF, 17.86 ± 6.35 cm; TS, 17.35 ± 2.47 cm). No differences in relative impact force were seen during the DD between conditions. Therefore, athletes and coaches interested in enhancing single and multiple VJs might consider either BF or minimalist shoes.


I know, I got pulled back in. Gonna use more will power and bow out.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 18,846
And1: 4,661
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#48 » by KGdaBom » Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:49 pm

winforlose wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
winforlose wrote:
But, no plays barefoot and the shoes do add between .5 and 2+ inches. As we both stated, standing reach is also affected by standing taller in the shoes. I think the best compromise is to say for drafting purposes actual height matters, for playing purposes height in shoes matters (even though it fluctuates.)

WFL you said you were done commenting on this, but since you're not done I will make a counterpoint to this argument. Thicker shoes may give an extra inch of standing reach, but I believe as Shrink mentioned they would likely reduce a players jumping reach and be a net negative in that aspect. Per this somewhat complicated study barefoot and minimalist footwear produced the best verticals.

Effects of different footwear on vertical jump and landing parameters
Joe W LaPorta 1, Lee E Brown, Jared W Coburn, Andrew J Galpin, James J Tufano, Vanessa L Cazas, Jeremy G Tan
Affiliations expand
PMID: 23254549 DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318280c9ce
Abstract
Little is known about the effects of different footwear on anaerobic performance variables. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different footwear on vertical jumping and landing parameters. Ten men and 10 women participated. After a dynamic warm-up, subjects performed a vertical jump (VJ), depth drop (DD), and Bosco test on a force plate in 3 different conditions, on 3 separate days: bare feet (BF), minimalist footwear (MF), and tennis shoes (TS). Bare feet had greater relative peak power (relPP) in the VJ (men: BF, 59.87 ± 5.09 W⋅kg(-1); MF, 58.39 ± 5.69 W·kg(-1); TS, 57.70 ± 6.54 W·kg(-1); women: BF, 45.26 ± 4.10 W·kg(-1); MF, 45.06 ± 3.53 W·kg(-1); TS, 44.77 ± 4.55 W·kg(-1)), while for men, jump height (JH) was also greater in BF and MF (BF, 44.5 ± 4.46 cm; MF, 43.47 ± 5.5 cm; TS, 41.47 ± 14.45 cm). Results of the Bosco test revealed average relPP was greatest in BF compared with MF and TS (men: BF, 19.70 ± 3.01 W·kg(-1); MF, 19.28 ± 3.00 W·kg(-1); TS, 18.93 ± 3.33 W·kg(-1); women: BF, 14.68 ± 1.41 W·kg(-1); MF, 13.97 ± 1.56 W·kg(-1); TS 13.62 ± 1.67 W·kg(-1)), while for JH, BF and MF were greater than TS (men: BF, 28.62 ± 5.0 cm; MF, 27.78 ± 5.09 cm; TS, 26.54 ± 5.1 cm; women: BF, 18.60 ± 1.97 cm; MF, 17.86 ± 6.35 cm; TS, 17.35 ± 2.47 cm). No differences in relative impact force were seen during the DD between conditions. Therefore, athletes and coaches interested in enhancing single and multiple VJs might consider either BF or minimalist shoes.


I know, I got pulled back in. Gonna use more will power and bow out.

I also found a study that softer outsole material like PVC Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) produced better jump results than thermo plastic elastomer (TPE). You made me go full research mode LOL.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 18,846
And1: 4,661
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#49 » by KGdaBom » Tue Oct 4, 2022 3:34 am

I know that Ant is ridiculously athletic, but after watching this dunk reel I was way underestimating just how athletic.

One other observation Ant has always been a big strong athlete, but the Ant from his rookie year looks almost doughie compared to the one from his second season and even more so now.
winforlose
General Manager
Posts: 8,163
And1: 3,154
Joined: Feb 27, 2020

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#50 » by winforlose » Fri Oct 7, 2022 4:54 pm

Copied from hoopshype

“ Dane Moore: Anthony Edwards on growing chemistry with Rudy Gobert: “We just been working on my lob throws. I’ve never threw lobs before, so I’ve been working on em… It’s very effective. Him rollin, KAT poppin, teams don’t know how to guard us because he creates a great highway to the rim.” 5 hours ago – via Twitter DaneMooreNBA”

If this works the way we all hope, Ant will also have improved assists to go along with his improved scoring, rebounding, and stocks. Best way to make a case for all star is to put up high numbers all the way around while winning games.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,123
And1: 17,583
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#51 » by Klomp » Fri Oct 7, 2022 9:31 pm

Interesting point brought up by Kyle on Flagrant Howls: At least last night (but I think at Target Center too), Ant's locker is flanked on either side by Kyle Anderson and Austin Rivers. Maybe two of the best vets on the team to surround him with.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,123
And1: 17,583
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#52 » by Klomp » Sat Oct 8, 2022 5:07 pm

Read on Twitter
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Slim Tubby
Starter
Posts: 2,321
And1: 1,751
Joined: Jun 03, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#53 » by Slim Tubby » Sat Oct 8, 2022 5:48 pm

winforlose wrote:
BlacJacMac wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:You are being cranky as hell. Eye level is important for seeing over the defenders to make passes and shots. Eye level is very important.


Guess they should add "eye level" to the combine measurements...


Also make everyone shave their head so hair doesn’t get measured.

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/shutterstock_editorial_5882229e.jpg?w=1024


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Glen Taylor: "Is this moron #1 (Layden)? Put moron #2 (Thibs) on the phone."
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 18,846
And1: 4,661
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#54 » by KGdaBom » Sat Oct 8, 2022 6:11 pm

Slim Tubby wrote:
winforlose wrote:
BlacJacMac wrote:
Guess they should add "eye level" to the combine measurements...


Also make everyone shave their head so hair doesn’t get measured.

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/shutterstock_editorial_5882229e.jpg?w=1024


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had the exact same thought when hair was being included for height. Fletch is 6'5". 7'3" with the afro.
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 18,846
And1: 4,661
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#56 » by KGdaBom » Wed Oct 12, 2022 8:02 pm

winforlose wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/dunkingwithwolves.com/2022/10/11/anthony-edwards-new-move-game-changer-timberwolves/amp/

Link doesn't work for me.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,123
And1: 17,583
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#57 » by Klomp » Wed Oct 12, 2022 8:04 pm

KGdaBom wrote:
winforlose wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/dunkingwithwolves.com/2022/10/11/anthony-edwards-new-move-game-changer-timberwolves/amp/

Link doesn't work for me.

Not sure why posting proper links is so hard for some people....

https://dunkingwithwolves.com/2022/10/11/anthony-edwards-new-move-game-changer-timberwolves/
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
KGdaBom
RealGM
Posts: 18,846
And1: 4,661
Joined: Jun 22, 2017
         

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#58 » by KGdaBom » Wed Oct 12, 2022 8:10 pm

Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
winforlose wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/dunkingwithwolves.com/2022/10/11/anthony-edwards-new-move-game-changer-timberwolves/amp/

Link doesn't work for me.

Not sure why posting proper links is so hard for some people....

https://dunkingwithwolves.com/2022/10/11/anthony-edwards-new-move-game-changer-timberwolves/

Thanks for the link Klomp, but I wouldn't fault anyone for trying to share something even if they don't get it right.
winforlose
General Manager
Posts: 8,163
And1: 3,154
Joined: Feb 27, 2020

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#59 » by winforlose » Wed Oct 12, 2022 8:22 pm

Klomp wrote:
KGdaBom wrote:
winforlose wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/dunkingwithwolves.com/2022/10/11/anthony-edwards-new-move-game-changer-timberwolves/amp/

Link doesn't work for me.

Not sure why posting proper links is so hard for some people....

https://dunkingwithwolves.com/2022/10/11/anthony-edwards-new-move-game-changer-timberwolves/


Not sure why it didn’t work, but it isn’t like it is that hard to fix. Just copy the part that begins with dunking with wolves.
Klomp
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,123
And1: 17,583
Joined: Jul 08, 2005
Contact:
   

Re: Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post) 

Post#60 » by Klomp » Sat Oct 15, 2022 12:04 am

Read on Twitter

The entire press scrum was an enjoyable listen

tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.

Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment

Return to Minnesota Timberwolves