Anthony Edwards Thread: Part Two (Read First Post)

[BlacJacMac]

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...

Yes they should. Thank you. It's one of the most important measurements for a basketball player. Instead they use height and that infers eye level.

You should start a sight that tracks eye level. It seems you've found a totally untouched area of basketball - and that's hard to do these days.

Maybe you can build it up and sell it to ESPN or Cleaning the Glass in a few years.

[KGdaBom]

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

Yes they should. Thank you. It's one of the most important measurements for a basketball player. Instead they use height and that infers eye level.

You should start a sight that tracks eye level. It seems you've found a totally untouched area of basketball - and that's hard to do these days.

Maybe you can build it up and sell it to ESPN or Cleaning the Glass in a few years.

I by no means invented it. It is what matters along with reach in gaining height related advantage in basketball. You do get that higher eye level is an advantage right?

[winforlose]

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

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

Back in the Afro days I wonder if measurements were done from the top of the afro. That would add 6 inches.
Regardless height really is not the measurement that matters. Reach and eye level are.

V8 has great reach and eye level, yet he lacks the weight to contain bigger defenders. Weight is a function of frame (lanky vs bulky vs ect…., and height.) 300 pounds on 6’2 is likely to be overweight no matter how much muscle you put on. But 300 at 6’6 might not be. Then you get to 6’10 and 300 could be just fine with a healthy BMI. Height is important as it relates to size. That said, I do agree that wingspan and eye level are relevant, just not the whole story. Also, (and I know this is a little silly,) I want us to be taller 1-5 than some opponents. After years of GD small ball, I feel we deserve that. Hence height in or out of shoes.

[BlacJacMac]

Yes they should. Thank you. It's one of the most important measurements for a basketball player. Instead they use height and that infers eye level.

You should start a sight that tracks eye level. It seems you've found a totally untouched area of basketball - and that's hard to do these days.

Maybe you can build it up and sell it to ESPN or Cleaning the Glass in a few years.

I by no means invented it. It is what matters along with reach in gaining height related advantage in basketball. You do get that higher eye level is an advantage right?

I honestly don't think it matters that much. And it constantly changes. No one dribbles the ball standing totally erect, and any defender worth anything is going to be in some amount of a defensive stance. Not to mention you're usually not shooting just over someone's head - and if your eye level is higher than someone's outstretched arm, you have a serious mismatch.

Think about KG running the top of the zone on defense against the opposing PG. His eye level was probably like 4'10...

[KGdaBom]

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

Back in the Afro days I wonder if measurements were done from the top of the afro. That would add 6 inches.
Regardless height really is not the measurement that matters. Reach and eye level are.

V8 has great reach and eye level, yet he lacks the weight to contain bigger defenders. Weight is a function of frame (lanky vs bulky vs ect…., and height.) 300 pounds on 6’2 is likely to be overweight no matter how much muscle you put on. But 300 at 6’6 might not be. Then you get to 6’10 and 300 could be just fine with a healthy BMI. Height is important as it relates to size. That said, I do agree that wingspan and eye level are relevant, just not the whole story. Also, (and I know this is a little silly,) I want us to be taller 1-5 than some opponents. After years of GD small ball, I feel we deserve that. Hence height in or out of shoes.

Certainly weight, strength, speed, leaping ability all come into play as well. I like us being an extremely tall team for the advantages it gives us in reach and eye level.

[KGdaBom]

You should start a sight that tracks eye level. It seems you've found a totally untouched area of basketball - and that's hard to do these days.

Maybe you can build it up and sell it to ESPN or Cleaning the Glass in a few years.

I by no means invented it. It is what matters along with reach in gaining height related advantage in basketball. You do get that higher eye level is an advantage right?

I honestly don't think it matters that much. And it constantly changes. No one dribbles the ball standing totally erect, and any defender worth anything is going to be in some amount of a defensive stance. Not to mention you're usually not shooting just over someone's head - and if your eye level is higher than someone's outstretched arm, you have a serious mismatch.

Think about KG running the top of the zone on defense against the opposing PG. His eye level was probably like 4'10...

When the player takes a shot he is usually jumping to get as good a view and as much clearance over the outstretched arm of his opponent as possible. Having as much reach and as clear a view as possible also helps with passing. On D the reach helps with shot blocking and deflecting passes.

[BlacJacMac]

I by no means invented it. It is what matters along with reach in gaining height related advantage in basketball. You do get that higher eye level is an advantage right?

I honestly don't think it matters that much. And it constantly changes. No one dribbles the ball standing totally erect, and any defender worth anything is going to be in some amount of a defensive stance. Not to mention you're usually not shooting just over someone's head - and if your eye level is higher than someone's outstretched arm, you have a serious mismatch.

Think about KG running the top of the zone on defense against the opposing PG. His eye level was probably like 4'10...

When the player takes a shot he is usually jumping to get as good a view and as much clearance over the outstretched arm of his opponent as possible. Having as much reach and as clear a view as possible also helps with passing. On D the reach helps with shot blocking and deflecting passes.

I'm not arguing against reach. I'm the one that brought it up...

[KGdaBom]

I honestly don't think it matters that much. And it constantly changes. No one dribbles the ball standing totally erect, and any defender worth anything is going to be in some amount of a defensive stance. Not to mention you're usually not shooting just over someone's head - and if your eye level is higher than someone's outstretched arm, you have a serious mismatch.

Think about KG running the top of the zone on defense against the opposing PG. His eye level was probably like 4'10...

When the player takes a shot he is usually jumping to get as good a view and as much clearance over the outstretched arm of his opponent as possible. Having as much reach and as clear a view as possible also helps with passing. On D the reach helps with shot blocking and deflecting passes.

I'm not arguing against reach. I'm the one that brought it up...

Do you think we're arguing? if we are I had no clue about it. I'm discussing the advantage of reach and eye level. If you think you're the one who brought up reach being an advantage I can most certainly let you know others have probably brought it up from before you were born and nobody I've ever heard of thinks it's not an advantage. Eye level is less often discussed because it is usually inferred by height. However, the height at the top of ones head gives no advantage at all. Eye level does. That's why I'm bringing it up. If you think eye level gives no advantage then we are arguing.

[winforlose]

When the player takes a shot he is usually jumping to get as good a view and as much clearance over the outstretched arm of his opponent as possible. Having as much reach and as clear a view as possible also helps with passing. On D the reach helps with shot blocking and deflecting passes.

I'm not arguing against reach. I'm the one that brought it up...

Do you think we're arguing? if we are I had no clue about it. I'm discussing the advantage of reach and eye level. If you think you're the one who brought up reach being an advantage I can most certainly let you know others have probably brought it up from before you were born and nobody I've ever heard of thinks it's not an advantage. Eye level is less often discussed because it is usually inferred by height. However, the height at the top of ones head gives no advantage at all. Eye level does. That's why I'm bringing it up. If you think eye level gives no advantage then we are arguing.

The top of your head is one more thing the opponent needs to see over for max floor vision. Hair has the same effect (especially big hair,) in limiting floor vision. Height often has a relationship with limb length and makes up for poor vertical (sometimes.) Non of these are absolute. But I assure you no coach anywhere says I want my guys shorter than their opponents. Eye level isn’t mentioned much because while valuable it isn’t always that important.

[KGdaBom]

I'm not arguing against reach. I'm the one that brought it up...

Do you think we're arguing? if we are I had no clue about it. I'm discussing the advantage of reach and eye level. If you think you're the one who brought up reach being an advantage I can most certainly let you know others have probably brought it up from before you were born and nobody I've ever heard of thinks it's not an advantage. Eye level is less often discussed because it is usually inferred by height. However, the height at the top of ones head gives no advantage at all. Eye level does. That's why I'm bringing it up. If you think eye level gives no advantage then we are arguing.

The top of your head is one more thing the opponent needs to see over for max floor vision. Hair has the same effect (especially big hair,) in limiting floor vision. Height often has a relationship with limb length and makes up for poor vertical (sometimes.) Non of these are absolute. But I assure you no coach anywhere says I want my guys shorter than their opponents. Eye level isn’t mentioned much because while valuable it isn’t always that important.

OK the top of your head does give advantage in being an obstruction to the view of your opponent. A player sporting a big Afro might have an advantage I never thought of before.
Eye level isn't mentioned much because it is for the vast majority of people proportional to height. Randy Brewer being an exception Reach is pretty proportional to height for most people, but less consistent than eye level. More variance in that measurement.

[BlacJacMac]

When the player takes a shot he is usually jumping to get as good a view and as much clearance over the outstretched arm of his opponent as possible. Having as much reach and as clear a view as possible also helps with passing. On D the reach helps with shot blocking and deflecting passes.

I'm not arguing against reach. I'm the one that brought it up...

Do you think we're arguing? if we are I had no clue about it. I'm discussing the advantage of reach and eye level. If you think you're the one who brought up reach being an advantage I can most certainly let you know others have probably brought it up from before you were born and nobody I've ever heard of thinks it's not an advantage. Eye level is less often discussed because it is usually inferred by height. However, the height at the top of ones head gives no advantage at all. Eye level does. That's why I'm bringing it up. If you think eye level gives no advantage then we are arguing.

In this discussion, not the history of the world...

Was just wondering why you were explaining to me why reach is an advantage when I was the one that introduced it to this particular discussion.

[KGdaBom]

I'm not arguing against reach. I'm the one that brought it up...

Do you think we're arguing? if we are I had no clue about it. I'm discussing the advantage of reach and eye level. If you think you're the one who brought up reach being an advantage I can most certainly let you know others have probably brought it up from before you were born and nobody I've ever heard of thinks it's not an advantage. Eye level is less often discussed because it is usually inferred by height. However, the height at the top of ones head gives no advantage at all. Eye level does. That's why I'm bringing it up. If you think eye level gives no advantage then we are arguing.

In this discussion, not the history of the world...

Was just wondering why you were explaining to me why reach is an advantage when I was the one that introduced it to this particular discussion.

Since you need an explanation here goes. It's going to be long and boring.
People on the board were discussing height and if it should be done in shoes. Height always implies reach and eye level. You made the distinction of reach rather than just height being an advantage which is correct, but once again height implies reach. Congratulations on making the distinction, but it's kind of a Captain Obvious thing. I then brought up eye level which is a very significant thing and you made a cranky IMO comment seeming to disparage eye level as if it offered no advantage. I replied in very simple terms why eye level was an advantage. At that point I was of the belief that you recognized eye level was an advantage and thought the issue was resolved.

At that point I continued discussing reach and eye level being an advantage. I wasn't explaining it to you. I wasn't arguing with you. I wasn't directing it at you. I was simply discussing the merits of height reach, and eye level in general. I was annoyed that you felt you deserved credit for introducing reach into the conversation so I pointed out that it's already something everybody knows. There is your long and boring answer.

[BlacJacMac]

Cool.

Although I disagree that height implies reach. I mean my very first point was that I think reach is much more important than height - and that height can actually be deceptive. Shorter guys with long arms, taller guys with T-Rex arms, etc. My example of Elton Brand was a guy who was considered on the short side to play PF, but actually played much bigger than his height.

As far as eye level, I find it kind of silly - and I honestly can't remember the last piece I read that mentioned it at all. But you seem to really dig it, so I'll stop disparaging it.

But then I also find the whole shoes vs no shoes thing to not be any kind of issue that keeps me up at night as I don't think it really matters in the greater scheme. Tall is good! Long is better!

[KGdaBom]

Cool.

Although I disagree that height implies reach. I mean my very first point was that I think reach is much more important than height - and that height can actually be deceptive. Shorter guys with long arms, taller guys with T-Rex arms, etc. My example of Elton Brand was a guy who was considered on the short side to play PF, but actually played much bigger than his height.

As far as eye level, I find it kind of silly - and I honestly can't remember the last piece I read that mentioned it at all. But you seem to really dig it, so I'll stop disparaging it.

But then I also find the whole shoes vs no shoes thing to not be any kind of issue that keeps me up at night as I don't think it really matters in the greater scheme. Tall is good! Long is better!

Height always has and always will imply reach and eye level. Taller people on average will have longer reach than shorter people and higher eye level. There will always be exceptions. Height as a general rule has always been and always will be an advantage in basketball. Why. Longer reach and higher eye level. If you don't recognize higher eye level being an advantage than you are simply showing ignorance.

I thought the NBA was officially going away from measurements in shoes because it's annoying and basically lying. However, I continue to see measurements in shoes showing up. People won't let it go.

[winforlose]

Cool.

Although I disagree that height implies reach. I mean my very first point was that I think reach is much more important than height - and that height can actually be deceptive. Shorter guys with long arms, taller guys with T-Rex arms, etc. My example of Elton Brand was a guy who was considered on the short side to play PF, but actually played much bigger than his height.

As far as eye level, I find it kind of silly - and I honestly can't remember the last piece I read that mentioned it at all. But you seem to really dig it, so I'll stop disparaging it.

But then I also find the whole shoes vs no shoes thing to not be any kind of issue that keeps me up at night as I don't think it really matters in the greater scheme. Tall is good! Long is better!

Height always has and always will imply reach and eye level. Taller people on average will have longer reach than shorter people and higher eye level. There will always be exceptions. Height as a general rule has always been and always will be an advantage in basketball. Why. Longer reach and higher eye level. If you don't recognize higher eye level being an advantage than you are simply showing ignorance.

I thought the NBA was officially going away from measurements in shoes because it's annoying and basically lying. However, I continue to see measurements in shoes showing up. People won't let it go.

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.

[KGdaBom]

Cool.

Although I disagree that height implies reach. I mean my very first point was that I think reach is much more important than height - and that height can actually be deceptive. Shorter guys with long arms, taller guys with T-Rex arms, etc. My example of Elton Brand was a guy who was considered on the short side to play PF, but actually played much bigger than his height.

As far as eye level, I find it kind of silly - and I honestly can't remember the last piece I read that mentioned it at all. But you seem to really dig it, so I'll stop disparaging it.

But then I also find the whole shoes vs no shoes thing to not be any kind of issue that keeps me up at night as I don't think it really matters in the greater scheme. Tall is good! Long is better!

Height always has and always will imply reach and eye level. Taller people on average will have longer reach than shorter people and higher eye level. There will always be exceptions. Height as a general rule has always been and always will be an advantage in basketball. Why. Longer reach and higher eye level. If you don't recognize higher eye level being an advantage than you are simply showing ignorance.

I thought the NBA was officially going away from measurements in shoes because it's annoying and basically lying. However, I continue to see measurements in shoes showing up. People won't let it go.

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.

[Klomp]

Are we just going to rehash this again? Monday can't come soon enough....

[KGdaBom]

Are we just going to rehash this again? Monday can't come soon enough....

Sorry Klomp, but it drives me nutz. Why don't you set me or them straight?

What happens Monday? Camp. Preseason?

[Klomp]

Are we just going to rehash this again? Monday can't come soon enough....

Sorry Klomp, but it drives me nutz. Why don't you set me or them straight?

What happens Monday? Camp. Preseason?

Both numbers serve their purpose. Frankly, I don't care what is or isn't used. It would have to be a drastic overhaul and fundamental shift in the entire American basketball community. I know the NBA has started using barefoot numbers more, but you're still going to see the shoe height used at the youth, high school, AAU and college levels. So in terms of what fans are seeing, they'll see the taller height on a prospect all the way up to the draft. But at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters either way. The debate is just offseason fodder, which is why I'm excited for Media Day on Monday.

[winforlose]

Height always has and always will imply reach and eye level. Taller people on average will have longer reach than shorter people and higher eye level. There will always be exceptions. Height as a general rule has always been and always will be an advantage in basketball. Why. Longer reach and higher eye level. If you don't recognize higher eye level being an advantage than you are simply showing ignorance.

I thought the NBA was officially going away from measurements in shoes because it's annoying and basically lying. However, I continue to see measurements in shoes showing up. People won't let it go.

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.