Rewatched 04 finals

[Crymson]

Followed by 44% on 2 attempts the year after that, and 37% on 2.8 attempts the year after that.

And then south of 30% the year after that.

Nobody was jacking up like 8 threes a game back then outside of maybe Ray Allen. Rip had 7 years at 36%+, he wasn't a an elite 3pt shooter by any means but he was capable.

Who said anything about eight attempts per game?

Rip didn't like to shoot threes and he did not attempt many of them.

[thesack12]

Rip and Sheed were not capable shooters, and teams cannot win on defense anymore.

First off, with this extremely flawed take you are basing your shooting evaluations solely off of 3 pt shooting.

Secondly, Rip was actually an elite '"shooter" during his prime years. Dude was simply a master of the midrange. He might have been the best catch and shoot player of that era. Especially considering he wasn't just spotting up and ball watching. Dude was perpetual motion on the court. While on the move, Rip would catch a pass and immediately fire off a jumper. Rip had an insanely quick release, and he was incredibly accurate.

Thirdly, what other "non capable" shooter has been able to lead the league in 3 pt%? Rip's league leading year was not a complete outlier either, he had another season where he sot 44% from 3... Also, you need to factor in coaching/system with these types of things. Rip's two seasons where his 3pt shooting spiked, were the 1st and 3rd year that Flip Saunders was at the helm. I don't think that is a coincidence.

[Billl]

3 point shooting is like the 4 minute mile. Nobody thought you could shoot a high volume and high percent until someone did. Now it's common.

Personally, I think it's easier to shoot a good percentage on high volume than low volume. Shooters get in rhythm and knock down 4 in a row. It's not the same as hitting 2 on a tuesday and then not attempting another until thursday.

[Crymson]

First off, with this extremely flawed take you are basing your shooting evaluations solely off of 3 pt shooting.

... because three-point shooting is what we're talking about. It was claimed that Rip was a good perimeter shooter.

Thirdly, what other "non capable" shooter has been able to lead the league in 3 pt%? Rip's league leading year was not a complete outlier either, he had another season where he sot 44% from 3... Also, you need to factor in coaching/system with these types of things. Rip's two seasons where his 3pt shooting spiked, were the 1st and 3rd year that Flip Saunders was at the helm. I don't think that is a coincidence.

Volume matters. Rip's volume in that season was so low that every one make converted to a miss would've lowered his three-point percentage by .8%. Convert one made three to a miss for every ten games he played (so a whopping 0.1 made threes per game), and his percentage would've been 39%. Still solid, but you get the point. And again, he shot 34% the next season. Convert one miss to a made three for every ten games he played and he'd have shot nearly 40%.

When the volume is that low, the sample size is not statistically significant. Dante Exum shot 49% this season on comparable volume. His previous high was 35%. Is he an amazing shooter?

The fact is that we don't know how Rip would've looked shooting threes on higher volume. He closed out his career shooting south of 34% across his last four season, a span which included two seasons at around 30%. (He was in his early thirties at the time, so it wasn't age.)

[thesack12]

First off, with this extremely flawed take you are basing your shooting evaluations solely off of 3 pt shooting.

... because three-point shooting is what we're talking about. It was claimed that Rip was a good perimeter shooter.

Thirdly, what other "non capable" shooter has been able to lead the league in 3 pt%? Rip's league leading year was not a complete outlier either, he had another season where he sot 44% from 3... Also, you need to factor in coaching/system with these types of things. Rip's two seasons where his 3pt shooting spiked, were the 1st and 3rd year that Flip Saunders was at the helm. I don't think that is a coincidence.

Volume matters. Rip's volume in that season was so low that every one make converted to a miss would've lowered his three-point percentage by .8%. Convert one made three to a miss for every ten games he played (so a whopping 0.1 made threes per game), and his percentage would've been 39%. Still solid, but you get the point. And again, he shot 34% the next season. Convert one miss to a made three for every ten games he played and he'd have shot nearly 40%.

When the volume is that low, the sample size is not statistically significant. Dante Exum shot 49% this season on comparable volume. His previous high was 35%. Is he an amazing shooter?

The fact is that we don't know how Rip would've looked shooting threes on higher volume. He closed out his career shooting south of 34% across his last four season, a span which included two seasons at around 30%. (He was in his early thirties at the time, so it wasn't age.)

Again you are trying to strip down "perimeter" shooting to solely 3pt shooting. Rip was actually an elite perimeter shooter. Rip was never known to be an iso guy, break down guys off the dribble, or do a lot of penetration into the lane. He lived, thrived, and excelled with perimeter jumpshots. 67% of Rip's career field goals were from 10 feet and out, 30% of his FG's were from 16 feet to the 3 point line. To say Rip was not a good perimeter shooter, is just flat out wrong.

As for the 2nd part of your argument, sure volume matters. But you also have to keep volume in context to the era in which he played. 3 point shooting as a whole was not nearly as prominent in the 00's as it is these days.

For easy reference here are the average 3pt attempts per team per game, by year.

2003: 14.9
2004: 15.8
2005: 16
2006: 16.9
2007: 18.1
2008: 18.1
2009: 18.1
2010: 18.0
....
2020: 34.1
2021: 34.6
2022: 35.2
2023: 34.2
2024: 35.1

3 Point shooting simply was not a big point of league wide emphasis during the 00's. Back then the league still prioritized inside out offense, and post play.

In any event, Rip proved he was more than a capable shooter. Especially in catch and shoot situations. Give Rip the space that shooters consistently have in today's pace and space NBA, and its not at all hard to imagine that he would be able to stretch his shooting prowess beyond the 3 point line for 5-7 attempts per game.

[MortSahlfan]

There is a zero percent chance Rip and Sheed don’t translate to today’s game. They would’ve adapted to the game and along with that their three point shooting would be in the same percentile today as it was back then. Put it this way, Ray Allen’s 3pt % wouldn’t even be top 50 this past season for what he shot in 2003-2004. You honestly think 2004 Ray Allen isn’t a top 50 shooter if you moved his prime 20 years later?

Yup. Rip even led the league in 3pt % in 05-06 at 46% iirc. Low volume, but he could knock them down.

Right, and if he was playing today, he'd take more.. But what did every opponent say about Rip? They got so tired of chasing him around non-stop (mid-range game) they couldn't perform on the offensive end as well, so for him to be a guy who just stood in the corner just to say he shot more 3's is silly.. In a few years, every team will need a mid-range player, and maybe a low-post guy (and 3 shooters), but I also didn't believe other teams could beat GS at their game, which is why they won a lot of titles. Every team needs to play with their strengths.

[Snakebites]

At his peak Rip actually shot threes at a good percentage, albeit at low volume.

I think if he were coming up today he’d have probably developed a three point shot. In the 90s when he was learning how to play it still wasn’t emphasized. In 2005 the Suns shot what for the time was a ton of threes but they’d be below average in volume by today’s standards. It just wasn’t emphasized.

I tend to agree that the Pistons wouldn’t have won a championship in this era though. Offense is now more important than defense.

[JNewton]

The '04 Finals was over 20 years ago? God I'm old.

[vic]

I may be delusional but I really think Billups would be a better Jalen Brunson in todays game, who led his team to a deep playoff run almost single handedly. 2 way players are a HOT commodity in todays game as well, and we had a squad filled with them. Rip Sheed and Billups would absolutely thrive in todays offense, and with the rule changes helping them out their games would take off to another level. Imagine how many free throws Rip and Chauncey would be shooting in todays NBA

You are absolutely right, you are not delusional at all...

What people don't realize is that without Chauncey, there would be no Steph Curry, no Dame Lillard, no Trae Young, no James Harden, no Jalen Brunson... the way he created offense was way ahead of his time. He turned the pullup 3 (with no offensive actions) into a literal game changing weapon. That's why his nickname was "Mr. Big Shot." He practically invented the modern big guard.

And you are also right that switching everything and having 3 point shooters 1-4 definitely was a precursor to todays game. The main reason they weren't a dynasty is because Larry Brown left.

Imagine if Steve Kerr or Greg Popovich, or Phil Jackson left after their first championship with their respective teams? (Secondary reason, drafting Darko instead of Bosh or Melo).

[Laimbeer]

Melo would have been a different player if the Pistons drafted him. A rookie joining world champs with a strong culture in a blue collar town would have shaped him differently, imo. We'd have likely won more titles.

[DetroitSho]

Melo would have been a different player if the Pistons drafted him. A rookie joining world champs with a strong culture in a blue collar town would have shaped him differently, imo. We'd have likely won more titles.

A rookie wouldn't have been joining the world champs.

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[Snakebites]

I don't think saying the Pistons wouldn't win in this era is even a criticism, really.

The team was built to win in the era they won in. Simple as that.

[Uncle Mxy]

Every time the Pistons made a Finals, defensive rules were changed in response to that.

The Fort Wayne Pistons holding the ball and nearly punking the Minnesota Lakers led to the shot clock. The late '80s Pistons led to the extra ref on the court, to deter physical play, allow the elder Garretson to better "referee the defense" Let's not even get into the league's response to the Jordan Rules. The 2004 Pistons led clamping down against hand-checking. Our most successful Pistons teams redefined their eras.

[Crymson]

The 2004 Pistons led clamping down against hand-checking. Our most successful Pistons teams redefined their eras.

It wasn't just the Pistons, and those rules changes were not made on a whim.

Scoring had been precipitately falling in the NBA for some time before the Pistons won in 2004. Average team scoring per game during the regular season in the NBA was in the high 100s when the Bad Boys won their first championship. By the time the second half of the 1990s rolled around, it had dropped below 100. In the 2003-2004 season, it dropped below 95. 2004 made it the second time in a row and fourth time in the past five finals that the losing team had been limited to 82 PPG or less. At no point in recent memory prior to 1998 had a team ever averaged less than 85 PPG in the finals, and generally far more than that.

The game had become a defensive grind in which scoring was hard to come by. That was fine if you were a fan of the Spurs or the Pistons, but it was boring otherwise. Those changes were made to improve the product for the average fan, not to punish the Pistons.