dhsilv2 wrote:G35 wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:
Kenny Smith isn't a great shooter? Really? Drexler was nothing special? Robert Horry wasn't anything?
And no titles mean nothing for individuals. They are a point of reference and nothing more. Just like scoring being all that matters is too simplistic an approach to study the game, that reasoning is all the worse.
No Kenny Smith is not a great 3PT shooter. He was good...better than average but not great. He was making less than two 3pt shots a game at his peak. Dell Curry, Dennis Scott, Glen Rice, Reggie Miller, Chuck Person, Allan Houston they were more prolific than any of the Rockets shooters. Clyde Drexler's 3pt shot was not the strength of his game.
The Rockets were the 3pt shooting team of that era, but lets not act like 3pt shooting is anywhere near what it is now. No one...no one...no one was coming down and pulling up 3's like they are today. In fact if you took a 3 on the break you might get pulled out the game for taking a bad shot. Especially with Hakeem on your team.
If you do not realize that being on a title team raises your stature in the eyes of casual fans then you have not been paying attention. Role players are the same on every team. Its the stars that differentiate teams. Those Houston teams are considered one of the weakest in the modern era.
If you do not like titles and you think they do not mean anything (and many people on this board do not so you are not alone) then according to a statistical metric by 538. They said a team with an 1800 rating is very rare...a 1700 rating is far more common for title contenders. The 93-94 Rockets had a 1661 rating which was good for 128th best team all time...the 94-95 Rockets had a 1640 rating which is rated 187.
In comparison the 2003-04 TWolves are rated at 1673, which is good for 102. 26 spots ahead of the Rockets 94 team and 85 spots ahead of the 95 Rockets. So these are rankings not based on titles.....
If you don't think Kenny Smith a career 40% 3 point shooter was a great shooter from that era, I'm not sure we can discuss basketball. Kenny Smith was an absolute dead eye shooter who even in college was never left open for a jump shot.
The rest of what you said really is nonsense, I mean elo ratings? What does that tell us about this topic? Absolutely nothing. Casual fans? Why would we discuss them on a board dedicated to anything but casual fans?
We may not be able to talk basketball if you can't handle difference of opinion and that's fine.
But I watched Kenny Smith for pretty much his whole career from North Carolina, to the Kings and the Rockets. I feel pretty familiar with his game and abilities. There may be some things I could be reminded because our memories do fool us over time. But I'm confident that there were better 3pt shooters than Kenny.
But even saying that, Kenny was just another one of the Rockets 3pt shooters that they surrounded Hakeem with. I would say that Hakeem's presence helped Kenny's 3pt shooting more than anything.
His 3pt% with the Kings
88 - .308
89 - .359
90 - .313
(goes to the Rockets in 91)
91 - .363
92 - .394
93 - .438
94 - .405
95 - .429
96 - .382
It's very clear that when he was with the Kings his volume and percentage were negligible. He was having to create more for himself without the aid of having a superstar player on his side. Then I would point out the fact that at his peak he was making 1.8 three pt field goals a game. So two 3ptrs a game...at the peak...during his ten year career he has five years where he is making less than one 3pt shot a game.
So Kenny was not a dynamic player where he could create his own 3pt shot nor was even a gifted playmaker. Now I'm disappointed that your whole argument is "look at the stats....40% three point shooter...conclusion great shooter". That is a simple way of thinking. Greatness, by definition is relative....all stats are relative.
Example...if we made Wilt the standard for greatness, then no one is great. There is no one that is approaching Wilts stats, so then we have to apply context to era, rules, flavor of the moment. In the 90's Kenny Smith was not considered anything more than a journeyman PG with average 3pt shooting.
To be a great 3pt shooter is not just about percentages. It has to take in account how you get your shots, where you take those shots on the court, volume, consistency over a period of time.
Just saying "40% three pt shooter...greatness" is simplistic.
There was something I heard on the radio that surprised me and I'm in the Sacramento market, but they were talking about the Kings 3pt shooting. At the time the Kings were the #1 3pt shooting team in the NBA...they are now #2 to the Warriors. That surprised me. But they do have Buddy Hield (.425), George Hill (.453), Frank Mason (.419), Bogdan Bogdanovich (.400). All apparently great shooters.
So I wondered why are the Kings so bad? They have multiple great shooters, why isn't this shooting translating into success. Well one reason, I would gather is that the Kings are ranked 2nd in 3pt percentage but they are ranked 28th in 3PA. Which you could conclude that the Kings need to get more 3pt shots up. But then you see that the Brooklyn Nets are 2nd in 3PA's but 28th in efficiency. Seems to be inverse of the Kings...Kings have great efficiency/low volume, Nets have great volume/low efficiency. So apparently, efficiency does not equal success.
If your case is that 40% equals great 3pt shooter then that would mean every player in the NBA that is shooting 40% or greater is a great 3pt shooter. See, I can't make a sweeping generalization like that. Because I feel that takes away from players who may not be shooting 40% and are great 3pt shooters.
The Rockets only have one player shooting over 40%...and that is Briante Weber. Harden is (.384), CP3 (.397), Ryan Anderson (.387), Eric Gordon (.334).
As far as the ELO ratings, that was to provide an objective rating of the teams in question without taking "winning bias" into the equation. The same tired refrain from KG apologists is, "His teammates sucked. Explain that, explain why his teammates always sucked!" Well personally, I believe its because KG was not that great of a leader. Too many players wanted to leave Minnesota for me to say that does not reflect on KG. Why would so many good players decide that they can do better somewhere else?
You can complain and whine about injuries, or unfairness, coaching, management....its all the same, an excuse. That's like someone opening a business and complaining about the location, the customers, the government, tax laws. Everybody has to deal with the same obstacles, some people will complain about those obstacles and others rise to the occasion and overcome those obstacles or turn them into an advantage......
I'm so tired of the typical......
