Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1268123
H2tObes wrote:You thought Wall was 6 foot?
Some true Basketball fans here on Realgm.
Don Draper wrote:H2tObes wrote:You thought Wall was 6 foot?
Some true Basketball fans here on Realgm.
Yeah, b/c knowing player measurements is essential to fandom. Thanks basketball god.
H2tObes wrote:Don Draper wrote:H2tObes wrote:You thought Wall was 6 foot?
Some true Basketball fans here on Realgm.
Yeah, b/c knowing player measurements is essential to fandom. Thanks basketball god.
A 6 foot player will never go #1 in the NBA draft. It's not about knowing his exact height. Just common knowledge any somewhat intellectual basketball fan would know.
Illmatic21 wrote:H2tObes wrote:Don Draper wrote:
Yeah, b/c knowing player measurements is essential to fandom. Thanks basketball god.
A 6 foot player will never go #1 in the NBA draft. It's not about knowing his exact height. Just common knowledge any somewhat intellectual basketball fan would know.
Say what?
I agree with your point though, Wall was generally touted as a "big" PG. That's something you should know if you followed the league or college ball.
nuposse04 wrote:NO-KG-AI wrote:6'2.75 in socks. Pretty much 6'7 by NBA measurements.
Only two vertical measurements should matter to me, height in shoes and standing reach. Guys can really prove their utility with superior standing reach. I never understood why there are two measurements in regards to height unless they start playing the game barefoot.
I think standing reach might be the most important vertical stat. Guys can get an inch or two taller, but if there standing reach is essentially unchanged, their shot, and defensive ability should be the same. Most people don't headbutt the basketball.
Illmatic21 wrote:H2tObes wrote:A 6 foot player will never go #1 in the NBA draft. It's not about knowing his exact height. Just common knowledge any somewhat intellectual basketball fan would know.
abark wrote:nuposse04 wrote:NO-KG-AI wrote:6'2.75 in socks. Pretty much 6'7 by NBA measurements.
Only two vertical measurements should matter to me, height in shoes and standing reach. Guys can really prove their utility with superior standing reach. I never understood why there are two measurements in regards to height unless they start playing the game barefoot.
I think standing reach might be the most important vertical stat. Guys can get an inch or two taller, but if there standing reach is essentially unchanged, their shot, and defensive ability should be the same. Most people don't headbutt the basketball.
The "but they play in shoes" argument is repeated every time height measurements ate brought up. It would make sense if the rest of society didn't also wear shoes when doing pretty much everything. Next time someone asks how tall you are try saying your real height, and then say but I'm this tall in these shoes I'm wearing. I promise you that person will think you are an idiot. It's an unnecessary variable that makes measuring height, a very simple task, unnecessarily confusing.
nuposse04 wrote:NO-KG-AI wrote:6'2.75 in socks. Pretty much 6'7 by NBA measurements.
Only two vertical measurements should matter to me, height in shoes and standing reach. Guys can really prove their utility with superior standing reach. I never understood why there are two measurements in regards to height unless they start playing the game barefoot.
sixerswillrule wrote:nuposse04 wrote:NO-KG-AI wrote:6'2.75 in socks. Pretty much 6'7 by NBA measurements.
Only two vertical measurements should matter to me, height in shoes and standing reach. Guys can really prove their utility with superior standing reach. I never understood why there are two measurements in regards to height unless they start playing the game barefoot.
Heights are measured for comparison purposes. Barefoot height is all you need to know. If two players are the same height barefoot then yThe measurements taken on a day that players know they're getting measured (and therefore some wear shoes they don't normally wear) should be considered meaningless.ou can assume that they are the same height in shoes.
nuposse04 wrote:sixerswillrule wrote:nuposse04 wrote:
Only two vertical measurements should matter to me, height in shoes and standing reach. Guys can really prove their utility with superior standing reach. I never understood why there are two measurements in regards to height unless they start playing the game barefoot.
Heights are measured for comparison purposes. Barefoot height is all you need to know. If two players are the same height barefoot then yThe measurements taken on a day that players know they're getting measured (and therefore some wear shoes they don't normally wear) should be considered meaningless.ou can assume that they are the same height in shoes.
But not everyone wears the same shoes. Height advantages gained between shoes is different between people. If the "shoes" players get measured in aren't their "playing" shoes then i understand your point. But I am not aware of any information that verifies that. If you have it, I'd like to read it, and I'll amend my position regarding this accordingly.
Illmatic21 wrote:H2tObes wrote:Don Draper wrote:
Yeah, b/c knowing player measurements is essential to fandom. Thanks basketball god.
A 6 foot player will never go #1 in the NBA draft. It's not about knowing his exact height. Just common knowledge any somewhat intellectual basketball fan would know.
Say what?
I agree with your point though, Wall was always touted as a "big" PG. That's something you should know if you followed the league or college ball.
nuposse04 wrote:But not everyone wears the same shoes.
sixerswillrule wrote:The shoes that they actually do wear on a game to game basis is a variable that can't be kept track of and has nothing to do with what they were "officially" measured in.
nuposse04 wrote:Height advantages gained between shoes is different between people.
If the "shoes" players get measured in aren't their "playing" shoes then i understand your point. But I am not aware of any information that verifies that. If you have it, I'd like to read it.
Mikez1919 wrote:Looks about 6'3 to me
NOODLESTYLE wrote:
mid-post wrote:Well to be fair AI wasn't really 6' right?
nuposse04 wrote:abark wrote:nuposse04 wrote:
Only two vertical measurements should matter to me, height in shoes and standing reach. Guys can really prove their utility with superior standing reach. I never understood why there are two measurements in regards to height unless they start playing the game barefoot.
I think standing reach might be the most important vertical stat. Guys can get an inch or two taller, but if there standing reach is essentially unchanged, their shot, and defensive ability should be the same. Most people don't headbutt the basketball.
The "but they play in shoes" argument is repeated every time height measurements ate brought up. It would make sense if the rest of society didn't also wear shoes when doing pretty much everything. Next time someone asks how tall you are try saying your real height, and then say but I'm this tall in these shoes I'm wearing. I promise you that person will think you are an idiot. It's an unnecessary variable that makes measuring height, a very simple task, unnecessarily confusing.
How does regular society apply in the NBA? It is hardly a normal representation of society. Unless a players height in certain shoes varies significantly between different shoes I don't see how it doesn't gauge a players vertical usefulness pragmatically. I use to think their w/o numbers are the only ones that should matter as well, but it serves no practical purpose what so ever. If certain player wears shoes that might give them a quarter to half inch on another player that is their prerogative. I do however wonder. do players that gain massive advantages in height from their shoes have a greater propensity to suffer ankle related injuries.
