Jerry West pretty much destroys JJ Redick

[The Rebel]

I bring those things up because there end up being a lot of assumptions people make in arguing for this or that. It's just conjecture either way.

It would be interesting though to consider how putting JJ Redick in 1950's NBA would change the NBA, because people would see what he's doing and try to pick up on things. You'd have a bunch of guys trying to emulate and learn his shooting form, and it would actually speed up development in the game.

Maybe, maybe not. But also remember almost all of these things Redick would bring into the game would be illegal, thus useless. And even if their shooting form was a bit weird to modern day person it was effective. These guys were very much aware of different stoppings from dribble to shoot or catch and shoot mechanics so Redick would bring nothing in that front. Ever seen old man Cooz shoot fts? Even in his 80s he shot better than 90% of college basketball players.

Cousey shot under 40% his whole career. Nothing about JJ's game would be illegal.

What does Cousey's shooting percentage have to do with JJs game being illegal? And if you don't think his game would be illegal than you don't understand how the rules have changed over the last 70 years.

[dhsilv2]

Maybe, maybe not. But also remember almost all of these things Redick would bring into the game would be illegal, thus useless. And even if their shooting form was a bit weird to modern day person it was effective. These guys were very much aware of different stoppings from dribble to shoot or catch and shoot mechanics so Redick would bring nothing in that front. Ever seen old man Cooz shoot fts? Even in his 80s he shot better than 90% of college basketball players.

Cousey shot under 40% his whole career. Nothing about JJ's game would be illegal.

What does Cousey's shooting percentage have to do with JJs game being illegal? And if you don't think his game would be illegal than you don't understand how the rules have changed over the last 70 years.

I fully understand how the game has changed. If you think JJ's game would be rule impacted by the 1950's it's you who doesn't have a clue about the 50's NBA.

[Johnny Bball]

Maybe, maybe not. But also remember almost all of these things Redick would bring into the game would be illegal, thus useless. And even if their shooting form was a bit weird to modern day person it was effective. These guys were very much aware of different stoppings from dribble to shoot or catch and shoot mechanics so Redick would bring nothing in that front. Ever seen old man Cooz shoot fts? Even in his 80s he shot better than 90% of college basketball players.

Cousey shot under 40% his whole career. Nothing about JJ's game would be illegal.

What does Cousey's shooting percentage have to do with JJs game being illegal? And if you don't think his game would be illegal than you don't understand how the rules have changed over the last 70 years.

Probably best to not even try to explain the differences if one can't admit the rules are night and day different to start.

[dhsilv2]

Cousey shot under 40% his whole career. Nothing about JJ's game would be illegal.

What does Cousey's shooting percentage have to do with JJs game being illegal? And if you don't think his game would be illegal than you don't understand how the rules have changed over the last 70 years.

Probably best to not even try to explain the differences if one can't admit the rules are night and day different to start.

Nobody has at any point claimed there aren't drastic rule difference. If someone can't understand how a catch and shoot guard would not be IMPACTED by the rule differences in the 50's where teams were running weaves as their primary half court set I can't help them!

[Johnny Bball]

Yep, 100% of JJ Redicks game was catch and shoot, nothing else ... And coming off picks is exactly the same, no changes to what a foul is... of course.

[dhsilv2]

Yep, 100% of JJ Redicks game was catch and shoot, nothing else ... And coming off picks is exactly the same, no changes to what a foul is... of course.

Yeah because when you apply his game to the set plays of the 50's we'd be worried about modern moving screens? Come on man, go watch 50's basketball and think about how JJ would translate.

[dhsilv2]

Watch on YouTube

This is 1950's basketball. An era where outside of point guards. Most guys took one dribble and either shot or passed. A lot of catch and shoot and shooters have reasonable room for a release.

This is an ideal era for a scorer like JJ. The rules do nothing to hurt his game, unless you think he can't even making a single dribble or two with different ball handling rules which is just silly.

[70sFan]

Cousey shot under 40% his whole career. Nothing about JJ's game would be illegal.

What does Cousey's shooting percentage have to do with JJs game being illegal? And if you don't think his game would be illegal than you don't understand how the rules have changed over the last 70 years.

I fully understand how the game has changed. If you think JJ's game would be rule impacted by the 1950's it's you who doesn't have a clue about the 50's NBA.

I'm quite sure that lack of three point line would impact JJs game, for starters.

[dhsilv2]

What does Cousey's shooting percentage have to do with JJs game being illegal? And if you don't think his game would be illegal than you don't understand how the rules have changed over the last 70 years.

I fully understand how the game has changed. If you think JJ's game would be rule impacted by the 1950's it's you who doesn't have a clue about the 50's NBA.

I'm quite sure that lack of three point line would impact JJs game, for starters.

Oh come on! Adjust for the league we're talking about.

1951 the league leader in field goal percentage was Groza (such a shame we didn't get to see his career play out) at 47%. Macauley was second at 46.6% and then you drop all the way to 42.8 for Mikan. JJ shot 46.4% on 16-3P shots for his career. He'd be killing people running weaves then stepping back to catch a virtually uncontested 18 footer or he'd draw defenders and have an easy dump to a big man for a running hook.

He's a great shooter in a league where they'd never seen a shooting threat like him. He has good height, if not great height for a shooter as well vs say Bill Sharman he's likely got a good inch on him.

[hoosierdaddy34]

I mean look at this. What are we even talking about here? The game was so slow and unathletic. These guys have completely loose handles…lucky that no one was really any good at defense. They got to the rim because the defense was so slow to react and help. No one ever faced a trap. Rarely did anyone even got double teamed. Players got a ridiculous amount of time to get their slow ass jumpers off. This is what people are trying to defend in here? Why? It was terrible basketball.

Watch on YouTube

[70sFan]

I mean look at this. What are we even talking about here? The game was so slow and unathletic. These guys have completely loose handles…lucky that no one was really any good at defense. They got to the rim because the defense was so slow to react and help. No one ever faced a trap. Rarely did anyone even got double teamed. Players got a ridiculous amount of time to get their slow ass jumpers off. This is what people are trying to defend in here? Why? It was terrible basketball.

Watch on YouTube

Watch full games instead of slowed down "highlights" if you want to see help defense, doubles and traps. Learn the rules before talking ridiculous things about ball-handling.

[70sFan]

I fully understand how the game has changed. If you think JJ's game would be rule impacted by the 1950's it's you who doesn't have a clue about the 50's NBA.

I'm quite sure that lack of three point line would impact JJs game, for starters.

Oh come on! Adjust for the league we're talking about.

1951 the league leader in field goal percentage was Groza (such a shame we didn't get to see his career play out) at 47%. Macauley was second at 46.6% and then you drop all the way to 42.8 for Mikan. JJ shot 46.4% on 16-3P shots for his career. He'd be killing people running weaves then stepping back to catch a virtually uncontested 18 footer or he'd draw defenders and have an easy dump to a big man for a running hook.

He's a great shooter in a league where they'd never seen a shooting threat like him. He has good height, if not great height for a shooter as well vs say Bill Sharman he's likely got a good inch on him.

You said different rules wouldn't impact his game and you didn't prove me wrong. I'm not saying he'd be bad, but he'd have to adjust.

Redick didn't have great height for a shooter, Carl Braun had a great height for a shooter.

[dhsilv2]

I'm quite sure that lack of three point line would impact JJs game, for starters.

Oh come on! Adjust for the league we're talking about.

1951 the league leader in field goal percentage was Groza (such a shame we didn't get to see his career play out) at 47%. Macauley was second at 46.6% and then you drop all the way to 42.8 for Mikan. JJ shot 46.4% on 16-3P shots for his career. He'd be killing people running weaves then stepping back to catch a virtually uncontested 18 footer or he'd draw defenders and have an easy dump to a big man for a running hook.

He's a great shooter in a league where they'd never seen a shooting threat like him. He has good height, if not great height for a shooter as well vs say Bill Sharman he's likely got a good inch on him.

You said different rules wouldn't impact his game and you didn't prove me wrong. I'm not saying he'd be bad, but he'd have to adjust.

Redick didn't have great height for a shooter, Carl Braun had a great height for a shooter.

Shooting a 3 or a 2 from the same distance at 40% is still dominating in the 1950's. It doesn't change he'd be a guy playing a very similar style to his nba style with a few twists to fit in with the era (which everyone has to understand).

[70sFan]

Shooting a 3 or a 2 from the same distance at 40% is still dominating in the 1950's.

No, it isn't.

[dhsilv2]

Shooting a 3 or a 2 from the same distance at 40% is still dominating in the 1950's.

No, it isn't.

In a league shooting about 36% (1951), how is consistently shooting 40% from a greater distance than anyone else was consistently shooting not dominating?

[70sFan]

Shooting a 3 or a 2 from the same distance at 40% is still dominating in the 1950's.

No, it isn't.

In a league shooting about 36% (1951), how is consistently shooting 40% from a greater distance than anyone else was consistently shooting not dominating?

Players took a lot of shots past 16 feet back then, a lot more than in any other era until teams started shooting threes. Redick likely wouldn't accomplish such a good efficiency with the ball that wasn't round and had more imperfections.

He still would be the best shooter in the league back then and that would make him a very good player in 1951, but he wouldn't dominate.

[dhsilv2]

No, it isn't.

In a league shooting about 36% (1951), how is consistently shooting 40% from a greater distance than anyone else was consistently shooting not dominating?

Players took a lot of shots past 16 feet back then, a lot more than in any other era until teams started shooting threes. Redick likely wouldn't accomplish such a good efficiency with the ball that wasn't round and had more imperfections.

He still would be the best shooter in the league back then and that would make him a very good player in 1951, but he wouldn't dominate.

Yeah, I've never disagreed more with you then. There's zero question he'd be on a different level from any guard of that era.

[70sFan]

In a league shooting about 36% (1951), how is consistently shooting 40% from a greater distance than anyone else was consistently shooting not dominating?

Players took a lot of shots past 16 feet back then, a lot more than in any other era until teams started shooting threes. Redick likely wouldn't accomplish such a good efficiency with the ball that wasn't round and had more imperfections.

He still would be the best shooter in the league back then and that would make him a very good player in 1951, but he wouldn't dominate.

Yeah, I've never disagreed more with you then. There's zero question he'd be on a different level from any guard of that era.

It wasn't guards league though. Mikan dominated the league, not Wazner or Davies.

[dhsilv2]

Players took a lot of shots past 16 feet back then, a lot more than in any other era until teams started shooting threes. Redick likely wouldn't accomplish such a good efficiency with the ball that wasn't round and had more imperfections.

He still would be the best shooter in the league back then and that would make him a very good player in 1951, but he wouldn't dominate.

Yeah, I've never disagreed more with you then. There's zero question he'd be on a different level from any guard of that era.

It wasn't guards league though. Mikan dominated the league, not Wazner or Davies.

Reddick had 50+ years of additional science in health, nutrition, basketball, etc to build on! And the game was always a guards game, when guards were good enough. There just weren't good guards then.

[70sFan]

Yeah, I've never disagreed more with you then. There's zero question he'd be on a different level from any guard of that era.

It wasn't guards league though. Mikan dominated the league, not Wazner or Davies.

Reddick had 50+ years of additional science in health, nutrition, basketball, etc to build on! And the game was always a guards game, when guards were good enough. There just weren't good guards then.

So you think Redick would dominate because he's healthier than 1950s players?

The game was always a bigman game, still is.