Is shooting better in the NBA?

[MFFL]

Dirk is mentioned - please don't move the thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the link

BY RANDY HILL
FOXSports.com
Feb. 14, 2002 12:58 a.m.

Stay tuned for words to live by.
Here they are:

"When in doubt, shoot."

There they go.

This vote for shooting was crucial advice from my high school guidance counselor, who may have been recommending a career in law enforcement.

But I adopted his good-intentioned rally chant as my philosophy of basketball.

When in doubt, shoot.

And I had doubts galore.

Now, as a participant in the fiendish world of sports reporting and/or interpreting, I meet many citizens who don't mind spitting up doubts about basketball.

It's doomed, they say. Doomed at every level.

Ask for an explanation, and you'll probably receive a sermon on the damning proliferation of tattoos. Ask for a deeper survey, and the doomsday prophets cling to the topic of shooting.

Here's their premise: contemporary basketball players can't shoot as well as basketball players shot in the old days.

Maybe.

And maybe not.

This shooting notion certainly seemed on the money during the first half of Tuesday's Washington Wizards-L.A. Lakers jamboree. Bad shots? Nah, those were more like inoculations.

But are today's snipers truly inferior to their predecessors?

Or were open jumpers easier to come by in the good, ol' days? You've seen classical sports on TV; the basketball archives feature players whose shorts really were, and defense was attempted without bending the knees.

Even Dr. Ruth knew better than that.

Anyway, contemporary defense is played with much more conviction, by participants who can get from here to there in less time.

Players who couldn't guard a bear in a phone booth are less likely to be hidden within the pretext of a sagging man-to-man scheme.

And shooting in the good, ol' days wasn't always that good.

Elgin Baylor bagged 43 percent of his shots from the field during a magnificent career. Lethal weapon Gail Goodrich checks in at a solid, but hardly astonishing, 45 percent. Shot-blocking deity Bill Russell made just 44 percent of his attempts. Nate Thurmond missed 58 percent of the time.

Crooked-shooting Bob Cousy made just 37 percent of his career rounds from the field.

Larry Bird shot 50 percent for his career, but was a bit more sporadic from distance than you might recall. In his second through fifth NBA seasons, Bird's three-point percentages were a bit frosty — 27, 21, 29 and 25.

He did crack 40 percent in five of those 13 glorious campaigns.

With the dunk lurking as a shooting-percentage salve, are today's hotshots more accurate? I wouldn't lean on that pulpit, but they are better than they were even two or three years ago.

Today's expert witness is Chip Engelland.

Chip is a former Duke Blue Devil, who now tutors several NBA and college players in the art of shooting.

His most decorated student is Orlando Magic forward Grant Hill.

Too bad Chip doesn't know much about fixing ankles.

But the application of his shooting philosophy had been a boon to Hill before fortune's bad wheel reduced Grant to "guy in suit on bench."

If you can hark all the way back to when Grant was playing for Detroit, try visualizing his mechanics. Right, the arms were extended away from his body.

Engelland promotes keeping the ball in tight, then imagining the shot coming up through the nostrils and eyebrows (stay with me here) before attaining a fluid release.

Not buyin' it?

OK, extend your arms a bit. Arms. That's your finger. Good. Now, with your arms away from your torso, try figuring out how in the hell you're going to imbue that shot with the proper arc.

Gotcha, smart guy.

Engelland also recommends initiating the shooting sequence from the hip.

"Bring the ball up to the shooting position at an angle off the right hip … like a sash on Miss America," he says. "If you bring it straight up, you put the ball right in front of the defender."

Important style tip for right-handers. Lefties should just double the ingredients or something.

So, Chip — who also works with Shane Battier, Bryce Drew and Steve Kerr — is a shooting sharpie. And here's what he has to say about shooting in the NBA:

"I think NBA shooting is on the rise."

Thanks, Chip. Oh, Chip wasn't finished.

"In just thinking about the three-point line," he adds, "it was set up only for the league's marksmen. But more players can make that shot now than when it was introduced." Credit for that goes to the risk-reward factor.

With three big points in the balance, players (blessed by coaches) don't mind sacrificing their overall field-goal percentage for the opportunity of boosting that scoring average.

And the subsequent romance with long-range gunning can be murder on overall accuracy reports.

The phenomenon may be even more acute in college and high school, where the three-point line is as close to the rim as George Karl may be to an open window.

A school lacking in Prop. 48-caliber cheerleaders might mitigate its obvious recruiting handicap by attracting players who can shoot. The three-point line can be to a smaller team as a slingshot and rock were to David.

(Editor's note: Not Thompson; OK, Thompson, if you insist.)

But distant shooting is not the only explanation for shaky percentages.

"I think players are more specialized," Engelland said. "Some shoot better off the screen, some shoot better than others off the dribble and some are better at catch-and-shoot."

And very few players seem to be working on all of the above. With more glamour attached to the dunk and the three, that elusive "mid-range game" often is ignored.

Contrary to popular perception, most skill work is done in the NBA. Many teams have hired skill-development coaches who drill today's younger millionaire during morning shoot-arounds and in the preamble to a game.

If you don't think NBA players can shoot, show up when the doors open and watch the pre-game ritual. Even Jason Kidd shoots like Hal Greer at 6 p.m.

College and high school coaches have less in-season time for skill building. With more sneaky press and zone threats to prepare for, two or three hours of scheming evaporate quickly. College coaches can by maniacs about tactics, preparing for the next foe like Martha Stewart locking and loading for brunch.

A quick note about free throws. Alarming. But the overall percentages often are skewed by players hired for or recruited for their ability to swap elbows near the hoop.

Compare the structures of today's players with the chemistry-club physiques of the stars from your classic network. When you're paid to retrieve the ball, time that had been spent working on free throws often is transferred to the weight room.

I think multi-millionaires should find the time to do both.

Now that I've attempted to make a case for the contemporary sniper, it's time to admit a problem exists.

And it begins with the AAU paradox.

In my opinion, greater shooters and post players are made, not genetically engineered. And the Pygmalion process should have more time for success in the summer.

But for the high-end high school player, summer is devoted to seemingly endless, sneaker company-empowered national tournaments.

Rather than learning new tricks or erasing old and bad habits, many players are obliged to play twice as many games as they do during the regular season.

The upgrade in competition is an enticement and a benefit. So are the travel, the free gear and the exposure to salivating college (and professional) watchdogs.

For mid-level high-school players, AAU tournaments provide an opportunity to display their evolving games for the peepers of coaches who otherwise would never see them perform.

Engelland thinks summer competition — while a crucial source of exposure — has created a greater separation of skill between star high school players and their contemporaries.

"The best players in high school are better than the best players used to be," he says. "They've had more opportunities to compete at higher levels."

And this disparity of competition, Engelland points out, makes the average varsity player seem relatively worse than in the good, ol' days.

In a few years, some of their gifted classmates will be compared to Kobe, Tracy, KG and Dirk.

Thanks to grumpy sportswriters, many of these comparisons won't be in their favor.

So it goes.

But if you care more about doing than debating, shoot Mr. Engelland a question. His e-mail address is chipshots3@aol.com.

If you have ankle problems, you're on your own.

[grbh]

I am glad to see such an article. Many journalists are weary of such stories, because it does not fit with the story that the NBA is better than it was. I am not speaking of the games but the players. They call it the good old day syndrome on the Ticket, and I think that is appropriate. Think about it for one moment, these are things about todaysd players that are better than the lsat bunch

1. Jump Higher
2. Shoot from a greater range
3. More Muscular
4. Faster
5. Have much better high school/college coaches
6. More individual coaching once they have reached the NBA
7. Inclusive, it first started with letting in AA players, then Europe. The fact is more people play the game. The more that play the larger the talent pool.
8. Say what you wish, but defense on the perimeter used to be soft.This has changed.
9. Cause I said so, and in making a list felt it had to get to 10 for legitimacy purposes.
10. See 9