|
Post by ESTRELLA on Feb 22, 2011 16:22:26 GMT -5
Have you looked at the free throw shooting percentages of some of these 7' men? It's ridiculous how sorry it is! I could walk out right now and without warm up shoot 80% from the foul line. Very few college or NBA players could do that even with a warm up. I dunno. Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, Rik Smits, Yao Ming, and Dominique Wilkins were pretty good at the line. There was nothing inherent in being tall that should prevent good free-throw numbers. If you're talking about Shaq, he's broke his wrists as a kid and can't get a consistent wrist action on the ball. That's why his effective range is like 5 feet. I've heard Rick Barry offering to teach Shaq his technique (which uses no wrist action) but I guess he doesn't want to try it out. Because it is all about DUNKBALL!
|
|
|
Post by HUSKER FAITHFUL on Feb 23, 2011 0:50:07 GMT -5
I could walk out right now and without warm up shoot 80% from the foul line. Very few college or NBA players could do that even with a warm up. perhaps in your bedroom with the nerf ball or maybe even alone in your driveway - once. But in front of 15,000 screaming fans night in and night out? With or without warmup, I highly doubt it . Does it seem the boredom of the off-season and ensuing silly topics and posts are greater this year than in years past? You doubt it? What knowledge do you have to make such a claim? None! And 80% would be the low end, with our without 15,000 screaming fans.
|
|
|
Post by HUSKER FAITHFUL on Feb 23, 2011 0:51:46 GMT -5
perhaps in your bedroom with the nerf ball or maybe even alone in your driveway - once. But in front of 15,000 screaming fans night in and night out? With or without warmup, I highly doubt it . Does it seem the boredom of the off-season and ensuing silly topics and posts are greater this year than in years past? Has he even shot a free throw in a huge arena before, it is quite a bit different. "He" hasn't although SHE has.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 23, 2011 10:34:56 GMT -5
What does the free-throw percentage of 7-footers in basketball have to do with the height of volleyball nets? Absolutely nothing... It does relate to the idea of changing net heights. One thing about keeping the BB hoop height 10 feet is that the players and the game can both adapt over time. There is always a tension between keeping the rules the same and allowing the game to change versus trying to chase the game with the rules in order to renormalize it. Volleyball has clearly taken the second strategy. Many other sports (including most of the successful ones) have taken the former strategy.
|
|
|
Post by head31919 on Feb 23, 2011 11:13:20 GMT -5
Volleyball has clearly taken the second strategy. Many other sports (including most of the successful ones) have taken the former strategy. I'm not sure I agree with that. The most successful (commercial) sport in America is the NFL. The game today is hardly recognizable from how it was played 40 years ago, and a lot of that has to do with the rule changes. The NBA changed its rules allowing zone defenses; while not as big of a change as rally scoring, that's at least as big a change as the libero.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 23, 2011 11:20:19 GMT -5
Volleyball has clearly taken the second strategy. Many other sports (including most of the successful ones) have taken the former strategy. I'm not sure I agree with that. The most successful (commercial) sport in America is the NFL. The game today is hardly recognizable from how it was played 40 years ago, and a lot of that has to do with the rule changes. The NBA changed its rules allowing zone defenses; while not as big of a change as rally scoring, that's at least as big a change as the libero. That's why I said "most." The most successful (commercial) sport in the world is football (soccer), and the rules for that are pretty static. Basketball, pretty static. Tennis, pretty static. Even NFL football still uses 100-yard fields and 10-yard first-downs. The game is changed, the players are much bigger, but they didn't change the field to match.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Feb 23, 2011 11:38:09 GMT -5
I dunked a VB on a 8 ft basket in front of a crowd of 3. a lot easier than shooting a free throw from 15 feet.
Want an example of free throw ?? run up and down the court twice touching endlines..do 10 pushups at the line then shoot the free throw within 10 seconds.
Dunking is easier.Reasoning ? the average BB mens player need only jump 12 inches to dunk. Most good ones have 24-40 inches of vertical.
there is more timing required to spike over any height in VB.
How many guys with 20 inch verticals have you seen who cant hit worth a dang? Plenty. They cant figure our step timing..approach angles and that's before trying to defeat any block attempt.
Raising the net used to be one of my gripes..but blocking would take over the game..You just get a 6'10' blocker in the middle and they would dominate.
the angles on a higher net would become less every inch raised...and the blocking easier.
Now raise the basket to 11 feet and the dunks remain..There's no defense until playoffs ..
|
|
|
Post by ESTRELLA on Feb 23, 2011 17:34:10 GMT -5
I dunked a VB on a 8 ft basket in front of a crowd of 3. a lot easier than shooting a free throw from 15 feet. Want an example of free throw ?? run up and down the court twice touching endlines..do 10 pushups at the line then shoot the free throw within 10 seconds. Dunking is easier.Reasoning ? the average BB mens player need only jump 12 inches to dunk. Most good ones have 24-40 inches of vertical. there is more timing required to spike over any height in VB. How many guys with 20 inch verticals have you seen who cant hit worth a dang? Plenty. They cant figure our step timing..approach angles and that's before trying to defeat any block attempt. Raising the net used to be one of my gripes..but blocking would take over the game..You just get a 6'10' blocker in the middle and they would dominate. the angles on a higher net would become less every inch raised...and the blocking easier. Now raise the basket to 11 feet and the dunks remain..There's no defense until playoffs .. Why would the angels decrease on a higher net. iI would say the opposite. the blocker has to go higher and his/her penetration moves back therefore increasing the angle to attack. Blocking much easier.....don't think so! Estrella
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 23, 2011 17:48:17 GMT -5
Raising the net used to be one of my gripes..but blocking would take over the game..You just get a 6'10' blocker in the middle and they would dominate. I'm not so sure. If anything, blocking is at a disadvantage now, with taller and more athletic hitters. Raising the net a couple inches wouldn't necessarily lead to blockers dominating. It might just help restore a balance between hitting and blocking. I think that would be a good thing. Making blocking easier doesn't mean it becomes dominant. It is hitting, more than blocking, that has benefited from taller players playing with a net that hasn't changed in height. As it is, right now, blockers are often simply helpless, no matter how tall they happen to be. The most likely result of raising the net, say about 2", would be more and longer rallies. What's more exciting, from a fan perspective? A slam-bam kill with the ball passing over the net only two or three times, or an extended rally with the ball passing over the net four to six times, or more? I say the latter. It also makes for better TV. With longer rallies, you better be mobile, trim, and in good shape, which would, itself, mitigate against putting girls out there who're "tall, that's all."
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 23, 2011 17:58:16 GMT -5
Why would the angels decrease on a higher net. iI would say the opposite. the blocker has to go higher and his/her penetration moves back therefore increasing the angle to attack. Blocking much easier.....don't think so! Estrella The angels might not decrease, but the angles would . On a cross-court attack you'd have to hit it at a higher vertical angle to get it over the net and keep it inbounds, which means you'd have to impact the ball at a higher point. Thus both the horizontal and vertical angles would be impacted. The question, however, at least for me, is whether that would result in the blockers becoming dominant. I think not.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 23, 2011 18:12:17 GMT -5
I dunno. Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, Rik Smits, Yao Ming, and Dominique Wilkins were pretty good at the line. There was nothing inherent in being tall that should prevent good free-throw numbers. If you're talking about Shaq, he's broke his wrists as a kid and can't get a consistent wrist action on the ball. That's why his effective range is like 5 feet. I've heard Rick Barry offering to teach Shaq his technique (which uses no wrist action) but I guess he doesn't want to try it out. Because it is all about DUNKBALL! With a long-range basket ("from downtown") worth three points and a mid-range basket worth two points, why shouldn't a dunk be worth one point? Something tells me that John Wooden would approve. Give the dunking team the ball out of bounds, but only one point. If I'm not mistaken, there has been quite a lot of discussion of raising the height of the basket for men (as well as conversely lowering it for women) in the past. There have been test games played with a higher height, if I'm not mistaken. The biggest problem I see with basketball (college and pro) is an imbalance that favors offense over defense. I've quit watching the NBA altogether and am on the verge of doing the same with college basketball.
|
|
|
Post by HUSKER FAITHFUL on Feb 23, 2011 20:36:59 GMT -5
I dunked a VB on a 8 ft basket in front of a crowd of 3. a lot easier than shooting a free throw from 15 feet. Want an example of free throw ?? run up and down the court twice touching endlines..do 10 pushups at the line then shoot the free throw within 10 seconds. Dunking is easier.Reasoning ? the average BB mens player need only jump 12 inches to dunk. Most good ones have 24-40 inches of vertical. there is more timing required to spike over any height in VB. How many guys with 20 inch verticals have you seen who cant hit worth a dang? Plenty. They cant figure our step timing..approach angles and that's before trying to defeat any block attempt. Raising the net used to be one of my gripes..but blocking would take over the game..You just get a 6'10' blocker in the middle and they would dominate. the angles on a higher net would become less every inch raised...and the blocking easier. Now raise the basket to 11 feet and the dunks remain..There's no defense until playoffs .. Why would the angels decrease on a higher net. iI would say the opposite. the blocker has to go higher and his/her penetration moves back therefore increasing the angle to attack. Blocking much easier.....don't think so! Estrella Well, at least you spelled a word correctly. "angels" It was the wrong word but in your case, we'll take any advancement we can get. Lessons start soon
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Feb 23, 2011 20:47:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with that. The most successful (commercial) sport in America is the NFL. The game today is hardly recognizable from how it was played 40 years ago, and a lot of that has to do with the rule changes. The NBA changed its rules allowing zone defenses; while not as big of a change as rally scoring, that's at least as big a change as the libero. That's why I said "most." The most successful (commercial) sport in the world is football (soccer), and the rules for that are pretty static. Basketball, pretty static. Tennis, pretty static. Even NFL football still uses 100-yard fields and 10-yard first-downs. The game is changed, the players are much bigger, but they didn't change the field to match. I would disagree as basketball and football(american) have changed drastically. Soccer has even changed the way you can end a game in overtime multiple times (and at one point allowed the host to chose which format) I would also say that soccer may not be the best example to follow. It is popular all over the world...but so is volleyball. Yet both struggle in the US, so other US sports would make for better examples.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Feb 24, 2011 3:50:40 GMT -5
That's why I said "most." The most successful (commercial) sport in the world is football (soccer), and the rules for that are pretty static. Basketball, pretty static. Tennis, pretty static. Even NFL football still uses 100-yard fields and 10-yard first-downs. The game is changed, the players are much bigger, but they didn't change the field to match. I would disagree as basketball and football(american) have changed drastically. Soccer has even changed the way you can end a game in overtime multiple times (and at one point allowed the host to chose which format) I would also say that soccer may not be the best example to follow. It is popular all over the world...but so is volleyball. Yet both struggle in the US, so other US sports would make for better examples. By and large, rule changes are made to improve a sport, and more often than not, they do. There is no sport that hasn't evolved over time. Baseball has changed the least, with the designated hitter rule being the biggest change (in only one league, however), but has fallen from being the #1 American sport (and national pastime) to something considerably short of that, behind other sports more willing to change. Not all changes are welcomed, but in general change is good. Evolve or die, in other words (and baseball just might). Now, I happen to be the nostalgic type, who'd love to see college football return to single-platoon (and the single-wing), basketball to the two-handed set shot (and get rid of that dang three-point line, which is a clear corruption of the purity of the game), tennis to using wooden rackets (me and McEnroe), hydroplanes to piston power (turbine power is an abomination), etc., but I'm also resigned to the reality that NONE of these things are likely to happen. Others want a return to side-out scoring... Alas, as we dawdle, time marches on. The only way is forward.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Feb 24, 2011 11:55:30 GMT -5
The net heights are perfect where they are. The average 6'2'' guy can touch the top of the men's net. The average 5'9" women can touch the top of the women's net. Standing that is. Ding, Ding, Ding Winner winner chicken dinner.
|
|