"His shooting has improved"

[ukfan2410]

Guys who are "natural" shooters are that way because they were taught great fundamentals at a very young age. Dell Curry didn't let Steph shoot 3's until he was much older. Shooting is a skill that is developed from tons of practice. The great ones are great because they were taught well from the start, not because they were born with it lol. Seriously?

 

[GonzoCat90]

Imagine thinking there's a natural, innate skill to something that humans have only been doing for a hundred years.

Just a genetic predisposition of superiority lurking in there for thousands and thousands of years, waiting on Naismith.

 

[morgousky]

Without starting a major debate I would suggest that you read about the 10,000 rule. It's a tried and tested theory.

It basically states that anyone can become an expert on anything after practicing it for 10,000 hours. People like Curry have probably already put in 10,000+ hours into their craft.

Additionally, some people don't need all 10,000 hours. They master the skill quicker, and that is where genes come in.

I guess I’m just not sure what some are arguing?

If I spend 10,000 hours shooting a basketball (already done it) I’m still not going to be able to shoot like Postol Pete. Being that good IS a natural skill. I’m a helluva shot to this day, but I know guys who played less basketball than me and didn’t have a sports dad who are more naturally gifted and can drain it. Some really do have a nose for the net.

If I spend 10,000 hours WITH Ken Griffey Jr learning directly from him, I still won’t swing a bat that beautifully and soundly.

If you’re saying Archie Goodwin can become pistol Pete after practice, I disagree. Can he become a really
Good shooter? Sure. Maybe. Maybe not. What would you say if you knew Goodwin has already put in 12,000 hours of shooting?

There’s also other aspects.

I agree that the rule is probably true for some, but no way is a general rule for all.

 

[Jmeeks54thebest]

I guess I’m just not sure what some are arguing?

If I spend 10,000 hours shooting a basketball (already done it) I’m still not going to be able to shoot like Postol Pete. Being that good IS a natural skill. I’m a helluva shot to this day, but I know guys who played less basketball than me and didn’t have a sports dad who are more naturally gifted and can drain it. Some really do have a nose for the net.

If I spend 10,000 hours WITH Ken Griffey Jr learning directly from him, I still won’t swing a bat that beautifully and soundly.

If you’re saying Archie Goodwin can become pistol Pete after practice, I disagree. Can he become a really
Good shooter? Sure. Maybe. Maybe not.

There’s also other aspects.

I agree that the rule is probably true for some, but no way is a general rule for all.

Well I definitely think it takes a combination of skill and natural ability. In the case of Pistol Pete, he's one of the ones who didn't need the full 10,000 hours to become an expert on shooting.

I think we might be underestimating 10,000 hours. For example, there are only 8,760 hours in a year. Plus we're not accounting for sleep, eating, school, church (for some), driving to all these places, etc.

I certainly agree that genes generally dictate how tall we are, how fast or strong we can become, how high we can jump, etc. But traits of skill do require practice. How much practice per individual? Now we're getting into the role of genetics.

I bet the Curry boys have shooting basketballs since they could stand. And they didn't have some random hobo teaching them, they had a great shooter of a father to teach them form and release.

Genetics vs training is far from being a "fact" though. I was a biology major in college and scientists are still studying which has the bigger impact on an athele's success (genes vs work).

If Goodwin put in 12,000 hours of shooting already... whew. Need to look at whose coaching him!

Your points are well taken, and I do like this topic a lot because it is very interesting.

 

[morgousky]

Well I definitely think it takes a combination of skill and natural ability. In the case of Pistol Pete, he's one of the ones who didn't need the full 10,000 hours to become an expert on shooting.

I think we might be underestimating 10,000 hours. For example, there are only 8,760 hours in a year. Plus we're not accounting for sleep, eating, school, church (for some), driving to all these places, etc.

I certainly agree that genes generally dictate how tall we are, how fast or strong we can become, how high we can jump, etc. But traits of skill do require practice. How much practice per individual? Now we're getting into the role of genetics.

I bet the Curry boys have shooting basketballs since they could stand. And they didn't have some random hobo teaching them, they had a great shooter of a father to teach them form and release.

Genetics vs training is far from being a "fact" though. I was a biology major in college and scientists are still studying which has the bigger impact on an athele's success (genes vs work).

I think there’s a lot of truth to what you say. I know from experience. My life story is bizarre and I had semesters when I went back college that I averaged 3 hours of sleep a night. The majority of that time was spent with my father getting me back into game shape for a partial baseball scholarship and studying. I’ve spend days and nights on my old high school baseball Field reinventing my life after drug abuse destroyed me for 3 years.

I respect practice and also respect how much 10,000 hours actually is.

I’ve always told kids that I’ve coached in baseball and football to live, sleep, and eat your dream and it can happen. I really believe it.

David Ekstien is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Long story short he maximized every inch of his talent. It took every ounce of his ability to get pop times to first ahead of the runner. If you ever noticed he’d beat the fastest guys by less than half a step during routine grounders. Because of practice he becomes WS MVP, and the most talked about guy in sports.

But he was never the wizard on short. He just didn’t have the mobility, range, and natural ability.

I believe you’re correct that you can become something else entirely, I just believe there’s a level you cannot reach with practice as awful as that sounds.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I guess I’m just not sure what some are arguing?

If I spend 10,000 hours shooting a basketball (already done it) I’m still not going to be able to shoot like Postol Pete. Being that good IS a natural skill. I’m a helluva shot to this day, but I know guys who played less basketball than me and didn’t have a sports dad who are more naturally gifted and can drain it. Some really do have a nose for the net.

If I spend 10,000 hours WITH Ken Griffey Jr learning directly from him, I still won’t swing a bat that beautifully and soundly.

If you’re saying Archie Goodwin can become pistol Pete after practice, I disagree. Can he become a really
Good shooter? Sure. Maybe. Maybe not. What would you say if you knew Goodwin has already put in 12,000 hours of shooting?

There’s also other aspects.

I agree that the rule is probably true for some, but no way is a general rule for all.

Exactly

 

[mj2k10]

Imagine thinking there's a natural, innate skill to something that humans have only been doing for a hundred years.

Just a genetic predisposition of superiority lurking in there for thousands and thousands of years, waiting on Naismith.

Ehh, but some people are born with vastly superior hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and other things that effect athletic skills. A huge chunk of the population could practice hitting a baseball every waking hour of the day from the time they're 10 until they're 25, and still never come close to being able to do it as well as someone like Ken Griffey Jr or Barry Bonds (both, not so coincidentally, the sons of very good MLB players).

Ditto Steph Curry and shooting.

Where Curry really, really, really deserves credit is in how he's developed his ability to shoot off the dribble from deep. No one has ever been remotely close to as good at that as he is. Guys like Mark Price and Steve Nash would do it occasionally, but Curry has taken his prolific natural ability and honed it into something revolutionary. It's why he can get off 11 or 12 threes a game, why the very obvious idea of "just run him off the 3 point line" rarely works, and why he can be incredibly efficient on 2 point shots (guys over-commit to stopping the 3 and give him easy paths to the hoop) despite being, by NBA standards, a limited athlete.

 

[BoxterS]

I've heard this said about Keldon Johnson. Whenever I hear this applied to a recruit, that scares me. IMO, shooting is a natural gift. If you got it, you got it. Bad shooters can always improve but they can just as easily revert back to their bad form. Give me a natural shooter with average athleticism over a good athlete who can't throw it in the ocean.

Been saying this for a long time and have been crucified on here for it.

Which one do you think Cal prefers?

Natural shooter with average athleticism

Or......

Good athlete who can't throw it in the ocean

 

[GonzoCat90]

Ehh, but some people are born with vastly superior hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and other things that effect athletic skills. A huge chunk of the population could practice hitting a baseball every waking hour of the day from the time they're 10 until they're 25, and still never come close to being able to do it as well as someone like Ken Griffey Jr or Barry Bonds (both, not so coincidentally, the sons of very good MLB players).

Ditto Steph Curry and shooting.

Where Curry really, really, really deserves credit is in how he's developed his ability to shoot off the dribble from deep. No one has ever been remotely close to as good at that as he is. Guys like Mark Price and Steve Nash would do it occasionally, but Curry has taken his prolific natural ability and honed it into something revolutionary. It's why he can get off 11 or 12 threes a game, why the very obvious idea of "just run him off the 3 point line" rarely works, and why he can be incredibly efficient on 2 point shots (guys over-commit to stopping the 3 and give him easy paths to the hoop) despite being, by NBA standards, a limited athlete.

Right, but that goes well beyond just shooting or just swinging. You could learn to swing a bat exactly like Griffey in far less than 10,000 hours. You just aren't going to be able to hit a 100mph fastball with late movement like he did. That's where the innate gifts come from.

But with regards to shooting, I'm talking about in an empty gym, standing still, open, shooting 100 shots and seeing how many you make. I'm not factoring in nerves, focus, stamina, etc. or the ability to know how to get open, come off a screen, or any of that.

I think by attaching names to it, there's this inherent aura that skews perception. Shooting "like" Steph Curry seems impossible because there are countless other factors that play into his success that have nothing to do with actually shooting the ball. But what you can do is practice to the point that you could, standing still, in an empty gym, make more threes than he does. Just the pure act of shooting.

What is also seemingly ignored in this discussion, and where it originated, is that Keldon Johnson is a really good athlete and a really strong kid. This isn't Joe Schmoe trying to be Steph Curry. This is a physically supreme teenager showing demonstrated, tangible growth in an area that we have hundreds of examples of that very thing being possible.

This whole notion that "some guys are born natural shooters so they're better" is just totally false. If Malik Monk is a natural shooter and makes 37% on 3 attempts per game and Doron Lamb is a product of practice and makes 45% on 3 attempts, I don't much care how effortless it was for Malik.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Been saying this for a long time and have been crucified on here for it.

Which one do you think Cal prefers?

Natural shooter with average athleticism

Or......

Good athlete who can't throw it in the ocean

If you're going to be awful, at least weight your awful argument evenly, Cut-Nets.


Had you rather have a good athlete who can't throw it in the ocean or a natural shooter who can't outrun Cal or out-jump a box of hammers? Framing your choices as one elite skill and one average skill versus one good skill and one nonexistent skill is an obvious result, but it's not reality.

That's why you "get crucified," beyond just your general attitude and awful takes.

 

[BoxterS]

If you're going to be awful, at least weight your awful argument evenly, Cut-Nets.


Had you rather have a good athlete who can't throw it in the ocean or a natural shooter who can't outrun Cal or out-jump a box of hammers? Framing your choices as one elite skill and one average skill versus one good skill and one nonexistent skill is an obvious result, but it's not reality.

That's why you "get crucified," beyond just your general attitude and awful takes.

Oh I'm sorry, I sent that to U9K.

 

[GonzoCat90]

Oh I'm sorry, I sent that to U9K.

Sadly, the rest of us can see what you post.

 

[BoxterS]

Sadly, the rest of us can see what you post.

Wonder why you don't have me on ignore then? Hmmm the subconscious can be a bitch