Best pure shooter in Cal Basketball History

puget sound cal fan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That was Ed's role on the club from his recruitment out of JC.
puget sound cal fan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree that Dreher and Drew are among the top MBB perimeter shooters.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

Sorry, SFC, I was just trying to be humorous. sorry it didn't work; no offense intended.

I agree about Bird, although there have been a number of really great shooters in the NBA. Of course, you need to define what is meant (i.e., are we talking outside shots--3-point or that distance before the 3-point shot? Or all shots). If we're talking shooting in general, I'd put Wilt up there, even if he never took 20' shots. For pure 3-point shooting there's Reggie Miller, Steph Curry, Bird, etc.
Ursa Major,

I obviously misunderstood your post. I think if you had said that when we had been having a conversation live and in person, I would have known whether you were being serious or humorous. It's one reason I don't like electronic media, it is too easy to misunderstand and take offense. For me, at least. Thanks for not responding in kind.

Your raise a good point as to what we are talking about when we discuss who is pure shooter. What exactly does "pure" mean in a shooter? Most posters seem to fall back on shooting percentage as a criteria, and we all have different criteria, I suppose. BeachedBear defined it very well, I thought, for him, and that was stats or shooting percentage, style, and clutch.

I used to think that a "pure" shot in basketball was a shot that hit nothing but net, no rim or backboard at all. Mike Krukow told a story today on the Giants' broadcast that when the Giants went to Philly, there was a hoop at the ballpark, and some of the Giants were fooling around shooting hoops and joking about what good basketball players they had been in years past. He said Atlee Hammaker joined the group and shot baskets for five minutes and made everything, and KruKow said every shot was pure.

In golf, a pure putt is one that goes in the center of the cup, and doesn't wobble around on the rim before dropping. You can look at the clubface of a great ball striker, and there will be a little spot, the size of a dime or smaller, that is worn on the clubface where the great player strikes the ball on nearly every swing. When he hits a great shot, some might say he "pured" it, and that shot will be one where he felt he hit the ball in the center of that little dime-sized spot on the clubface, and the ball will end up closer to the target than his average shot.

I agree mostly with BeachedBear. First, stats are important. I think a player today to be considered great must shoot at least 45% from three point range. For a free throw shooter, I'd say to be great, he must shoot at least 85%. As far as style goes, I think a pure shooter might be one whose stroke does not look mechanical, or stiff, like a Jordan Mathews who was a fine shooter. I loved the long flowing stroke of Allen Crabbe, but he did not shoot a great percentage. Jerome Randle was a wonderful player, but I wouldn't call his stroke pure. He put every ounce of strength into many of his shots, leaping as high as he could, fading backward as far as he could, often landing on his butt. It was amazing, but not a smooth effortless stroke of someone like Allen Crabbe.

I think to be considered a great pure shooter today, the player must be able to shoot free throws well. Theo was perhaps our best three point shooter, but not a great free throw shooter. Mathews was a fine 3-pt shooter, and also not so good from the free throw line. Randle was truly great shooting from different distances, and was Cal's best ever free throw shooter. I would like to give a plug to Ayinde Ubaka here, as being a fine free throw shooter in the clutch.

Clutch is BeachedBear's 3rd category, and I agree, and many shooters named in this thread were good at that.

The other good point you bring up is what kinds of shots should be considered when picking the greatest pure shooter. I think that the shots should be those of the era in which the player played. For today, I'd say the three and the free throw, and maybe the floater. For my day of the 1950s, it would be the one-hand push, the jumper, the bank shot, the hook shot, and the free throw. From the 1960s to 1987, the one-hand push disappeared, with the bank and hook soon to follow. When picking the purest shooter of all, we can't fault the players of old for not being great long range shooters, because there was no three-point line or shot then. And we can't fault the players of today for not being great mid and short range jumper shooters or not having a good hook shot or bank shot, because the shots are seldom used.

Here is my list for the purest shooters (with apologies to any favorites are not listed):

Threes: Theo, Dreyer, Randle
Long Range jumpers (pre-1987): Tandy Gillis, Russ Crtichfield, Dan Wolthers,
Short and mid-range jumpers: Randle, Denny Fitzpatrick, Kevin Johnson, Gene Ransom,
Dick Smith, Michael Chavez
One-hand Push shots: Larry Friend, Bob Matheny
Hooks: Bob McKeen
Short Hook shots in the post: Sanders-Frison, Harper Kamp
Bank Shots: Bill McClintock
Floaters: Randle, Crabbe, Ty Wallace

Purest styles I remember, all smooth and effortless:
Center: Ansley Truitt
Forward: Jackie Ridgle, Lamond Murray
Guard: Phil Chenier, Bob Matheny

Clutch shooters: Friend, Fitzpatrick, Imhoff, Critchfield, Ransom, Randle, Justin Cobbs, Kevin Johnson

BTW, regarding NBA shooters, Wilt Chamberlain did shoot a lot of 20+ footers, mostly in the first few years of his career. They were all from one spot, on the left wing beyond what today is the NBA 3 point arc, and they were all bank shots. He shot them at a very high percentage, I'd say probably over 50%. I saw the Philadelphia Warriors play an exhibition at the Cow Palace, where Wilt scored 75 points and he must have shot 10-12 of those long range bank shots in that game, and made most of them.

BTW#2: Did you name yourself on the BI after Wilt Chamberlain's house? The name of his house in LA was Ursa Major. I googled it and the photos are fabulous.








SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

Lamond Murray, He was tremendously underrated, both in college and the pros.
Lamond Murray averaged 34% on three pointers over his career at Cal. The NCAA average for three point shooting is 34% and changes very little from year to year. He was average. He shot well at times and shot well in the clutch. I don't know if that is enough to qualify him as our best pure shooter.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Californication said:

Shooting just over 50% at the line automatically disqualifies a player from any "pure shooter" ranking. Ed Gray, on the other hand, was a good shooter from all over the floor. Took too many shots or he may have had better numbers.
Ed Gray was electric, a very exciting player. He was not a great shooter, he was a scorer. He was aggressive, and took a lot of shots. He shot well in streaks, and he shot well in the clutch. He could take over a game by himself. But he shot threes at only 31.8%, while the NCAA average is usually 34%, in his senior year, he shot threes at 30.2%, only slightly above players like Jaylen Brown (29.4%), Ty Wallace (29.2%), and Sam Singer (27.5%)
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ddc_Cal said:

I thought the comment was meant to be humorous and not serious, but I'm glad it provoked your story(s).
I really enjoyed it.

But I thought Camden Wall was 'only' 6'10".
Thanks. You're right. Camden Wall was 6'-10". I guess I fell into the trap of calling everyone 6'-10" and above "a 7-footer." What impressed me about guys like that was not so much the height, but they had enormous wing spans that made them seem even taller. And their legs were much longer, which made their stride a lot longer than mine.

Cam and I became friends. He spent hours with me at the hoop across from Putnam Hall, trying to teach me how to drive the lane against guys as tall as he was. Taught me that while I was in the air to watch their hands all the time, and manufacture a shot that would not give them much chance to block it, a la Al Buch, who was great at doing that against tall players. Gene Ransom was another guy who excelled at that.

Cam and I used to go to dances and parties to try and pick up girls. I always gravitated toward the short girls as I was short, but somehow Cam always picked up the short girls and I ended up with ones taller than me, or nothing at all. A few years later I read a column in the Chronicle by Charles McCabe entitled, "Tall Girls are Grateful." McCabe felt that short women are like little Napoleons, and tall girls are grateful. I found that he was pretty much right. I wish I had known that when I was hanging out at dances with a 6'-10" guy looking for a girl. I sure hope he eventually found a good one. A great guy.





UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

Sorry, SFC, I was just trying to be humorous. sorry it didn't work; no offense intended.

I agree about Bird, although there have been a number of really great shooters in the NBA. Of course, you need to define what is meant (i.e., are we talking outside shots--3-point or that distance before the 3-point shot? Or all shots). If we're talking shooting in general, I'd put Wilt up there, even if he never took 20' shots. For pure 3-point shooting there's Reggie Miller, Steph Curry, Bird, etc.
Ursa Major,

I obviously misunderstood your post. I think if you had said that when we had been having a conversation live and in person, I would have known whether you were being serious or humorous. It's one reason I don't like electronic media, it is too easy to misunderstand and take offense. For me, at least. Thanks for not responding in kind.

Your raise a good point as to what we are talking about when we discuss who is pure shooter. What exactly does "pure" mean in a shooter? Most posters seem to fall back on shooting percentage as a criteria, and we all have different criteria, I suppose. BeachedBear defined it very well, I thought, for him, and that was stats or shooting percentage, style, and clutch.

I used to think that a "pure" shot in basketball was a shot that hit nothing but net, no rim or backboard at all. Mike Krukow told a story today on the Giants' broadcast that when the Giants went to Philly, there was a hoop at the ballpark, and some of the Giants were fooling around shooting hoops and joking about what good basketball players they had been in years past. He said Atlee Hammaker joined the group and shot baskets for five minutes and made everything, and Krulow said every shot was pure.

In golf, a pure putt is one that goes in the center of the cup, and doesn't wobble around on the rim before dropping. You can look at the clubface of a great ball striker, and there will be a little spot, the size of a dime or smaller, that is worn on the clubface where the great player strikes the ball on nearly every swing. When he hits a great shot, some might say he "pured" it, and that shot will be one where he felt he hit the ball in the center of that little dime-sized spot on the clubface, and the ball will end up closer to the target than his average shot.

I agree mostly with BeachedBear. First, stats are important. I think a player today to be considered great must shoot at least 45% from three point range. For a free throw shooter, I'd say to be great, he must shoot at least 85%. As far as style goes, I think a pure shooter might be one whose stroke does not look mechanical, or stiff, like a Jordan Mathews who was a fine shooter. I loved the long flowing stroke of Allen Crabbe, but he did not shoot a great percentage. Jerome Randle was a wonderful player, but I wouldn't call his stroke pure. He put every ounce of strength into many of his shots, leaping as high as he could, fading backward as far as he could, often landing on his butt. It was amazing, but not a smooth effortless stroke of someone like Allen Crabbe.

I think to be considered a great pure shooter today, the player must be able to shoot free throws well. Theo was perhaps our best three point shooter, but not a great free throw shooter. Mathews was a fine 3-pt shooter, and also not so good from the free throw line. Randle was truly great shooting from different distances, and was Cal's best ever free throw shooter. I would like to give a plug to Ayinde Ubaka here, as being a fine free throw shooter in the clutch.

Clutch is BeachedBear's 3rd category, and I agree, and many shooters named in this thread were good at that.

The other good point you bring up is what kinds of shots should be considered when picking the greatest pure shooter. I think that the shots should be those of the era in which the player played. For today, I'd say the three and the free throw, and maybe the floater. For my day of the 1950s, it would be the one-hand push, the jumper, the bank shot, the hook shot, and the free throw. From the 1960s to 1987, the one-hand push disappeared, with the bank and hook soon to follow. When picking the purest shooter of all, we can't fault the players of old for not being great long range shooters, because there was no three-point line or shot then. And we can't fault the players of today for not being great mid and short range jumper shooters or not having a good hook shot or bank shot, because the shots are seldom used.

Here is my list for the purest shooters (with apologies to any favorites are not listed):

Threes: Theo, Dreyer, Randle
Long Range jumpers (pre-1987): Tandy Gillis, Russ Crtichfield, Dan Wolthers,
Short and mid-range jumpers: Randle, Denny Fitzpatrick, Kevin Johnson, Gene Ransom,
Dick Smith, Michael Chavez
One-hand Push shots: Larry Friend, Bob Matheny
Hooks: Bob McKeen
Bank Shots: Bill McClintock
Floaters: Randle, Crabbe, Ty Wallace

Purest styles I remember, all smooth and effortless:
Center: Ansley Truitt
Forward: Jackie Ridgle, Lamond Murray
Guard: Phil Chenier, Bob Matheny

Clutch shooters: Friend, Fitzpatrick, Imhoff, Critchfield, Ransom, Randle, Justin Cobbs, Kevin Johnson

BTW, regarding NBA shooters, Wilt Chamberlain did shoot a lot of 20+ footers, mostly in the first few years of his career. They were all from one spot, on the left wing beyond what today is the NBA 3 point arc, and they were all bank shots. He shot them at a very high percentage, I'd say probably over 50%. I saw the Philadelphia Warriors play an exhibition at the Cow Palace, where Wilt scored 75 points and he must have shot 10-12 of those long range bank shots in that game, and made most of them.

BTW#2: Did you name yourself on the BI after Wilt Chamberlain's house? The name of his house in LA was Ursa Major. I googled it and the photos are fabulous.









SFCity:

I agree that internet conversations are often a problem in this way. I probably shouldn't have attempted the joke, because I realize it was too easy to misinterpret.

As for the substance of your post. It is obviously an excellent analysis of the issue. A few additional comments:

Whether or not form should be considered in rating shooters is an interesting question. Since the purpose of shooting is to make shots, one could argue that form is irrelevant if a shooter makes his shot. OTOH, there is something to be said for the "pure" shooter. If you go by results, percentages combined with range, I think one would agree that Steph Curry is the best long-distance shooter in the NBA, but his form is unique. In terms of form, most observers would say that the best jump shooter currently practicing his craft is Klay Thompson. It is interesting that we seem to take shooting form more seriously than batting form in baseball. If you hit .300 or have an OPS above .800, you are considered a good hitter regardless of whether or not you have a "pure" stroke or not. Not sure what to make of the difference.

While I agree that Jerome Randle's form was unorthodox and hardly pure, I think a lot of it stems from his height. Growing up shorter than the competition often results in the shooter releasing the ball from behind and falling backwards in order to avoid being blocked.

Regarding clutch shooting, I would give a bit of credit to Jason Kidd. I remember reading that his free throw percentage in the last 2 minutes of games was 10-15 points higher than in the first 38 minutes (begs the question: why wait?).

I would also give a bit of a shout-out to Brian Wethers for his bank shot. Maybe because in recent times, he was more or less the only practitioner of the banker, but he had a pretty deadly 10-12 foot banker from both the right and left wings. Not McClintock level, but certainly respectable.

As for free throws, I definitely agree, and can't understand how someone can be a good 3-point shooter and a poor FT shooter. Maybe more players should emulate Hal Greer (career FT% of ). As you recall, Hall shot jump shots from the FT line, arguing that that way he didn't need to practice 2 different kinds of shots. As for Jordan Mathews, He wasn't a great FT shooter, but did shoot 80% his junior year, which isn't bad.

As for what shots should be considered, there are limits, IMO. Shaq retired with a field goal percentage of about 60%, but since probably over half of his shots were dunks, I don't consider that good shooting.

ddc_Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
I remember Lou Campanelli (I know, consider the source) saying that a pure shooter was someone who would drain 2/3 of his shots if there wasn't a hand in his face. (of course, Lou then used that to say none of his shooters were good enough, so they didn't have a green light)
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

Yogi Bear said:

ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
I remember Lou Campanelli (I know, consider the source) saying that a pure shooter was someone who would drain 2/3 of his shots if there wasn't a hand in his face. (of course, Lou then used that to say none of his shooters were good enough, so they didn't have a green light)


In non-game situations, I could see 2/3. But in games? In the NBA last season, of players who took at least two 3-pointers per game, the highest 3-point percentage when a player was "open" (4-6 feet from the nearest defender), was Joe Harris at 45% (I'm leaving out one player who shot 60% while open in only 2 games played and another who shot 47% in just 7 games). When "very open" (6+ feet from the nearest defender), the highest was Klay Thompson at 51%. If you're wondering, Curry shot 43% and 47% in those categories, respectively.

https://on.nba.com/2uBWWQ0

https://on.nba.com/2uEKvCY

Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

UrsaMajor said:

Yogi Bear said:

ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
I remember Lou Campanelli (I know, consider the source) saying that a pure shooter was someone who would drain 2/3 of his shots if there wasn't a hand in his face. (of course, Lou then used that to say none of his shooters were good enough, so they didn't have a green light)


In non-game situations, I could see 2/3. But in games? In the NBA last season, of players who took at least two 3-pointers per game, the highest 3-point percentage when a player was "open" (4-6 feet from the nearest defender), was Joe Harris at 45% (I'm leaving out one player who shot 60% while open in only 2 games played and another who shot 47% in just 7 games). When "very open" (6+ feet from the nearest defender), the highest was Klay Thompson at 51%. If you're wondering, Curry shot 43% and 47% in those categories, respectively.

https://on.nba.com/2uBWWQ0

https://on.nba.com/2uEKvCY


Curry shoots open 50 footers at the end of quarters, which dip his percentages somewhat. In every way measureable, in every situation, from every distance, Curry is a superior shooter to Klay. As well as the rest of the league for that matter.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

Yogi Bear said:

ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
I remember Lou Campanelli (I know, consider the source) saying that a pure shooter was someone who would drain 2/3 of his shots if there wasn't a hand in his face. (of course, Lou then used that to say none of his shooters were good enough, so they didn't have a green light)
Lou was right, in my opinion, and thanks for bringing this up. Noting that Lou said a pure shooter was a player who could make 2/3 of HIS shots, this would eliminate shots from half-court line which are not a player's usual shots in a game. I guarantee that Jerome Randle could make 2/3 of his shots no one guarding him. Ask him, why don't we? He has already proved he is 93% from 15 feet (the free throw line), and closer to the basket his percentage would approach 100%. He shot 45% from the three point line with defenders in his face most of the time. With no one in his face, I'd say he'd shoot 2/3 or darn close to it. The three point line is 20'-9", only 5'-9" beyond the free throw line. Are we saying a player's percentage would drop all the way from 93% 45% in such a short increase in distance? Of course some of it is that the free throw is shot with both feet on the ground, while the three is a jumper with more variables that can affect accuracy. But even so, I believe a jump shooter should be able to shoot threes 2/3 with no one guarding him. Watch a film clip of Larry Bird in the three-point contest, quickly draining shot after shot without a miss.

I posted that in high school I shot 2/3 in the high school league, and in the CYO league with 80%-90% of the shots coming from three-point range. It was the only year my leagues kept stats on us. I shot all long range shots with a one-hand push shot, like I shot free throws. There was no three point shot in those days. Long bombs, no matter how pretty they looked, only counted for two points. Any player who started shooting long bombs and missing, would be pulled out of the game and sent to the bench by just about every coach.

I was unknown to other teams, and hanging out on the perimeter, I was seldom guarded at the start of games. Once I had made a few long range shots, teams began to guard me tightly, so I couldn't get any shots off. As a result, as a starter, I made nearly all my points in the first half of games, because in the second half, teams never let me have any open shots. When I came off the bench, it was a similar story. I'd come into a game, make a few long range bombs, and other teams would guard me tightly, not allowing me to take a shot. So I lost my effectiveness, but my percentage remained high.

Please come back Lou, all is forgiven. Boy, we sure could have used you last season to motivate and build a fire under that team.




SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

UrsaMajor said:

Yogi Bear said:

ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
I remember Lou Campanelli (I know, consider the source) saying that a pure shooter was someone who would drain 2/3 of his shots if there wasn't a hand in his face. (of course, Lou then used that to say none of his shooters were good enough, so they didn't have a green light)


In non-game situations, I could see 2/3. But in games? In the NBA last season, of players who took at least two 3-pointers per game, the highest 3-point percentage when a player was "open" (4-6 feet from the nearest defender), was Joe Harris at 45% (I'm leaving out one player who shot 60% while open in only 2 games played and another who shot 47% in just 7 games). When "very open" (6+ feet from the nearest defender), the highest was Klay Thompson at 51%. If you're wondering, Curry shot 43% and 47% in those categories, respectively.

https://on.nba.com/2uBWWQ0

https://on.nba.com/2uEKvCY
I think the thread and Ursa Major were talking about Cal and college players, not NBA. NBA three point statistics are not comparable in any way to college, because the NBA three point line is three feet farther away from the basket than the college three point line. College line is 20'-9", and the NBA line is 23'-9" away. Different game.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My two favorite shooters to watch were Lamond and Crabbe. There was only one scoring machine: Ed Gray.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

UrsaMajor said:

Yogi Bear said:

ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
I remember Lou Campanelli (I know, consider the source) saying that a pure shooter was someone who would drain 2/3 of his shots if there wasn't a hand in his face. (of course, Lou then used that to say none of his shooters were good enough, so they didn't have a green light)


In non-game situations, I could see 2/3. But in games? In the NBA last season, of players who took at least two 3-pointers per game, the highest 3-point percentage when a player was "open" (4-6 feet from the nearest defender), was Joe Harris at 45% (I'm leaving out one player who shot 60% while open in only 2 games played and another who shot 47% in just 7 games). When "very open" (6+ feet from the nearest defender), the highest was Klay Thompson at 51%. If you're wondering, Curry shot 43% and 47% in those categories, respectively.

https://on.nba.com/2uBWWQ0

https://on.nba.com/2uEKvCY


And yet 9 out of 10 Bear Insider posters could shoot 70% from behind the arc and 90% from the line - back in the day.
petalumabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civil Bear said:

GMP said:

UrsaMajor said:

Yogi Bear said:

ddc_Cal said:

Long ago, I remember NBA announcers referring to some players as 'pure shooters'. What that meant back then was someone who was an excellent shot, in terms of medium and long range, but did not offer much in the way of defense or rebounding.

IOW, they were very good at what they did -- but don't expect much more from them. They were usually a role player that would come off the bench.
It just means good shooter to me. Larry Bird was a pure shooter, even though he did other things well.
I remember Lou Campanelli (I know, consider the source) saying that a pure shooter was someone who would drain 2/3 of his shots if there wasn't a hand in his face. (of course, Lou then used that to say none of his shooters were good enough, so they didn't have a green light)


In non-game situations, I could see 2/3. But in games? In the NBA last season, of players who took at least two 3-pointers per game, the highest 3-point percentage when a player was "open" (4-6 feet from the nearest defender), was Joe Harris at 45% (I'm leaving out one player who shot 60% while open in only 2 games played and another who shot 47% in just 7 games). When "very open" (6+ feet from the nearest defender), the highest was Klay Thompson at 51%. If you're wondering, Curry shot 43% and 47% in those categories, respectively.

https://on.nba.com/2uBWWQ0

https://on.nba.com/2uEKvCY


And yet 9 out of 10 Bear Insider posters could shoot 70% from behind the arc and 90% from the line - back in the day.
There's at least one that I know of who's made the free throw claim here. But yeah, the misrepresented abilities are legendary...
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
Wyking Jones may be a better person, may offend less players, and may become a great head coach some day, but he has a long, long way to go to match even what Lou did at Cal, his record, and especially breaking that long streak of losses to UCLA.
RichyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another excellent outside shooter at Cal was Charlie Perkins. In '67 Perkins and Crutchfield were a great pair of guards for Cal. Both were great long range shooters. If there was the 3 point shot back then, both of these guys would be among Cal's leading 3 point shooters.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
Wyking Jones may be a better person, may offend less players, and may become a great head coach some day, but he has a long, long way to go to match even what Lou did at Cal, his record, and especially breaking that long streak of losses to UCLA.
Absolutely (although not sure about the great head coach part). However, that doesn't mean I'd want Lou back. Just as I wouldn't want Joe Paterno (if he were alive) as my football coach regardless of his record.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RichyBear said:

Another excellent outside shooter at Cal was Charlie Perkins. In '67 Perkins and Crutchfield were a great pair of guards for Cal. Both were great long range shooters. If there was the 3 point shot back then, both of these guys would be among Cal's leading 3 point shooters.
Thanks for bringing up Perkins. He shot 51% from the floor and a lot of his shots were from long distance.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
Wyking Jones may be a better person, may offend less players, and may become a great head coach some day, but he has a long, long way to go to match even what Lou did at Cal, his record, and especially breaking that long streak of losses to UCLA.

If you and I went to Vegas now and placed a wager on the status of his employment with Cal at the end of next season our money would be riding on the same predicted outcome.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
orindabear74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Phil Chenier. Deadly pull up jumper and fadeaway.
kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Has anyone brought up Charlie Johnson? Great mid range and corner jumper.
As for the NBA and specifically the warriors, why is Jeff Mullins never mentioned for being one of their great players?
I had dinner with Rick Barry and Charley Johnson and both of them thought that Franklin Meuli really underestimated Mullins' contribution after Rick left.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
Wyking Jones may be a better person, may offend less players, and may become a great head coach some day, but he has a long, long way to go to match even what Lou did at Cal, his record, and especially breaking that long streak of losses to UCLA.
Absolutely (although not sure about the great head coach part). However, that doesn't mean I'd want Lou back. Just as I wouldn't want Joe Paterno (if he were alive) as my football coach regardless of his record.
Are you comparing Lou Campanelli using a few cuss words to what Joe Paterno actually did to sanction his assistant's behavior? You can't be serious. Maybe you are. That's OK. What I really miss about Lou was the straw hat band rendition of the song "Louie, Louie" when Lou came onto the floor and how much it fired up the Cal fans, especially the students. Now it is hard enough to even find many Cal students at the games, and harder yet to fire them up. The Bears need an infusion of some new marching music to fire them up, instead of the stuff that passes for pop music these days.







SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
Wyking Jones may be a better person, may offend less players, and may become a great head coach some day, but he has a long, long way to go to match even what Lou did at Cal, his record, and especially breaking that long streak of losses to UCLA.

If you and I went to Vegas now and placed a wager on the status of his employment with Cal at the end of next season our money would be riding on the same predicted outcome.
"I never bet on anything that eats." - Amarillo Slim


Go Bears!
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
Wyking Jones may be a better person, may offend less players, and may become a great head coach some day, but he has a long, long way to go to match even what Lou did at Cal, his record, and especially breaking that long streak of losses to UCLA.
Absolutely (although not sure about the great head coach part). However, that doesn't mean I'd want Lou back. Just as I wouldn't want Joe Paterno (if he were alive) as my football coach regardless of his record.
Are you comparing Lou Campanelli using a few cuss words to what Joe Paterno actually did to sanction his assistant's behavior? You can't be serious. Maybe you are. That's OK. What I really miss about Lou was the straw hat band rendition of the song "Louie, Louie" when Lou came onto the floor and how much it fired up the Cal fans, especially the students. Now it is hard enough to even find many Cal students at the games, and harder yet to fire them up. The Bears need an infusion of some new marching music to fire them up, instead of the stuff that passes for pop music these days.








I'm not saying that Lou and JoPa are equivalent--just making the point that there are other important factors than just coaching record.

Really agree about Louie, Louie, though. Maybe we could have the band do "Along Came Jones?"

(remember: "slow walkin' Jones; slow talkin' Jones. Along came long, lean, lanky Jones")
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:


Please come back Lou, all is forgiven.
Feel free to stay far, far away Lou.
Wyking Jones may be a better person, may offend less players, and may become a great head coach some day, but he has a long, long way to go to match even what Lou did at Cal, his record, and especially breaking that long streak of losses to UCLA.
Absolutely (although not sure about the great head coach part). However, that doesn't mean I'd want Lou back. Just as I wouldn't want Joe Paterno (if he were alive) as my football coach regardless of his record.
Are you comparing Lou Campanelli using a few cuss words to what Joe Paterno actually did to sanction his assistant's behavior? You can't be serious. Maybe you are. That's OK. What I really miss about Lou was the straw hat band rendition of the song "Louie, Louie" when Lou came onto the floor and how much it fired up the Cal fans, especially the students. Now it is hard enough to even find many Cal students at the games, and harder yet to fire them up. The Bears need an infusion of some new marching music to fire them up, instead of the stuff that passes for pop music these days.








I'm not saying that Lou and JoPa are equivalent--just making the point that there are other important factors than just coaching record.

Really agree about Louie, Louie, though. Maybe we could have the band do "Along Came Jones?"

(remember: "slow walkin' Jones; slow talkin' Jones. Along came long, lean, lanky Jones")
Perfect. I love it. Let's do it. Can you use your influence with the Chancellor to pass this thought along to the leader of the straw hat band? I think it might catch on with the fans. Better do it this season, as Wyking needs all the help he can get.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My favorite Straw Hat Band song is Pinball Wizard.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Theo. I mean going almost 50% from three one year was amazing.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Theo. I mean going almost 50% from three one year was amazing.
Theo was above 50% for most of the season, but tailed off at the end. Sportsreference doesn't have him listed among the national leaders in 3pt%, maybe because he didn't take enough attempts, only 115 where the top leaders were over 200 attempts. There were a few years where one or two national leaders in 3pt% were over 50%.

Billy Dreher was our best, shooting 0.500 in 1991 with 112 attempts. He was not listed among the national leaders that year, just like Theo was not listed in 2009. Interesting that Dreher could be our best percentage three-point shooter and also had his name mentioned as a great dunker of the basketball in the current thread on Cal dunkers. Not often that a Cal player had the ability to dunk and the skills to shoot from downtown.







oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I offered the band some money to play Louie Louie a few years ago and was toldbthey wont play that anymore as it relates to Lou Campanelli.

Play it before the ucla game and you never know what can happen.
The Bear will not Quit. The Bear will not die but Bart will continue to lie.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

KoreAmBear said:

Theo. I mean going almost 50% from three one year was amazing.
Theo was above 50% for most of the season, but tailed off at the end. Sportsreference doesn't have him listed among the national leaders in 3pt%, maybe because he didn't take enough attempts, only 115 where the top leaders were over 200 attempts. There were a few years where one or two national leaders in 3pt% were over 50%.

Billy Dreher was our best, shooting 0.500 in 1991 with 112 attempts. He was not listed among the national leaders that year, just like Theo was not listed in 2009. Interesting that Dreher could be our best percentage three-point shooter and also had his name mentioned as a great dunker of the basketball in the current thread on Cal dunkers. Not often that a Cal player had the ability to dunk and the skills to shoot from downtown.








Dreher's rep as a dunker was forged on one dunk. IIRC, early-ish in his Cal career, south basket, in a half-court set, he drove down the center of the lane and tomahawked it left-handed. And a legend was born...
kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gosh guys, I'll ask again. What about Charlie Johnson?? Not mentioned once.
Page 2 of 3
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.