Michael Jordan shot 50% from the field on very little 3 pt shooting. So basically he shot 50% on 2 pointers. That means every time he shot the ball, the expected value was 1 point. For my entire lifetime, this has been the gold standard of a midrange shooter.
The cut off 3pt % to replicate this is 33.3% (3 * .33 = 1).
You cannot go under a pick for any shooter who shoots better than 33.3% otherwise you're essentially giving Michael Jordan a turnaround jumper with a handicap bonus.
No smokescreen, he's 100% correct.
A great deal of Jordan's field goals were dunks and layups, though, as he was never a great shooter and only became streakier as he aged. There is also a difference in terms of the type of shots with which you can live against him, defensively, imo. Take said turnaround jumper, for example. Yeah, you can't give him that shot, as it not only gets him going but also often results in his getting too many of your players in foul trouble, whether they actually fouled him or not, lol
, and, like Bird and Magic, he would milk that matchup until his opponent adjusted, by which time it was often too little, too late.
This is something that the Knicks, in particular, never seemed to understand, which is quite surprising to me, to say the least, because Pat Riley, lol. In the 92 series, for example, and while Gerald Wilkins did his best, him roughly being the same size as Jordan meant that Michael would just attack him in the post from the get-go, but at least "Not Dominique"
was a much better alternative against MJ than Starks, who, again, while an excellent defender who certainly did his best, simply wasn't tall or strong enough to ever bother Jordan, and thus the decision to let Wilkins go and move Starks into the starting lineup really hurt them the following year, imo, even with the injury to Michael's wrist.
Interestingly, the only coaches who seemed to recognize as to how to guard MJ were Don Nelson, during his brief stint in New York, and Dave Cowens, although Bird and co. did a pretty good job against him, as well, who simply assigned the task to Anthony Mason, who was not only stronger than Michael but also possessed excellent lateral quickness, and the fact that he was taller than Jordan took away the post game from the latter, for the most part, as seen in the 1998 semifinal series between Chicago and Charlotte, and the results were quite shocking.
Case in point, in Games 1 and 3, when he was not being defended by Mason, Jordan went 12-14 and 9-10 from the line, respectively, while in Games 2, 4, and 5, Michael shot 2-3, 3-3, and 3-4, well, again, respectively
, and as a result he attempted a combined 46 shots in Games 1 and 3, as opposed to a total of 81 fga in the other contests, so, sure, because of his body type, Mason would have most likely struggled with picks/screens, but would you rather give up a preferably contested midrange jumper to Jordan or have him feast on smaller defenders in the post? Right; and I would have loved to have seen the Knicks put Mason on Jordan, Wilkins on Pippen, and McDaniel on Grant in 1992. That series was already incredibly tight, and who knows, maybe the Knicks could have actually prevailed, but I doubt it (re-signing Trent Tucker after he had been released by the Suns following the trade for the X-Man would have also helped their cause, imo, lol, but I digress). Fun to think about, though, I guess, but I'm weird
, in terms of Lebron, if Boston would actually attack him, defensively, dude wouldn't have the legs later in games, meaning that "going under" probably wouldn't exactly kill you, to say the least, imo, but whatever