The Leather Ball Will Return

[Oznogrd]

The entire point of the new ball is the material.

Leather feels better IMO but you have to break it in when you get a new one, and then after a while it starts balding and losing its grip. That makes every leather ball a little different, and eventually you have to toss out the good ones. And brand new ones aren't the best to play with either.

Like all of you, i've played with both leather & composite and I have no idea what these guys are talking about with regards to composite balls cutting your hand...the NBA composite must be really f'd up.

I also don't think the NBA was "to the man" in agreement that the ball was bad. From one of the league's better shooters:

"Why are they changing the ball?'' Korver said in the locker room to nearby teammate Steven Hunter. ``How stupid,'' Hunter said, shaking his head. ``The ball is fine.'

1. Korver is #44 in Fg percentage: while this is good, i dont think qualifies him as one of the leagues best shooters. It means he's not a go to guy and doesnt get the ball as much as some of the lower percentage guys and therefore looks better than his true talent. Also, where do you cut it off for leagues top shooters? i'd stop around 25.

2.The guys saying the ball is fine have lost their last 5 games

The ball has generated enough uproar from the moneymakers of the league to be changed back, thats what this boils down to. Congrats to Stern on switching back if its as bad as people have been saying. The ball sticking to the ground doesnt seem to be good for the sport IMO. I know my own personal preference is leather. I practice with composite most of the time though. I always played better than i practiced. Due to the ball, i'm not sure, but it seems feasible enough.

[Laxation]

1. Korver is #44 in Fg percentage: while this is good, i dont think qualifies him as one of the leagues best shooters. It means he's not a go to guy and doesnt get the ball as much as some of the lower percentage guys and therefore looks better than his true talent. Also, where do you cut it off for leagues top shooters? i'd stop around 25.

Check 3-point % dexter

[Oznogrd]

Check 3-point % dexter

Completely different from being one of the best shooters in the league as was stated. Best shooter implies overall percentage to me. I see korvers #6 on the 3point list, much better than 44th, but i dont think that makes you one of the leagues "great shooters"....oh well just opinion; back to ball discussion.

[---]

We have been playing with composite balls for a while in school tournaments and they feel fine. Sometimes the ball changes in between games depending on the availability (between composite/leather). I really can't see how they can cut your hands, unless he has some sort of skin disorder that he has to lick in order to keep his skin

And illini, you don't have to refer to stats in order to tell whether or not Korver is a good shooter. Just watch him.

[Silas]

illini, I suppose you've never seen him shoot, because if you had you'd know he was one of the league's best shooters. Statistics don't imply you're quality as a shooter. Ray Allen has shot under 40% from the 3pt line for an entire season before, that doesn't mean he's not the best shooter in the entire NBA right now.

[---]

Ray has actually shot over 40% from three only three times in his 12 seasons thus far, yet everyone knows how nice and accurate his stroke is.

[Silas]

exactly, your percentages don't mean a whole lot in regards to how good of a shooter you really are.

[Oznogrd]

who cares how pretty the stroke is? the gauge of a good shot to me is if it goes in or not. Yes technique can help in a major way i'm not going to deny that. *shrugs* i guess i should've expected a can of worms with it. If we want to argue this, why dont we create a thread of what defines a shooter? or a highflyer, or everything for that matter. It seems to be an interesting enough topic that i'm all for discussing. It just appears we all have different views on what makes a good shooter. I wont back down on mine. I dont care if its the ugliest shot on the planet and bounces around the rim 50 times before falling in. The shot going in is the object of the game, not to make it look good.

[dada]

Thoughts on the switch back to the old ball:

I honestly am disappointed in David Stern's decision. Yes, he could have handled the switch better in regards of communication with players and such but I dont think switching back was necessary. All that was happening was old guys unwilling to accept change and young guys following their lead.

What major statistical change has occurred as a result of the switch in a negative way? Are team shooting 10% less? Are teams turning it over 10 times more on average? Is the NBA scoring down to an all-time low?

Its just like at work where they implemented a new system in the hospital. Everybody (mostly older folks) was in an uproar and for what? I checked it out and the system was loads easier and more convenient. They were complaining about simple shit like " Why is that button over there?" I could believe thats why all the old vaginas were enflamed. I mean cmon, is it that serious for you to just label something bad because a button switched locations?

Back on topic, I think they should stick with the new ball. Changes always happen in life and you just have to adjust and have faith that it will be better in the long run once you actually give it a shot. Dont blame the ball because your getting older and your shot aint worth shit anymore.

[Jackal]

This sucks, NBA 2K7 will have the same old X ball after January 1st.

[Binhpac]

This sucks, NBA 2K7 will have the same old X ball after January 1st.

Best line in this thread.

Thanks for the smile

[Andrew]

Back on topic, I think they should stick with the new ball. Changes always happen in life and you just have to adjust and have faith that it will be better in the long run once you actually give it a shot. Dont blame the ball because your getting older and your shot aint worth shit anymore.

You raise an interesting point (not just in the section I quoted), there's no doubt there's a certain amount of stubborness afoot with players unwilling to try something new. But at the same time, as the saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Changes for the sake of change aren't necessarily changes for the better. You note that there's been no major negative statistical change as a result of using the new ball but at the same time there's been no major statistical improvement as a direct result of the new ball either. I'd say the way fouls are called on the perimeter and the decision by more teams to adopt an up-tempo style have had more to do with the increase in scoring compared to last season rather than the changes to the ball.