Quote:
Originally Posted by everydaygrind
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOw8aC78LoU
The reason I put 1 in 10,000 is because a random shot can go in once in a while, but if you make it a race to 3 (or more) points (each basket = 1 point,), a random person will never beat an NBA player.
Also, you have no idea about tennis professionals either. There is a reason the #200 male tennis player can/do beat the #1 woman's tennis player. Tennis pros are just that good. You will not score a point on them.
Again, you're nothing more than a useless troll and example #1 why 2p2 went down the spiral it did. Trolls like you continue to exist.
In a 3 point game (each basket = 1 point) the NBA player would lose sometimes, and far more often than 1 in a 10,000. There are NBA players who shoot sub-40% in free throws, and some that can't make lay-ups regularly. Dennis Rodman couldn't make lay-ups very often with the Bulls during their championship runs. Ben Wallace when with Detroit and Cleveland comes to mind. And those two were GREAT pro players. Now consider the 3rd string Centers who can hardly dribble or catch a pass, let alone shoot, in Euro or Asian pro leagues, but had 10 day stints in the NBA, or even were there a year or two.
Being tall (generally) gives them (pro players) a larger margin of error due to rebounding and defensive posturing, but in the end they actually have to come out and play defense against a jump shooter...which most of the taller guys won't or can't do (too slow/clumsy). Their defensive skills at that point are in rim protection more than slapping down jump shots from 15-18 feet in a one on one game.
Plus, what are the rules to this game? Is it half court or full? "No blood, no foul" street rules, or is an NBA ref there (which of course means traveling is allowed de facto, lol)? If it is "make it, take it", then you have a way better shot at being right here...especially when the pro gets the ball first, via jump ball or just coin flip. But if it is a game where the player who makes the shot must then change possessions, in just a 3 shot game an average person of the same sex (which is the only fair comparison) would win more than 1 in 10,000 in a game to 3 points (3 made baskets).
In a game to 30 or 300, it would be a different story. The larger the sample size the less "luck" would effect the outcome. Conversely, if you further reduced your game to 2 points, or 1 point, the chances the average person wins becomes even larger.
Even in a "make it, take it" game (which isn't to the regular guy's advantage over a large sample size), where the regular Joe wins a coin flip for first possession, and the regular Joe has only a 5% chance to make a shot (a very low estimate), the regular Joe would win 1.25 times in 10,000 games on average (the chances 3 shots at 5% accuracy go in, in a row).
Now obviously, if you're talking jump shooters in the NBA, the dynamic changes as well. But you didn't specify, so I tend to agree with the other poster. Three shots is too small a sample size to say a pro would lose only 1(or less) in 10,000 games, especially when you didn't get more specific on the rules of the game or the particular pro's skill set.
I've seen pro basketball players lose to non-pro street ballers, and even average people in HORSE games. I went to high school with a guy who plays pro, two several-year stints in the NBA (currently overseas), and several 10 day contracts, and he's under 6 foot tall. I'm not a great basketball player at all on offense (I'm below average for regular people on offense, let alone compared to a pro), but I've beat him 1 on 1 a lot. Why? My defense is good/sometimes great, I'm taller than him, and 1 in say 100 games I catch fire and sink 11 baskets before he, being ice-cold that day, sinks 10 (play to eleven, win by 2, "make it, take it" rules). He's trying hard, he just isn't "on" that day (or at least that game).
But NBA basketball isn't played 1 on 1, so you're taking them out of their skill set to play them 1 on 1...so it isn't a fair representation of their advantage. I wouldn't stand a chance against him and the 4 worst ever NBA busts vs me with 4 other random guys on my team. They'd pick us apart, and he'd pick me apart individually, running off picks and whatnot. A better game to prove your point would be play to 11, win by two, "make it, take it" rules or not, 5 on 5...5 pros vs 5 average people of the same sex. Then 1 in 10,000 might be a correct estimation of their expectation. But 1 on 1? Random pro vs random guy on the street? I don't buy it.
Last edited by Gankstar; 03-31-2015 at 04:05 AM.