The sport bible has been giving you all kinds of information about the best players in the world, but the one they all have in common is that they are all tall.
There are also some pretty obvious differences in height between men and women, but it seems like every sport is pretty equally good for men and for women.
The problem with this is that height doesn’t tell the whole story.
For example, a guy who is 6’2″ and 220 pounds might be an elite player in golf, but he’ll still get beat by a 6’1″ power-hitting power hitter.
And a 6 foot tall and 240 pound player might have an easier time hitting a ball than a guy with a 6-foot-2 and 195-pound frame.
The sport Bible is all about how much of a factor height is in a player’s game.
So let’s take a look at some examples of how height can affect a player.
In basketball, a 6 inch man can’t really be counted on to hit shots from distance, but a 6 ft. tall guy can be an incredible shooter.
Here’s a look from NBA.com, which shows how many points a player with a height of 6’4″ or taller can score per game: This chart is from the 2013-14 season, which was a time of major upsets for the Golden State Warriors.
The Warriors’ Stephen Curry and the Atlanta Hawks’ Kyle Korver had a huge advantage in height.
Curry was 5’11” and Korver was 5 foot 8.
But they were the only two NBA players who scored more points than the Hawks in the entire 2013-2014 season.
Curry had the highest number of points, with 24, while Korver’s 23.
Curry’s shooting percentage was higher, but his effective field goal percentage was actually worse, going from 38.4% to 39.7%.
In fact, Curry was the only player in the NBA who actually improved his effective FG% from 39.2% to 40.7% over the course of the season.
There were a few factors going on here, though.
Curry did not play in the playoffs, and his Warriors’ team lost in the conference finals to the San Antonio Spurs.
But Curry was still the MVP, and he still had more points per game than any other player.
There was also some regression going on in the shooting stats.
The Hawks, who had been in the top spot in shooting percentage, were not only ranked 17th, but they were actually shooting only 50% on 3-pointers.
The reason for this is a lot of the shooting has been done from long range.
Curry and Korvets shooting percentages dropped from 47.9% to 42.5% and then dropped back to 37.6% over his final four games of the year.
Curry shot 48% from deep, but Korver shot 50% from long.
Even though Curry’s shot is higher, Korver still had an effective field-goal percentage of 39.4%, which is better than Curry’s.
The difference is that Curry was able to consistently make 3s, while the Hawks had to rely on free throws.
Curry made 436 3-point attempts for a 37.7 effective field percentage.
Korver made 393 attempts for 37.4, but Curry shot 39.5%.
The difference in effective field goals per game between the two is very small, but this is an important distinction.
Another thing to note is that Korver actually made more 3s than Curry did, at an effective FG%.
Korver only attempted 47.7 more shots per game, while Curry shot 56.2.
In the NBA, it’s worth noting that Curry shot more from the free throw line, which is a huge part of his game.
The NBA also has some data that shows the number of shots made from the 3-line, or 3-possession, has increased dramatically in recent years.
In 2013-2015, Curry shot a career high in shots made per game from the field, but in 2016-2017, Korvey shot a much lower career average from the line.
Curry shoots more free throws per game now than in any other season since the 2011-2012 season.
This is an issue for a few reasons.
First, the number from the perimeter has increased, and the NBA has a more efficient offense.
In 2012-2013, Curry had a career low in free throws attempted, but was one of the best 3-ball shooters of all time.
This year, Curry is just one of only seven players to shoot at least 80% from the stripe this season, and three of the others have been elite free throw shooters.
Curry is still a great shooter from the long range, but there’s no doubt that he’s better from the short-range, as well.
The other problem with Korve’s shooting is that he has less range, meaning he has fewer