LOL @ the 80's

[Jacks3]

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)


... and there are tons of players who were in the 27-28 PTS range with very high FG%'s, they just weren't taking enough shots to get 30+.

:roll: Pathetic D.

[Yung D-Will]

You're a tool.

[PurpleChuck]

You're a tool.

Lol repped.

[Jacks3]

You're a tool.

You think D.Will> CP3. You're a dumass. Stupid Jazz homer. :facepalm

[Poochymama]

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)


... and there are tons of players who were in the 27-28 PTS range with very high FG%'s, they just weren't taking enough shots to get 30+.

:roll: Pathetic D.


Wow, and I was actually starting to think you were a decent poster. (I even repped you a few times)
:facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's not all that surprising when you look at the pace some of those teams played at.

Gervin's Spurs
1980- 109.5 pace factor(first in the league)
1982- 102.5 pace factor(6th in the league)

English's Nuggets
1986- 106.7 pace factor(first in the league)
1987- 106.2 pace factor(first in the league)

Dantley's Jazz
1982- 103.9 pace factor(3rd in the league)
1983- 107.3 pace factor(2nd in the league)
1984- 104.9 pace factor(3rd in the league)

Vandeweghe's Nuggets
1984- 110.5 pace factor(first in the league)

When the pace is that fast, generally, not much defense is being played.

But why did you include Bird? The guy is an all-time great? If anyone is going to put up numbers like that, I'd think it'd be Bird. Bird's team's pace factor in '88 has been lower than several teams in recent years?

A lot of these guys did benefit from past paces and less defene, but another reason some of them shot so well was they weren't really perimeter players in the mold of a lot of the guys you see today. They played mid-range and posted up a lot.

[Jacks3]

Wow, and I was actually starting to think you were a decent poster. (I even repped you a few times)
:facepalm

I'm just saying 80's numbers are clearly inflated. :confusedshrug:

[BlueandGold]

retard alert

[G-Funk]

I read somewher that the average %'s in the 80's was 50%

And today is 42%

Also that teams averaged 100ppg

and today is 92ppg


I don't know if that's true or exact but that would explain why some of those players averaged those stats.

[Jacks3]

retard alert

Moron. :facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm just saying 80's numbers are clearly inflated. :confusedshrug:

It depends, Jordan's Bulls had a pace factor of 95.8 and 95.5 in '87 and '88. That wouldn't be that unusual even today. Nique's Hawks had a pace factor of 97.4 in '87 and '96.4 in '88. Again, several teams have played at a similar or faster pace in recent years.

Defense wasn't as good, but the primary reason some of the stats are inflated are because of pace in extreme circumstances(80's Nuggets).

The average defensive rating from '84-'89 was almost always in the 107-108 range, which is what it's been the last 3 seasons.

'98-'04 was when defenses were really tough.

[jlauber]

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)


... and there are tons of players who were in the 27-28 PTS range with very high FG%'s, they just weren't taking enough shots to get 30+.

:roll: Pathetic D.

I don't often agree with this guy, but he does have a point. There are MANY here who discount the stats of the players of the 60's, based on volume, but very few take into account FG%. The 80's were a decade where entire LEAGUES were shooting .490+. There were 31-51 teams shooting .504 for cryingoutloud.

Kareem had his highest FG% seasons, by a large margin in the 80's, even though he could barely get 7 rpg. Bird shot .496 over the course of the decade, which looks great until you realize, that that was about AVERAGE.

Kareem was putting up 40+ point games (one on 21-30 shooting) against two of the greatest centers in NBA history...at age 39! Even after that season, he still shot .567 against Hakeem and .551 against Ewing until he retired at age 41. He never even sniffed 50% against Thurmond or Wilt...and he was in statistical prime when he faced both of them (even his physical prime against Nate), and they were both well past their's. In fact, he had post-seasons of .437 and .428 against them.

Meanwhile, the great players of the 60's, many of whom played into the 70's, almost to a man, shot much worse in the early 60's, somewhat better by the late 60's, and considerably better in the 70's.

The great players who played in the 70's, and then into the 80's, almost to a man, shot better, or way better, in the 80's.

There have been some quality posts that gave a plausible explanantion for the poor shooting of the early 60's (keep in mind that FT percentages have changed very little from the 60's thru the 00's.) Cold buildings. Breezy buildings. Uneven floors with dead spots. And the best one that I have read is that the BALL was not consistent until the late 60's.

Still, I have not read anything that would explain why the HUGE jump in FG% in the 80's.

Having said that, I do find myself just shaking my head when I read posts that rip BOTH the offenses AND defenses of the 60's. Jerry West, one of the purest shooters of all-time, had seasons of .419 and .461 in the early 60's. Havlicek shot as low as .399 in the mid-60's, and then shot far better almost every season in the 70's than he did in the 60's. Walt Bellamy, who was well past his prime, shot a career high in FG% in 71-72 (.545 on 18.6 ppg.) Barry averaged 35.6 on .451 shooting in '67 and 30.6 ppg on .464 shooting in '75.

In any case, those that claim that 60's were poor defensively, need to explain to me how players like Thurmond, and Wilt, both well past their primes, and playing on injury-riddled knees, could hold Kareem to low 40% shooting, or worse, in many games. And Kareem was fortunate enough to avoided Russell's defense. IMHO, Russell would have given Kareem fits, since he had an enormous wingspan, and world-class leaping ability.

Yet, Kareem was torching the NBA with EIGHT seasons of .564, or better in the 80's (all in his first eight years of that decade), including .604 and .599 at age 37. Gervin, Dantley, and Gilmore just exploded in the 80's.

Perhaps someone here can explain the HUGE differences, BUT, please, don't give me this ridiculous reasoning that players became better shooters, or more skilled.

[Poochymama]

I'm just saying 80's numbers are clearly inflated. :confusedshrug:

It depends on what teams your talking about. Some teams played at a very fast paced, so their numbers are obviously inflated, but that isn't true for all teams in the 80s.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

I read somewher that the average %'s in the 80's was 50%

And today is 42%

Also that teams averaged 100ppg

and today is 92ppg


I don't know if that's true or exact but that would explain why some of those players averaged those stats.

Then either there are more FTs shot today or those stats are incorrect, because a drop of 8% in FG% would mean 8 fewer shots per 100 possesions going in so ~16 ppg drop.

[JohnnySic]

While its true that team defenses were less sophisticated in the 80's, its also true that players could make open jumpshots and free throws. Combine those 2 factors and you had more scoring. Also, players typically spent 3-4 years in college and were fundamentally sound coming into the league.

The And1 NBA where fundamentals went out the window was just a stain in Stern's shorts.

[97 bulls]

I'm just saying 80's numbers are clearly inflated. :confusedshrug:
80s stats are a very inflated when comparing against the 90s and 00s. Thats why I hate to see people make comparisons of players from different eras based on stats. People need to make it relative. Its like money. Making 10 bucks an hour now is like making 15 bucks an hour in the 80s.

I always argue for scottie pippen being one of the greatest ever. But people always allude to him "only" scoring 22ppg as his career high. But they fail to mention that in the 80s. That 22 ppg is probably 25-26 ppg.

[ZOMG]

To anyone saying defense was better (or even equal) in the 80's than in the present day... WATCH THE GAMES. Forget nostalgia, forget hype, forget turf wars between stans of different eras... watch the games. Please.

You literally have to be retarded, blind or in the possession of a heavy agenda to not see that people were barely bending their knees when playing D in the 80's. 6'3'' shooting guards jogged undisturbed to the high post for jump shots and matador defense was the norm at the perimeter.

[Jacks3]

To anyone saying defense was better (or even equal) in the 80's than in the present day... WATCH THE GAMES. Forget nostalgia, forget hype, forget turf wars between stans of different eras... watch the games. Please.

You literally have to be retarded, blind or in the possession of a heavy agenda to not see that people were barely bending their knees when playing D in the 80's. 6'3'' shooting guards jogged undisturbed to the high post for jump shots and matador defense was the norm at the perimeter.

yeah, i was watching a 80's game and saw magic johnson get WIDE OPEN mid-range jumpers on like 5 straight possessions. do you EVER see that shit today? a spot-up mid-range shot? LOL

[97 bulls]

While its true that team defenses were less sophisticated in the 80's, its also true that players could make open jumpshots and free throws. Combine those 2 factors and you had more scoring. Also, players typically spent 3-4 years in college and were fundamentally sound coming into the league.

The And1 NBA where fundamentals went out the window was just a stain in Stern's shorts.
This isn't true. I remember them doing a study that showed that the jumshooters were no better in the 80s as opposed to the 90s. The reason why the league scoring was so high was because teams ran at every opportunity. Id be willing to bet that each player that got significant minutes got at least 2 or 3 layupsthat came from a fast break.

[catch24]

[I]

[Nastradamus]

Why are people ripping this guy, it's true. Defense is at a whole new level and its done with skill, not brute physicality. This is not rugby, sorry folks. Also, the idea that fundamentals are gone is retarded. D is better as is long range shooting. People talk about the mid range jumper but its being hit at a higher rate today and also, its the most inefficient shot in all of basketball, so going away from it would not be a bad thing.

[Nastradamus]

80s stats are a very inflated when comparing against the 90s and 00s. Thats why I hate to see people make comparisons of players from different eras based on stats. People need to make it relative. Its like money. Making 10 bucks an hour now is like making 15 bucks an hour in the 80s.

I always argue for scottie pippen being one of the greatest ever. But people always allude to him "only" scoring 22ppg as his career high. But they fail to mention that in the 80s. That 22 ppg is probably 25-26 ppg.

Scottie played in the 90s, he wouldn't have scored more today unless MJ wasn't on his team.

[Willkill24]

Weak defense ?

[Hotlantadude81]

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)


... and there are tons of players who were in the 27-28 PTS range with very high FG%'s, they just weren't taking enough shots to get 30+.

:roll: Pathetic D.

You know what makes me laugh?
Teams USA's efforts the past 10 years.

[97 bulls]

Scottie played in the 90s, he wouldn't have scored more today unless MJ wasn't on his team.
Im talking about him in the 80s. Even with jordan he'd score about that much as his high. He would scored more today too seeing as how the league has opened up things for perimeter players. Maybe 24-25 ppg

[necya]

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)


... and there are tons of players who were in the 27-28 PTS range with very high FG%'s, they just weren't taking enough shots to get 30+.

:roll: Pathetic D.

you just find the stats and say hey it's pathetic.
"there were better scorer than my Kobe ? hell, no ! impossible !"

don't expect King or Dantley trying to force shots...why? cause it's stupid. kobe had often a worser FG% than his whole team because he has an horrible shooting selection.

then, if you have seen those guys, you will be jalous of the mid range of King (who didn't shoot the ball at the apogee, the result was that his shot was quick and always surprised defenders), the post game of Dantley.

you were born in 90 and you come here to tell us something you have never seen ?

in the 80's, it was all about team basketball, they use the dribble a lot better (i mean less dribbles) make more passes and tried to find good shots (open shots)
today kids like when kobe makes a 3 with a hand in his face, they say "wow he made a tough shot he is so good". but it's stupid to take so many contested shots.

if kobe was so good why he took so many 3pts shots and contested shots? that's why Wade's offense is better and more intelligent. he only takes open threes.
now you can see that kobe use to shoot the ball worser than his own team whereas king, dantley and the best scorer in the 80's brought a better FG% than their whole team. they were a reel "plus".
that's how you can judge a reel good scorer. he is more effective than his teammates.

Nique was great scorer if you only judge by his stats. but in fact he was kobe before him. he took too many tough shots and wasn't smart in his offensive decision.

and why you put dantley's 82-83 season? he was injured all season long !?

you are an idiot dude. thanks, but we knew that already.

[BlueandGold]

Its like money. Making 10 bucks an hour now is like making 15 bucks an hour in the 80s.

Are you retarded? The economy is way more inflated now than compared to even 25 years ago. In the 70s and 80s the dollar was way stronger than it is now. Going to movie cost like 2 or 3 dollars.

[Jacks3]

you just find the stats and say hey it's pathetic.
"there were better scorer than my Kobe ? hell, no ! impossible !"

don't expect King or Dantley trying to force shots...why? cause it's stupid. kobe had often a worser FG% than his whole team because he has an horrible shooting selection.

then, if you have seen those guys, you will be jalous of the mid range of King (who didn't shoot the ball at the apogee, the result was that his shot was quick and always surprised defenders), the post game of Dantley.

you were born in 90 and you come here to tell us something you have never seen ?

in the 80's, it was all about team basketball, they use the dribble a lot better (i mean less dribbles) make more passes and tried to find good shots (open shots)
today kids like when kobe makes a 3 with a hand in his face, they say "wow he made a tough shot he is so good". but it's stupid to take so many contested shots.

if kobe was so good why he took so many 3pts shots and contested shots? that's why Wade's offense is better and more intelligent. he only takes open threes.
now you can see that kobe use to shoot the ball worser than his own team whereas king, dantley and the best scorer in the 80's brought a better FG% than their whole team. they were a reel "plus".
that's how you can judge a reel good scorer. he is more effective than his teammates.

Nique was great scorer if you only judge by his stats. but in fact he was kobe before him. he took too many tough shots and wasn't smart in his offensive decision.

and why you put dantley's 82-83 season? he was injured all season long !?

you are an idiot dude. thanks, but we knew that already.
:roll:

[creepingdeath]

Yea... but... still:

Jordan as a scorer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kobe as a scorer

U mad? :banana:

[HisJoeness]

OP's mother should have swallowed him when she had the chance.

[Jacks3]

OP's mother should have swallowed him when she had the chance.
u :mad:

[elementally morale]

Didn't read the responses, but this thread is interesting enough for me to respond to it.

(1) Faster pace back then (i.e.: more points per game)
(2) More running, more outlet passes, more fast breaks, more layups (think Suns without the 3 pointers)
(3) Almost everyone could shoot from midrange -- and they did (less outside shots, lots of 15-18 footers)
(4) Defensive intensity picked up in big games

With that being said, it is a myth when people say defenses were better 20-30 years ago. There is no case for 1980. As for 1990, it may have been a little better but for the most part it was just different. (It was just as hard to score for an elite player back then as it is now -- he had to do it in a different way though.)

The way I saw it (and still do).

[andgar923]

you just find the stats and say hey it's pathetic.
"there were better scorer than my Kobe ? hell, no ! impossible !"

don't expect King or Dantley trying to force shots...why? cause it's stupid. kobe had often a worser FG% than his whole team because he has an horrible shooting selection.

then, if you have seen those guys, you will be jalous of the mid range of King (who didn't shoot the ball at the apogee, the result was that his shot was quick and always surprised defenders), the post game of Dantley.

you were born in 90 and you come here to tell us something you have never seen ?

in the 80's, it was all about team basketball, they use the dribble a lot better (i mean less dribbles) make more passes and tried to find good shots (open shots)
today kids like when kobe makes a 3 with a hand in his face, they say "wow he made a tough shot he is so good". but it's stupid to take so many contested shots.

if kobe was so good why he took so many 3pts shots and contested shots? that's why Wade's offense is better and more intelligent. he only takes open threes.
now you can see that kobe use to shoot the ball worser than his own team whereas king, dantley and the best scorer in the 80's brought a better FG% than their whole team. they were a reel "plus".
that's how you can judge a reel good scorer. he is more effective than his teammates.

Nique was great scorer if you only judge by his stats. but in fact he was kobe before him. he took too many tough shots and wasn't smart in his offensive decision.

and why you put dantley's 82-83 season? he was injured all season long !?

you are an idiot dude. thanks, but we knew that already.

You kinda hit the nail in the head.

More ball movement = better open shots

It doesn't mean that the defense was weak, it just means that there was less standing around and individual play.

And like you mentioned, there was less 3pt shots and bad shots in general. People can't seem to comprehend that today's fg% is lower not because the defense is better, but because players today take dumber low percentage shots. Most of the shots these players took were in the mid range area and were more than likely 'open' shots, not because the defense was bad but because better ball movement and spacing made it possible.

Something else worth noting...

Almost all of the people in this list are known to be great shooters.
This list is mostly before 85, after that the numbers start to drop. Go to 87 and onward and they take another dip.

Its no coincidence that the year Kobe decided to take less 3pt shots his fg% increased. He's posting up more, taking smarter shots (aka not forcing as many), and taking more mid range jumpers as well. He's getting better looks because Gasol is a good passer and he draws double teams so they have to pick their poison. Kobe's increased IQ (maturity) have allowed him to pick and choose his spots better.

And to the person that stated Magic got open shots....

Magic wasn't known as a shooter, he always looked to pass first, and even then he really wasn't a threat so why not back off him?

Another thing, there was FAR less 3pt attempts in that time.

In 84-85 Darrell Griffith attempted a total of 257 for the entire season!

Compare and contrast that to this past NBA season:
Rasual Butler attempted 432 and he was '5th' on the list!!!!

Darrell played 35.6 mpg
Rasual played 33

Wanna take a wild guess at who had the better fg%?

Rasual attempted 5.3 three pointers per game, his overall fg% was: .409
Darrell attempted 3.3 three pointers per game, his overall fg% was: .457

Hmmmm.......

So less 3pt shots = higher fg%
More ball movement = better shot selection

Also... Rasual (remember, the 5th most 3pt attempts last season) attempted more 3pt shots than the 84-84 Dallas Mavericks did as a TEAM!!!

They shot a total of 318 for the entire season as a TEAM.
Rasual Butler attempted more all by himself

[tpols]

^and the irony lies in the fact that rasual was more efficient than griffith in your comparison and scored more points per shot/possession. Why would you use fg% to compare guys that are 3pt specialists:facepalm

[bdreason]

I don't ever hear people claiming the 80's had tough defense... it's the mid 90's to early 00's that really saw defense controlling the league.

Stern took care of that though. :oldlol:

[Nastradamus]

Im talking about him in the 80s. Even with jordan he'd score about that much as his high. He would scored more today too seeing as how the league has opened up things for perimeter players. Maybe 24-25 ppg

Wasn't he drafted in 89?

[Nastradamus]

OP's mother should have swallowed him when she had the chance.
you are a giant douchebag who is denying reality

[elementally morale]

Wasn't he drafted in 89?

No, he (Pippen) wasn't.

[andgar923]

^and the irony lies in the fact that rasual was more efficient than griffith in your comparison and scored more points per shot/possession. Why would you use fg% to compare guys that are 3pt specialists:facepalm

I wanted to make a point that the reason fg% were better back then, was due to the lack of 3pt shots taken.

It wasn't to see which player was better or who was the better 3pt shooter.

its obvious that the reason Griffith's fg% is a direct result of less 3pt shot attempts. I'm sure that Griffith's fg% would've dropped if he'd taken 2 more 3pt shots. And vice versa... I'm sure that Rasual's would've increased if he took less 3pt shots.

So going back to the op's point....

If Adrian took the amount of 3pt shots that the avg top scorer from today's era takes, his fg% would also take a dip.

And if teams took as many 3pt shots as today's teams took, their fg% would drop as well.

But they didn't... instead they passed the ball a few more times and got a better shot inside the 3pt line, thus keeping the defense off balance and creating higher percentage shots.

[HisJoeness]

You kinda hit the nail in the head.

More ball movement = better open shots

It doesn't mean that the defense was weak, it just means that there was less standing around and individual play.

And like you mentioned, there was less 3pt shots and bad shots in general. People can't seem to comprehend that today's fg% is lower not because the defense is better, but because players today take dumber low percentage shots. Most of the shots these players took were in the mid range area and were more than likely 'open' shots, not because the defense was bad but because better ball movement and spacing made it possible.

Something else worth noting...

Almost all of the people in this list are known to be great shooters.
This list is mostly before 85, after that the numbers start to drop. Go to 87 and onward and they take another dip.

Its no coincidence that the year Kobe decided to take less 3pt shots his fg% increased. He's posting up more, taking smarter shots (aka not forcing as many), and taking more mid range jumpers as well. He's getting better looks because Gasol is a good passer and he draws double teams so they have to pick their poison. Kobe's increased IQ (maturity) have allowed him to pick and choose his spots better.

And to the person that stated Magic got open shots....

Magic wasn't known as a shooter, he always looked to pass first, and even then he really wasn't a threat so why not back off him?

Another thing, there was FAR less 3pt attempts in that time.

In 84-85 Darrell Griffith attempted a total of 257 for the entire season!

Compare and contrast that to this past NBA season:
Rasual Butler attempted 432 and he was '5th' on the list!!!!

Darrell played 35.6 mpg
Rasual played 33

Wanna take a wild guess at who had the better fg%?

Rasual attempted 5.3 three pointers per game, his overall fg% was: .409
Darrell attempted 3.3 three pointers per game, his overall fg% was: .457

Hmmmm.......

So less 3pt shots = higher fg%
More ball movement = better shot selection

Also... Rasual (remember, the 5th most 3pt attempts last season) attempted more 3pt shots than the 84-84 Dallas Mavericks did as a TEAM!!!

They shot a total of 318 for the entire season as a TEAM.
Rasual Butler attempted more all by himself

:applause:

[HisJoeness]

you are a giant douchebag who is denying reality

Oh, we got another one whose mother should have swallowed him.

[97 bulls]

Are you retarded? The economy is way more inflated now than compared to even 25 years ago. In the 70s and 80s the dollar was way stronger than it is now. Going to movie cost like 2 or 3 dollars.
You're saying the same exact thing. The point I was maing is that money went alot farther back then than now. I guess I should've switched it. Making 15 dollars now was equal to making 10 in the eighties. But you get. What im saying. Scoring 20 ppg in the 90s was equal to about 24 in the 80s.

[Da_Realist]

While its true that team defenses were less sophisticated in the 80's, its also true that players could make open jumpshots and free throws. Combine those 2 factors and you had more scoring. Also, players typically spent 3-4 years in college and were fundamentally sound coming into the league.

The And1 NBA where fundamentals went out the window was just a stain in Stern's shorts.

This should have ended the thread...


You kinda hit the nail in the head.

More ball movement = better open shots

It doesn't mean that the defense was weak, it just means that there was less standing around and individual play.

And like you mentioned, there was less 3pt shots and bad shots in general. People can't seem to comprehend that today's fg% is lower not because the defense is better, but because players today take dumber low percentage shots. Most of the shots these players took were in the mid range area and were more than likely 'open' shots, not because the defense was bad but because better ball movement and spacing made it possible.

Something else worth noting...

Almost all of the people in this list are known to be great shooters.
This list is mostly before 85, after that the numbers start to drop. Go to 87 and onward and they take another dip.

Its no coincidence that the year Kobe decided to take less 3pt shots his fg% increased. He's posting up more, taking smarter shots (aka not forcing as many), and taking more mid range jumpers as well. He's getting better looks because Gasol is a good passer and he draws double teams so they have to pick their poison. Kobe's increased IQ (maturity) have allowed him to pick and choose his spots better.

And to the person that stated Magic got open shots....

Magic wasn't known as a shooter, he always looked to pass first, and even then he really wasn't a threat so why not back off him?

Another thing, there was FAR less 3pt attempts in that time.

In 84-85 Darrell Griffith attempted a total of 257 for the entire season!

Compare and contrast that to this past NBA season:
Rasual Butler attempted 432 and he was '5th' on the list!!!!

Darrell played 35.6 mpg
Rasual played 33

Wanna take a wild guess at who had the better fg%?

Rasual attempted 5.3 three pointers per game, his overall fg% was: .409
Darrell attempted 3.3 three pointers per game, his overall fg% was: .457

Hmmmm.......

So less 3pt shots = higher fg%
More ball movement = better shot selection

Also... Rasual (remember, the 5th most 3pt attempts last season) attempted more 3pt shots than the 84-84 Dallas Mavericks did as a TEAM!!!

They shot a total of 318 for the entire season as a TEAM.
Rasual Butler attempted more all by himself

And this should have buried it six feet under.

[andgar923]

I've made some vids detailing how MJ was defended differently than most players in the 80s and 90s and how he was the focus of attention, drawing constant double and triple teams whenever he touched the ball.

Now.. I know that they're not great, I know that the quality sucks and that I made some errors, but the overall main point is still valid.

NOTE: I made these to counter KPAH's vids. I basically copied his format and applied it here. I don't agree with everything being a trap or defense just because a man is close, but that's what he did, so I copied it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujtZZ5n4AeA

EDIT: The other videos are actually from the 90s.

[Noah Rose]

Try putting together the Wilt Chamberlain era in the 60's

[jlauber]

Try putting together the Wilt Chamberlain era in the 60's

FG percentages were considerably lower in the 60's, especially the early 60's. YET, FT percentages have remained pretty steady even into the 00's. There were 90%+ FT shooters as far back as the 50's, too.

Furthermore, take WILT out of the decade, and while there were more shots per game, the best players took no more shots than MJ did in '87, or Kobe in '06. In fact, per minute played, MJ and Kobe were bigger "gunners" than anyone other than Wilt. Furthermore, factoring in mpg, and Kobe and MJ took more percentage of the TEAM's total shots, per minute played, than Chamberlain did in his 50 ppg season. Not only that, but Wilt's LEAGUE AVERAGE FG% was only .426 in '62. In MJ's '87 season, it was .480, and in Kobe's '06 season, it was .454.

So, when people bring up the "WILT-era", they are really only talking about ONE player. Take WILT out, and Barry averaged 35.6 ppg in '67, which was the next highest behind several of WILT's scoring seasons. Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg in '72, McAdoo was at 34.5 in '75, and Baylor was at 34.8 in '61. As we saw in the OP, there were a few 30+ ppg scorers in the 80's. So, once again, it was ONLY WILT that was not only able to get his shots at will, and against any defense, he was also the ONLY player that could SCORE at will, as well.

And to be honest, that was not a PRIME Chamberlain, either. I have long maintained that he could have easily scored 40 ppg in his '67 season, had he been so inclined. The facts were, Wilt had the HIGH scoring games EVERY season in the decade of the 60's, and in many cases, it was several in each season. Even in his '68 season, when he only averaged 24.3 ppg, he had FOUR 50+ point games, of 52, 53, 53, and 68. In his '69 season, when his incompetent coach had him cut back his offense even more, he STILL had games of 60 and 66 (on an eye-popping 29-35 shooting BTW.)

What's more, while the decade of the 60's saw FG percentages range from .410 to .446, Chamberlain was outshooting the LEAGUE AVERAGE every season, and in almost all of them, it was by a 100 points or more. In his '67 season, he shot .683, (and still scored 24.1 ppg), and the LEAGUE AVERAGE was .441...or a staggering .242 over the league average. He also outhsot his nearest competitor, Bellamy, by the largest differential in NBA history at .162 (.683 to runner-up Bellamy's .521.)

So, yes, there was the "WILT-ONLY" era of the 60's...and then there was the "REST of the 60's."

[Big#50]

Another thread to make Kobe look better than Jordan. Fail on that.
You do have a point about pace. Everybody ran a lot more.
But Kobe would have never scored 81 on a team in the 80's someone would have killed him. He can score more now. His daddy Stern fixed that for him. I wonder if Stern still tucks him at night.
Crushed his idiotic hidden agenda for all of you.

[SinJackal]

I can't believe these stupid ass threads are still being made after they've been debunked so many times.

The league's FG% in the 80's is higher now because they took a lot less threes than players now do.

Example:

1980-1981 season. The top 20 3pt FGA leaders. . .includes players who only took a dozen threes.
The bottom 10 of the top 20 took 20 or less threes. Only 5 guys took 40 or more threes. The top two took barely over 50.

Proof: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1981_leaders.html


Meanwhile, the last frickin decade. . .

The top 20 3pt FGA guys are all in the 100s, including guys who take over 200 every single season.

Example: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008_leaders.html


So naturally, FG% is going to be lower when 3pt attempts are up so incredibly much. Meanwhile eFG% (which compensates for 3pt shots having a lower FG%, while being worth more points), is actually higher now than it was in the 80's. Again, that is evidenced in both links I gave above. View the top 20 guys.

Gilmore was beasting in efficancy back then (incredibly underrated player anyway), but aside from him, their eFG% and TS% is not any higher. It's similar. And those are the most efficiant players in the league back then.


This site doesn't show eFG% and TS% (you have to do the math yourself with the stats there), but it shows the radical difference in 3pt attempts per game now as opposed to the 80s, which accounts for the FG% difference.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/league_stats.html

Look at how few 3pt shots were taken back then per game in the 80s. Between 2-5 every year until 88, where it SHOT UP! . . .to 6 a game. Once the 90's hit, it went up and up and up and up until they moved in the line. . .then 3pt attempts shot up to 16 a game. Once they moved the line back out, 3PAs stopped slightly, but slowly inched it's way back up to where it was when they moved in the line.

This is why FG% is so down. Way more 3s are being taken. When the league is taking over 16 threes a game, and shooting them at 34-35%, obviously the league's FG% isn't going to look great.

'06-'07's eFG% was 50%.
In the 80's it was 49% during it's peak FG% years.

This is a stupid thread with misleading stats to fufill an obvious agenda.


Summary: FG% was higher back then, but eFG% wasn't. Compensate for all the three pointers taken now which drops FG%, and wham, you see that it's not any different. It's actually higher now than it was in the 80's.

[ShaqAttack3234]

FG percentages were considerably lower in the 60's, especially the early 60's. YET, FT percentages have remained pretty steady even into the 00's. There were 90%+ FT shooters as far back as the 50's, too.

Furthermore, take WILT out of the decade, and while there were more shots per game, the best players took no more shots than MJ did in '87, or Kobe in '06. In fact, per minute played, MJ and Kobe were bigger "gunners" than anyone other than Wilt. Furthermore, factoring in mpg, and Kobe and MJ took more percentage of the TEAM's total shots, per minute played, than Chamberlain did in his 50 ppg season. Not only that, but Wilt's LEAGUE AVERAGE FG% was only .426 in '62. In MJ's '87 season, it was .480, and in Kobe's '06 season, it was .454.

So, when people bring up the "WILT-era", they are really only talking about ONE player. Take WILT out, and Barry averaged 35.6 ppg in '67, which was the next highest behind several of WILT's scoring seasons. Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg in '72, McAdoo was at 34.5 in '75, and Baylor was at 34.8 in '61. As we saw in the OP, there were a few 30+ ppg scorers in the 80's. So, once again, it was ONLY WILT that was not only able to get his shots at will, and against any defense, he was also the ONLY player that could SCORE at will, as well.

And to be honest, that was not a PRIME Chamberlain, either. I have long maintained that he could have easily scored 40 ppg in his '67 season, had he been so inclined. The facts were, Wilt had the HIGH scoring games EVERY season in the decade of the 60's, and in many cases, it was several in each season. Even in his '68 season, when he only averaged 24.3 ppg, he had FOUR 50+ point games, of 52, 53, 53, and 68. In his '69 season, when his incompetent coach had him cut back his offense even more, he STILL had games of 60 and 66 (on an eye-popping 29-35 shooting BTW.)

What's more, while the decade of the 60's saw FG percentages range from .410 to .446, Chamberlain was outshooting the LEAGUE AVERAGE every season, and in almost all of them, it was by a 100 points or more. In his '67 season, he shot .683, (and still scored 24.1 ppg), and the LEAGUE AVERAGE was .441...or a staggering .242 over the league average. He also outhsot his nearest competitor, Bellamy, by the largest differential in NBA history at .162 (.683 to runner-up Bellamy's .521.)

So, yes, there was the "WILT-ONLY" era of the 60's...and then there was the "REST of the 60's."

Don't forget about Elgin Baylor's 38.3 ppg season, yeah he missed 32 games because he was in the Army reserves, but the fact that he could play part time and score so much is incredible. Baylor then averaged 38.6 ppg in 13 playoff games, so essentially, he averaged over 38 ppg in 61 games, and even more impressive is that he was more efficient in the playoffs and he set a finals record with 61 points, and that was the playoff record until Jordan's 63 in 1986.

And from what I've seen in the 60's, the average player was obviously less skilled. The NBA was still a relatively new league, and like all sports, it progressed over time.

FG% was lower, IMO for a variety of reasons. The average player was less skilled plus whenever I watch 60's footage I see a lot of quick pull up jumpers, and in the halfcourt, 15 foot hook shots, both are low percentage shots.

And whether it's because players were less skilled as ball handlers, traveling rules were more enforced, or as I think, a variety of the 2. It was tougher for perimeter players to get to the basket and go up and strong. Not to mention that players dunked a lot less.

As Bob Cousy said and I'm paraphrasing "What I was doing in the 50's, every 12 year old is doing now in playgrounds."

As far as Wilt averaging 40 in 1967 and easily? I don't see it. His FG% was amazing in '67 and he had one of the best seasons of all-time that year, but lets look at his '66 and '68 seasons when he was shooting more.

1966- 33.5 ppg, 54 FG%, 25.2 FGA
1967- 24.1 ppg, 68.3 FG%, 14.2 FGA
1968- 24.3 ppg, 59.5 FG%, 16.8 FGA

We have 2 other seasons around the same time for a sample and as you'd expect, like most players, the more you shoot, the more your shooting percentage goes down.

To average 40 in '67, he'd need 23.6 shots while maintaing his efficiency, which just isn't plausible considering the year before, his FG% was 54% when he took 25 shots, which is impressive for that amount of shots. And in '68, his FG% dropped to a bit under 60% when he took 17 shots.

I can believe that he was a bit better in '67 than either season, but not so much better that he could easily average 40 when he couldn't come close in the season before or the season after.

But back to the topic, the pace in the 60's was MUCH faster and in general, a faster pace makes defenses less tough because it's much tougher to score in half court sets, not to mention that naturally over time strategies and skills will progress.

[Soundwave]

The other crazy thing about the 80s

1984 NBA Finals: Celtics win 4-3 over Lakers, the Celtics allowed 115 ppg in the NBA Finals, the Lakers allowed 117 ppg, lmao.

87 Finals: Lakers win 4-2, L.A. allowed 111 ppg in their victory (the Celtics allowed 115 ppg).

I mean, lmao, these numbers are insane for the playoffs, let alone the Finals. They're basically just trading baskets.

[MasterDurant24]

I'm just saying 80's numbers are clearly inflated. :confusedshrug:
Yes they are, but they are mainly inflated by the pace of which those particular players played at and not the defense. Not that the defense(at least individual defense) was particularly great, but these men deserved their numbers. Much less shooting from 3 point range also contributes to their high FG%.

[raptorfan_dr07]

Why are people ripping this guy

Because Jacks3 is one of the biggest Kobe n*tgaggers here and the last who hasn't been run out, yet. He's distorting facts and making sh*t up to try and prove a point. He's throwing a b*tch fit cause he can't comprehend that there were actually players who could SCORE MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY than his boyfriend Kobe. He can't accept that his hero is and always has been A LOW EFFICIENT LOW IQ CHUCKER. Players FG% were higher because they took better shots and were much more fundamentally sound. Like someone already stated, it was the norm to spend 3-4 years in college and come into the NBA with an already refined game. There was no "project" bullsh*t. You came into the league already ready to contribute.

Kobe takes TONS of STUPID SHOTS in games. People who want to point to his 3pt shooting as "proof" that he's a better scorer than other players, obviously have never coached or even picked up a basketball in their life. If a player is just going to hoist up a ton of threes, as a defender that's exactly what I want you to do. That means you aren't attacking, you aren't getting into the lane, you aren't getting high percentage looks, and you aren't getting your teammates involved. You aren't putting any pressure on the defense whatsoever. As andgar already pointed out, players took less threes. A three point shot is a low percentage shot to begin with. Also, missed threes usually end in long rebounds, which allow the opposing team to get out in transition giving you less time to set your defense.

[Micku]

I was actually going to make a thread like this. I guess I'll do it later.

But I'm guessing the 80s just took better shots overall. I was going to compare the 80s to the 70s and 60s. We know one of the reasons why the 80s have better FG% than the 90s and onward is because of the attempts of the 3pt line.

[ILLsmak]

I was thinking about this... sort of... the other day. First of all, the three point thing is right to an extent. But the funny part is if you drop your FG% by a few % and hit 40% in 3, then you are still scoring the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 40% 3 point shooting is equal to 60% 3 point shooting and 3 point shooting, as said, also allows you to score more points.

The 3 point line offered more spacing, but it also changed players into chuckers. Remember when they moved it in and everyone was wetting 3s?

People just look at the value of 3 point shots, though, in comparison to 2 point shots and I think they have themselves convinced that it's better to take a low percentage 3 point shot than a money midrange shot.

That explains the FG% thing... somewhat. But how about how drastically scoring has dropped off. Do people really suck that much more at basketball now? I don't think the defense is that much better.... but think about it, before they added the hand checking rules the scoring was as low as it's ever been. And it's still really low. Why?

Is it really fundamentals? Is it really better defense? Is it the 3 point shot? I don't understand it.

How can the Suns have a 7 second or less offense and still only get 110 ppg? It baffles me. I know the answer isn't "CUZ PLAYERS WERE BETTER BACK IN THE DAY." It's much deeper than that. I think we need to be discussing that opposed to this stupid Kobe > Larry Bird agenda.

-Smak

[Micku]

I was thinking about this... sort of... the other day. First of all, the three point thing is right to an extent. But the funny part is if you drop your FG% by a few % and hit 40% in 3, then you are still scoring the same.


What about the 70s and 60s? The 60s shot low FG% while the 70s were somewhat comparable today. The 80s was the only decade that had the largest FG%.


More stuff:

I think the 70s had more aggressive hand checking. The 70s were more physical. I don't know about the 60s. But also, I think as the decades went by, the game became more smarter. You get more smarter and talented players overall.

[ZenMaster]

Then either there are more FTs shot today or those stats are incorrect, because a drop of 8% in FG% would mean 8 fewer shots per 100 possesions going in so ~16 ppg drop.

How about teams shooting a lot more 3pointers today?

[ZenMaster]

I was thinking about this... sort of... the other day. First of all, the three point thing is right to an extent. But the funny part is if you drop your FG% by a few % and hit 40% in 3, then you are still scoring the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 40% 3 point shooting is equal to 60% 3 point shooting and 3 point shooting, as said, also allows you to score more points.

The 3 point line offered more spacing, but it also changed players into chuckers. Remember when they moved it in and everyone was wetting 3s?

People just look at the value of 3 point shots, though, in comparison to 2 point shots and I think they have themselves convinced that it's better to take a low percentage 3 point shot than a money midrange shot.

That explains the FG% thing... somewhat. But how about how drastically scoring has dropped off. Do people really suck that much more at basketball now? I don't think the defense is that much better.... but think about it, before they added the hand checking rules the scoring was as low as it's ever been. And it's still really low. Why?

Is it really fundamentals? Is it really better defense? Is it the 3 point shot? I don't understand it.

How can the Suns have a 7 second or less offense and still only get 110 ppg? It baffles me. I know the answer isn't "CUZ PLAYERS WERE BETTER BACK IN THE DAY." It's much deeper than that. I think we need to be discussing that opposed to this stupid Kobe > Larry Bird agenda.

-Smak

It has to be something with defenses being better today. If it's because coaches can have more sophisticated defensive playbooks or if it's the players being more athletic I don't know, maybe it's a combination of the two. But it has to be that defenses are better today.

[tpols]

One thing I don't understand is that whenever jordan fans say jordan was much more efficient than kobe because his fg% was higher and I reply saying their TS% are nearly identical, I get shot down for using TS%. But this thread has shown three pointers are taken more now and the fg% are lower today so wouldn't that make sense to use a stat that can capture their true efficiencies regardless of era?

[Jacks3]

Because Jacks3 is one of the biggest Kobe n*tgaggers here and the last who hasn't been run out, yet. He's distorting facts and making sh*t up to try and prove a point. He's throwing a b*tch fit cause he can't comprehend that there were actually players who could SCORE MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY than his boyfriend Kobe. He can't accept that his hero is and always has been A LOW EFFICIENT LOW IQ CHUCKER. Players FG% were higher because they took better shots and were much more fundamentally sound. Like someone already stated, it was the norm to spend 3-4 years in college and come into the NBA with an already refined game. There was no "project" bullsh*t. You came into the league already ready to contribute.

Kobe takes TONS of STUPID SHOTS in games. People who want to point to his 3pt shooting as "proof" that he's a better scorer than other players, obviously have never coached or even picked up a basketball in their life. If a player is just going to hoist up a ton of threes, as a defender that's exactly what I want you to do. That means you aren't attacking, you aren't getting into the lane, you aren't getting high percentage looks, and you aren't getting your teammates involved. You aren't putting any pressure on the defense whatsoever. As andgar already pointed out, players took less threes. A three point shot is a low percentage shot to begin with. Also, missed threes usually end in long rebounds, which allow the opposing team to get out in transition giving you less time to set your defense.

Holy crap. Calm down.

[TennesseeFan]

You think D.Will> CP3. You're a dumass. Stupid Jazz homer. :facepalm
Thats not being a homer, thats true.

And don't knock on BK :no:

[ZenMaster]

One thing I don't understand is that whenever jordan fans say jordan was much more efficient than kobe because his fg% was higher and I reply saying their TS% are nearly identical, I get shot down for using TS%. But this thread has shown three pointers are taken more now and the fg% are lower today so wouldn't that make sense to use a stat that can capture their true efficiencies regardless of era?

No you're right, FG% is for people who refuse to move on.

The other day a thread was made about Jordan's FG% vs Kobe's. And obviously Jordan will have a higher FG% when he didn't shoot 3's at the same rate as Kobe. FG% is mostly used when you want to skew an argument.

[Jacks3]

Thats not being a homer, thats true.

And don't knock on BK :no:


A healthy CP3 is a superstar/top 5 player in the league. He's up there with Kobe/Wade/Howard. Deron will never reach that level. :facepalm

[Micku]

One thing I don't understand is that whenever jordan fans say jordan was much more efficient than kobe because his fg% was higher and I reply saying their TS% are nearly identical, I get shot down for using TS%. But this thread has shown three pointers are taken more now and the fg% are lower today so wouldn't that make sense to use a stat that can capture their true efficiencies regardless of era?

Not in Jordan's prime. His TS% was in the 60% mark. The indication of Jordan having a higher FG% is probably because he took better shots. Taken that into consideration, Jordan was always better. Even in his rookie year. Even when he came back from retirement, he had the slight edge. But there were more identical.

But despite that, TS% have a point. Look at Kobe 2006-07 season and look at the 1991-92 season. Kobe had more points with the same amount of shots and with a lower FG%. Jordan had less points with the same amount shots and with a higher FG%.

1991-92: Jordan averaged 30.1 ppg, .519%, and he took 22.7 shots.

2006-07: Kobe averaged 31.6 ppg, .463% and he took 22.8 shots.

What's the difference? Two things.

A. 3pt shooting. 3pt shooting will probably make up for the shots. If Kobe would've shot more from the mid or inside, he would have a better FG%. But he has proven time again that he takes bad shots and he'll shot the 3. It will adjust up.

B. FT line. I think this is the issue of era. Jordan averaged 7.4 at the FT line while Kobe averaged 10.0. This adds up to Kobe's point total despite the number of shots he took. But this is also another reason of era differences. Kobe probably wouldn't get as many fouls called in the 80s or early 90s and Jordan will probably get more in the post 05.

FT shooting and 3pt line is what TS take into consideration. You'll see how efficient the players are in that point.

[jlauber]

Don't forget about Elgin Baylor's 38.3 ppg season, yeah he missed 32 games because he was in the Army reserves, but the fact that he could play part time and score so much is incredible. Baylor then averaged 38.6 ppg in 13 playoff games, so essentially, he averaged over 38 ppg in 61 games, and even more impressive is that he was more efficient in the playoffs and he set a finals record with 61 points, and that was the playoff record until Jordan's 63 in 1986.

And from what I've seen in the 60's, the average player was obviously less skilled. The NBA was still a relatively new league, and like all sports, it progressed over time.

FG% was lower, IMO for a variety of reasons. The average player was less skilled plus whenever I watch 60's footage I see a lot of quick pull up jumpers, and in the halfcourt, 15 foot hook shots, both are low percentage shots.

And whether it's because players were less skilled as ball handlers, traveling rules were more enforced, or as I think, a variety of the 2. It was tougher for perimeter players to get to the basket and go up and strong. Not to mention that players dunked a lot less.

As Bob Cousy said and I'm paraphrasing "What I was doing in the 50's, every 12 year old is doing now in playgrounds."

As far as Wilt averaging 40 in 1967 and easily? I don't see it. His FG% was amazing in '67 and he had one of the best seasons of all-time that year, but lets look at his '66 and '68 seasons when he was shooting more.

1966- 33.5 ppg, 54 FG%, 25.2 FGA
1967- 24.1 ppg, 68.3 FG%, 14.2 FGA
1968- 24.3 ppg, 59.5 FG%, 16.8 FGA

We have 2 other seasons around the same time for a sample and as you'd expect, like most players, the more you shoot, the more your shooting percentage goes down.

To average 40 in '67, he'd need 23.6 shots while maintaing his efficiency, which just isn't plausible considering the year before, his FG% was 54% when he took 25 shots, which is impressive for that amount of shots. And in '68, his FG% dropped to a bit under 60% when he took 17 shots.

I can believe that he was a bit better in '67 than either season, but not so much better that he could easily average 40 when he couldn't come close in the season before or the season after.

But back to the topic, the pace in the 60's was MUCH faster and in general, a faster pace makes defenses less tough because it's much tougher to score in half court sets, not to mention that naturally over time strategies and skills will progress.

Regarding Baylor's 61-62 performance (which was outstanding BTW), he missed exactly 40% of the season. Why is that important? Take a look at Wilt's schedule. He had numerous three-in-a-row, four-in-a-row, and even a five-in-a-row games. Without looking, I believe one of those four or five game's in a row stints was on the road.

Secondly, Baylor shot .428 during the regular season, while Chamberlain shot .506. That is not a knock on Elgin, because the league shot .426. Baylor was essentially shooting very similar percentages, compared to the league, that Bird did in his seasons. But, even if you did include Baylor's 38.3 ppg season, he was STILL WAY behind Wilt in scoring. Of course, the league does not recognize Baylor's numbers among the leaders, so Wilt won the scoring title over Bellamy by an incredible +18.8 margin.

Wilt's '67 season was DRAMATICALLY better than his '68 season BTW. 24.1 ppg on .683, compared to 24.3 on .595. As for his '66 season, of 33.5 on .540...two things: One, the league only shot .433. And, two, Wilt's FG% overall, had been on the rise since his rookie year. Furthermore, from what I have been able to determine, (only a small sample to work with, however), Wilt was MORE efficient the MORE he shot in '67. He had one game of 26-34 (58 points), and another of 18-18 (42 points), as well as games of 15-15 and 16-16. However, he only averaged 14 FGAs per game that season. Clearly, however, he could have scored MUCH more. Even Rick Barry "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win the scoring title that year. IMHO, Wilt's '67 season was his PEAK season. I have mentioned it before, but even against Thurmond, there was a game in which he had basically passed the entire first half. However, his team was struggling, and his coach told his team to pass it into Wilt in the second half. Chamberlain responded with 24 second half points (30 total), with 26 rebounds, and 12 blocks.

And, he was basically unstoppable in the post-season. When he finally faced an average NBA center in the playoffs (a rarity for Wilt), in Dierking, he lit him up in the first two games for 41 points (on 19-30 shooting), and then 37 points (on 16-24 shooting.) Once again, he cut back his shooting after that, but in game three, he put up a 16-30-19 game, and those 19 assists tied the NBA playoff record at the time. He just buried Russell in the next round, and his rebounding numbers in that series were probably the greatest EVER, in the post-season. Against Russell, he averaged 32 rpg in that series, and in three games of that five game series, he grabbed 28%, 29%, and a staggering 30% of the TOTAL rebounds. He also outshot Russell by a .556 to .358 margin. Then, against Thurmond, he outrebounded Nate in five of their six post-season games, including one game of 38, outscored him, per game, 17.5 to 14.3, and outshot him by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin.


But, back to MY original point on Wilt's DOMINATION of the statistical categories. The NBA was shooting anywhere from .410 to .446 in the entire decade of the 60's. And ONLY WILT was just BLOWING those numbers away. In his 50 and 45 ppg seasons, he outshot the league average in both, by nearly 100 points. The rest of the decade, he was well over 100 points above, and he had that incredible '67 season, when he was .242 above the average. Only his '73 season is better in NBA history (.727 to .456, or a .271 differential.) You will not find another NBA player in NBA history to even come close to .200 points above.

As far as the 80's go, one can only imagine what kind of numbers Chamberlain would have put up in that decade. I have already broken down the numbers of you transfer his '62 season to MJ's '87, but even after reducing his FGAs and FTAs to the league average, he still would have averaged 42 ppg. BUT, if you raise his FG to around .570, or so, and he would have been at 46 ppg. And, just what kind of FG%'s would have he put up in that decade???? Kareem had his FOUR highest FG% seasons in the 80's, and he EIGHT above his CAREER FG% (.559.) Gilmore's NBA high FG% season in the 70's was .575. He had SEVEN seasons higher in the 80's, and SIX over 60%, including two of .652 and .670.

So, once again, there was WILT, and then there has been everyone else.

[ZenMaster]

Because Jacks3 is one of the biggest Kobe n*tgaggers here and the last who hasn't been run out, yet. He's distorting facts and making sh*t up to try and prove a point. He's throwing a b*tch fit cause he can't comprehend that there were actually players who could SCORE MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY than his boyfriend Kobe. He can't accept that his hero is and always has been A LOW EFFICIENT LOW IQ CHUCKER. Players FG% were higher because they took better shots and were much more fundamentally sound. Like someone already stated, it was the norm to spend 3-4 years in college and come into the NBA with an already refined game. There was no "project" bullsh*t. You came into the league already ready to contribute.

Kobe takes TONS of STUPID SHOTS in games. People who want to point to his 3pt shooting as "proof" that he's a better scorer than other players, obviously have never coached or even picked up a basketball in their life. If a player is just going to hoist up a ton of threes, as a defender that's exactly what I want you to do. That means you aren't attacking, you aren't getting into the lane, you aren't getting high percentage looks, and you aren't getting your teammates involved. You aren't putting any pressure on the defense whatsoever. As andgar already pointed out, players took less threes. A three point shot is a low percentage shot to begin with. Also, missed threes usually end in long rebounds, which allow the opposing team to get out in transition giving you less time to set your defense.

3pt shoots get better chances for offensive rebounds than mid-range shots though.

A 3point shot makes up for being a lower % shot by counting for 3 instead of 2.

Just some things to consider.

[ILLsmak]

3pt shoots get better chances for offensive rebounds than mid-range shots though.

A 3point shot makes up for being a lower % shot by counting for 3 instead of 2.

Just some things to consider.

They also give up more fast breaks...

Even now, teams don't guard the 3 point line the way they guard inside the line. I think the 3 point shot is kind of fools gold unless it's in the clutch or a momentum changer. When is the last time a 3 point shooting team won anything? And having a kick out 3 from a double team is not really the same.

-Smak

[Replay32]

The main reason for the higher scores and FG% in the 80's was pace. But more importantly there was more post play, players made more open shots, there was better passing/passers, more/quicker ball movement and player movement. And lastly there were less 3's taking.

Today there is a lot more dribbling, more standing at the 3 point line, and not as many players post up. More 3's are taken today.

Like someone said earlier, it's not that defenses are that much better today. Pounding the ball, pick and roll, and drive and kick are staples of today's nba. Also players don't shoot as many mid range shots overall and settle for too many 3's. Also there are more iso's on the perimeter to draw defenders while the other players are spotting up.

THIS STYLE OF BALL GIVE THE DEFENSE A "FREE PASS", CUZ DEFENSES ARE NOT ROTATING AS MUCH. BECAUSE THERE IS LESS BALL MOVEMENT AND PLAYER MOVEMENT. Players are more athletic today, but offense is a lot less fundamentally sound and DUMBER.

It's really that simple.

[OldSchoolBBall]

George Gervin

1979-80: 33.1 PTS (.528 FG%)
1981-82: 32.3 PTS (.500 FG%)

Adrian Dantley

1980-81: 30.7 PTS (.559 FG%)
1981-82: 30.3 PTS (.570 FG%)
1982-83: 30.7 PTS (.580 FG%)
1983-84: 30.6 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Kiki Vandeseghe

1983-84: 29.4 PTS (.558 FG%)

Mark Aguire

1983-84: 29.5 PTS (.524 FG%)

Bernard King

1984-85: 32.9 PTS (.530 FG%)

Alex English

1985-86: 29.8 PTS (.504 FG%)
1986-87: 28.6 PTS (.503 FG%)

Larry Bird

1987-88: 29.9 PTS (.527 FG%)


... and there are tons of players who were in the 27-28 PTS range with very high FG%'s, they just weren't taking enough shots to get 30+.

:roll: Pathetic D.

Where are all these great seasons post-'86? Yeah, thought so. Sure, you might be able to find isolated instances (mostly from Western Conference teams with a high pace) after 1986, but that's about it.


One thing I don't understand is that whenever jordan fans say jordan was much more efficient than kobe because his fg% was higher and I reply saying their TS% are nearly identical, I get shot down for using TS%. But this thread has shown three pointers are taken more now and the fg% are lower today so wouldn't that make sense to use a stat that can capture their true efficiencies regardless of era?

Because their TS% wasn't nearly identical? At the same ages (21-30), Jordan enjoys a LARGE 3.4% TS advantage over Kobe (59.2% vs. 55.8%), and he was doing that on 4.5 more ppg (32.5 ppg vs. 28.0 ppg), which is a huge gap for players at this level. So it wasn't really close at all, actually.

[ZenMaster]

They also give up more fast breaks...

Even now, teams don't guard the 3 point line the way they guard inside the line. I think the 3 point shot is kind of fools gold unless it's in the clutch or a momentum changer. When is the last time a 3 point shooting team won anything? And having a kick out 3 from a double team is not really the same.

-Smak

He already mentioned that they cause fast breaks, I just said that they also create more offensive rebounds than mid-range shots, just to point out that it's not all negative when you miss a 3.

I liked Calipari's way of looking at it last season, he wanted his team to shoot and he told them that when they shot 1 of 3 things can happen:
1) We score
2) We miss but get the rebound and then we score,
3) We miss and the other teams get the ball

like he said "2 out of 3 ain't bad"

-----------

Basically all teams are 3pt shooting teams compared to earlier era's.

And more importantly a lot of teams recently have won the championship while focusing on defending the 3 and forcing more mid-range shots. Which shows you the significance of it.

[gts]

Jordan enjoys a LARGE 3.4% TS advantage over Kobe (59.2% vs. 55.8%)that's not a "LARGE advantage" but a nice try on your part...

besides for every season he shot better than kobe he had one where he shot worse, jordan had 5 years worse ts% than kobe worst season ever..

kobe's worse season was 54% TS, jordan had 5 seasons lower and 3 that he didn't even crack 50%

[ShaqAttack3234]

Regarding Baylor's 61-62 performance (which was outstanding BTW), he missed exactly 40% of the season. Why is that important? Take a look at Wilt's schedule. He had numerous three-in-a-row, four-in-a-row, and even a five-in-a-row games. Without looking, I believe one of those four or five game's in a row stints was on the road.

Yeah, there are 2 sides to everything, but I think not being able to play everyday and still being locked in enough to average 38 and then raising his FG% and scoring average in the playoffs is impressive.


Wilt's '67 season was DRAMATICALLY better than his '68 season BTW. 24.1 ppg on .683, compared to 24.3 on .595. As for his '66 season, of 33.5 on .540...two things: One, the league only shot .433. And, two, Wilt's FG% overall, had been on the rise since his rookie year. Furthermore, from what I have been able to determine, (only a small sample to work with, however), Wilt was MORE efficient the MORE he shot in '67. He had one game of 26-34 (58 points), and another of 18-18 (42 points), as well as games of 15-15 and 16-16. However, he only averaged 14 FGAs per game that season. Clearly, however, he could have scored MUCH more. Even Rick Barry "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win the scoring title that year. IMHO, Wilt's '67 season was his PEAK season. I have mentioned it before, but even against Thurmond, there was a game in which he had basically passed the entire first half. However, his team was struggling, and his coach told his team to pass it into Wilt in the second half. Chamberlain responded with 24 second half points (30 total), with 26 rebounds, and 12 blocks.

I don't think a few games are a good indication of his FG%. I mean when Shaq took 35 shots on his birthday in 2000 he shot 69%, while he shot 57% for the season on 21 shots per game and in his 3 games in the playoffs with over 30 shots, he easily topped the 57% he shot for the playoffs.

Typically, you shoot more on your best days then you do on your average days.

As far as Wilt's FG% rising after his rookie season, well, after his 3rd year, he shot less each season.

As I've said, I think Wilt's '67 season can be put in the discussion with any season in NBA history, but based on him not being able to come remotely close on 25 shots per game the year before, I don't see him averaging 40 in '67.


As far as the 80's go, one can only imagine what kind of numbers Chamberlain would have put up in that decade. I have already broken down the numbers of you transfer his '62 season to MJ's '87, but even after reducing his FGAs and FTAs to the league average, he still would have averaged 42 ppg. BUT, if you raise his FG to around .570, or so, and he would have been at 46 ppg. And, just what kind of FG%'s would have he put up in that decade???? Kareem had his FOUR highest FG% seasons in the 80's, and he EIGHT above his CAREER FG% (.559.) Gilmore's NBA high FG% season in the 70's was .575. He had SEVEN seasons higher in the 80's, and SIX over 60%, including two of .652 and .670.

In '87? If he played at Jordan's Bulls pace of 95.8 then his stats would've dropped dramatically. And I don't see why Wilt's FG% would raise if you placed him in the 80's, I'd think that he'd be taking the same fadeaways and finger rolls that he took in the 60's. It was a bigger league and a slower paced league compared to the 60's as well. Remember, Wilt was among the only player who lifted weights in the 60's because most feared that it would hurt their shooting.

But neither of us can be proven right or wrong on our speculation over this matter. Aside from pace, I think the fact that stars played less minutes by '87 and the lane widening would prevent him from getting anywhere near the 40 shots per game he got in 1962.

Kareem also shot a lot less and had more stacked teams to take pressure off of him in the 80's compared to 70's.

I haven't gotten around to watching any Artis Gilmore games yet so i can't comment on his FG%.

[Jacks3]

Because their TS% wasn't nearly identical? At the same ages (21-30), Jordan enjoys a LARGE 3.4% TS advantage over Kobe (59.2% vs. 55.8%), and he was doing that on 4.5 more ppg (32.5 ppg vs. 28.0 ppg), which is a huge gap for players at this level. So it wasn't really close at all, actually.

lol @ ignoring MJ's 1996/1997/1998 seasons. How about comparing their 12 best seasons? 1984-1993/96-98 for MJ and 1998-2010 for Kobe. :confusedshrug: That seems the fairest to me. Takes out Jordan's Wizard years and Kobe's 2 seasons off the bench.

MJ--58% TS/31.5

Kobe--56% TS/28 PPG

And the PPG gap doesn't matter because Kobe has proven that his efficiency isn't affected by volume. If you're strictly talking efficiency, a 2% advantage is certainly not HUGE.

[ZenMaster]

that's not a "LARGE advantage" but a nice try on your part...

besides for every season he shot better than kobe he had one where he shot worse, jordan had 5 years worse ts% than kobe worst season ever..

kobe's worse season was 54% TS, jordan had 5 seasons lower and 3 that he didn't even crack 50%

In terms of TS% at that level of play it is a pretty big chunk.

Interesting Jordan had so many seasons with a TS% below Kobe's though, I didn't know that.

[The_Yearning]

Jason Richardson would of averaged 28ppg back then on 45%+ from downtown.

[chazzy]

that's not a "LARGE advantage" but a nice try on your part...

besides for every season he shot better than kobe he had one where he shot worse, jordan had 5 years worse ts% than kobe worst season ever..

kobe's worse season was 54% TS, jordan had 5 seasons lower and 3 that he didn't even crack 50%

Ehh, 2 of them are Wizards seasons and another 2 are from when he came back in the middle of the season (foot, retirement). And the last one was his last season as a Bull

[Jacks3]

Where are all these great seasons post-'86? Yeah, thought so. Sure, you might be able to find isolated instances (mostly from Western Conference teams with a high pace) after 1986, but that's about it.





Bunch of high-volume seasons like that post 86.

87 Aguirre--26 PPG/50% FG
87 English--30 PPG/50% FG
87 Kiki--29 PPG/52% FG

That's 3 already. :roll:

[jlauber]

Yeah, there are 2 sides to everything, but I think not being able to play everyday and still being locked in enough to average 38 and then raising his FG% and scoring average in the playoffs is impressive.



I don't think a few games are a good indication of his FG%. I mean when Shaq took 35 shots on his birthday in 2000 he shot 69%, while he shot 57% for the season on 21 shots per game and in his 3 games in the playoffs with over 30 shots, he easily topped the 57% he shot for the playoffs.

Typically, you shoot more on your best days then you do on your average days.

As far as Wilt's FG% rising after his rookie season, well, after his 3rd year, he shot less each season.

As I've said, I think Wilt's '67 season can be put in the discussion with any season in NBA history, but based on him not being able to come remotely close on 25 shots per game the year before, I don't see him averaging 40 in '67.



In '87? If he played at Jordan's Bulls pace of 95.8 then his stats would've dropped dramatically. And I don't see why Wilt's FG% would raise if you placed him in the 80's, I'd think that he'd be taking the same fadeaways and finger rolls that he took in the 60's. It was a bigger league and a slower paced league compared to the 60's as well. Remember, Wilt was among the only player who lifted weights in the 60's because most feared that it would hurt their shooting.

But neither of us can be proven right or wrong on our speculation over this matter. Aside from pace, I think the fact that stars played less minutes by '87 and the lane widening would prevent him from getting anywhere near the 40 shots per game he got in 1962.

Kareem also shot a lot less and had more stacked teams to take pressure off of him in the 80's compared to 70's.

I haven't gotten around to watching any Artis Gilmore games yet so i can't comment on his FG%.

Good points.

Wilt in his '67 season could EASILY have averaged 40 ppg. He averaged 33.5 in '66, and anyone who watched him the 60's, KNEW he could score at will. For example, in his LAST game in his "scoring" seasons, in the '66 ECF's, he put up 46 points on RUSSELL. In fact, over the course of his first seven seasons, he averaged 39 ppg, and against RUSSELL, it was 34. And by the '67 season he was in his physical and skilled prime. Now, the only question would have been, what would he have shot? IMHO, 60% would not have been out of the question.

You have read it here many time, as well, but in his '68-69, his coach had reduced his scoring to around 17-18 ppg by mid-season. SI ran an article claiming that Wilt could no longer score. He exploded for a 60 point game the very day the article hit newstand, and followed that up with a 66 point game a few days later. Both, of course, were the high games by a mile that year. BUT, over the course of a 17 game stretch, he averaged 31 ppg, including a 35 point game against Russell, which was his highest since that 46 point game in '66.

Not only that, but, his new coach in the '69-70 season, Joe Mullaney realized that Wilt needed to be the focal point of the offense, and in the first nine games of that season, he averaged 32.2 ppg. He had games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 in those nine game, and a game against Kareem in which he outscored him, 25-23, and outshot him 9-14 to 9-21 (as well as outrebounding, outassisting, and outblocking him.) However, he suffered that knee injury, and was never quite the same again.

In any case, Chamberlain could have put the career ppg out of reach had he been inclined.


Now, as for MJ's 86-87 season. Forget pace. In fact, G.O.A.T pretty much blew that theory away. I go with the actual numbers. In Wilt's '62 season, he shot 39.5 FGAs per game and 17 FTAs per game, in a league that averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game. In the '86-87 season, the NBA averaged 81 FGAs per game, and a little over 30 FTAs per game.

So, reduce Wilt's FGAs down to '87 levels, and he would have shot 30 FGAs per game. Reduce his FTAs down to '87 levels, and 14 FTAs per game. using his actual percentages, he would have made 15 FGs per game, and 9 FTs per game, or 39 ppg. However, he shot .506 in a league that averaged .426. And in '87, the NBA shot .480. Bump his FG% up to '87 levels to a conservative .570, and he would have made a little over 17 FGs per game, or 43 to 44 ppg.

And we don't know exactly why players shot MUCH worse in the 60's than in the 80's, but players who played in the 70's and '80's, at least the great one's, almost to a man, shot considerably better in the 80's. So, yes, I believe defenses played tougher in the 60's, and that Wilt would have faced much worse defenses in the 80's. Not only that, but Chamberlain would have been just as great at running the floor in the 80's, too.

And, I have often wondered how HE would have done with Magic and the Lakers in the 80's. Granted, Kareem was not in his prime in the 80's, so that is not a completely fair comparison, but a prime Wilt, in the 80's, with the "Showtime" Lakers would have been even more awesome. A '66 or '67 Wilt would have been capable of 30-40 point games, on god knows what kind of FG%...and, that, coupled with his dominating rebounding and defense...IMHO, maybe as many as 10 titles in the 80's. I can't imagine Moses pushing Wilt around in '81 or '83, either.

Anyway...makes for interesting speculation...

[ILLsmak]

He already mentioned that they cause fast breaks, I just said that they also create more offensive rebounds than mid-range shots, just to point out that it's not all negative when you miss a 3.

I liked Calipari's way of looking at it last season, he wanted his team to shoot and he told them that when they shot 1 of 3 things can happen:
1) We score
2) We miss but get the rebound and then we score,
3) We miss and the other teams get the ball

like he said "2 out of 3 ain't bad"

-----------

Basically all teams are 3pt shooting teams compared to earlier era's.

And more importantly a lot of teams recently have won the championship while focusing on defending the 3 and forcing more mid-range shots. Which shows you the significance of it.


4) Get knocked out of the NCAAs with a team full of lotto picks.

lol, yeah that was bogus I admit, but it's also easy to say that when you had such a great team... a talented team of NBA players. It's not a fair comparison because if he had a mediocre roster, it wouldn't have been the case.

In fact, those 3 things listed is a very simplistic way to look at things... That's also true with every other offensive play on the court except that you can get fouled on other plays. Also, attacking the inside might have more of an effect on your players energy and get them beat up, but it also affects the other team's energy and beats them up.

If you focus on 3s, you can beat anyone, but you can also lose to anyone. The reason relying on 3s is dumb is because, as I said, you can get a 3 pointer at almost any time. 3s should be used only as momentum changers, I think.

Bigs generally can't shoot 3s. Bigs generally can't defend 3s. Yet, the team with the best bigs is almost always the best team. 3 point shooters are out there to complement the good bigs and punish people for helping at the 'real threat area' which is the paint.

-Smak

[Fatal9]

Players being better FT shooter and jumpshooters back then is nonsense. The FT% is the same as it was back then, in fact in '09 teams shot 77.1% and that is higher than ANY of the years in the 80s. They were getting looks on a regular basis that simply don't exist today. It has nothing to do with ball movement either (Dantley benefited from ball movement...really?). Ever watched some of the bottom feeder team from the 80s play? They were shooting 49-50% from the field as well with not much talent and poor ball movement.

As for post '86 high volume scoring?

'88 Drexler - 27 ppg on 51%
'88 Ellis - 28 ppg on 50% (taking a lot of threes too)
'89 Ellis - 26 ppg on 50%
'87 English - 29 ppg on 50%
'86 Dantley - 30 ppg on 56%
'89 Mullin - 27 ppg on 51%
'87 Kiki - 27 ppg on 52%

Compare that with LeBron who last season was the first player since Mullin in '93 to average 25+ ppg and shoot 50+%, and he just barely made it. This doesn't need to be spelled out, just watch like 10 minutes of footage. You'll see players iso like crazy - watch how easy it is to get the entire side of the floor to yourself, less athletic perimeter defenders (on average), more transition shots/opportunities, and anything past 15 feet was barely contested. Teams didn't want to beat you by defending you, they wanted to outscore you. This philosophy didn't change till the early/mid 90s thanks to the influence of the Pistons.

[Jacks3]

/thread

[ZenMaster]

4) Get knocked out of the NCAAs with a team full of lotto picks.

lol, yeah that was bogus I admit, but it's also easy to say that when you had such a great team... a talented team of NBA players. It's not a fair comparison because if he had a mediocre roster, it wouldn't have been the case.

In fact, those 3 things listed is a very simplistic way to look at things... That's also true with every other offensive play on the court except that you can get fouled on other plays. Also, attacking the inside might have more of an effect on your players energy and get them beat up, but it also affects the other team's energy and beats them up.

If you focus on 3s, you can beat anyone, but you can also lose to anyone. The reason relying on 3s is dumb is because, as I said, you can get a 3 pointer at almost any time. 3s should be used only as momentum changers, I think.

Bigs generally can't shoot 3s. Bigs generally can't defend 3s. Yet, the team with the best bigs is almost always the best team. 3 point shooters are out there to complement the good bigs and punish people for helping at the 'real threat area' which is the paint.

-Smak

Again I'll point out that the successful NBA teams often defend the 3pointer well. So even if you're not focusing on it offensively you need to defensively. Because if you don't, teams will be shooting open 3's all day, and in pro ball they will do it and beat you.

Our views on the 3pt shot is pretty different.

I'm not saying that taking it to the basket isn't the most important thing in basketball, because it is. But teams mostly become better when they get to the basket, get FT's and shoot well from the perimeter. The mid-range area is the worst place to be shooting from in basketball unless you can draw fouls while doing it, which most players cant. Mid range shots also creates the least offensive rebounds of any shot possible except for free throws.

You will see that most teams who have a focus on their jump shots being 3pointers most often also has a focus that most other shots are either layups or free throws. The same place Calipari has his focus.

[che guevara]

Players being better FT shooter and jumpshooters back then is nonsense. The FT% is the same as it was back then, in fact in '09 teams shot 77.1% and that is higher than ANY of the years in the 80s. They were getting looks on a regular basis that simply don't exist today. It has nothing to do with ball movement either (Dantley benefited from ball movement...really?). Ever watched some of the bottom feeder team from the 80s play? They were shooting 49-50% from the field as well with not much talent and poor ball movement.

As for post '86 high volume scoring?

'88 Drexler - 27 ppg on 51%
'88 Ellis - 28 ppg on 50% (taking a lot of threes too)
'89 Ellis - 26 ppg on 50%
'87 English - 29 ppg on 50%
'86 Dantley - 30 ppg on 56%
'89 Mullin - 27 ppg on 51%
'87 Kiki - 27 ppg on 52%

Compare that with LeBron who last season was the first player since Mullin in '93 to average 25+ ppg and shoot 50+%, and he just barely made it. This doesn't need to be spelled out, just watch like 10 minutes of footage. You'll see players iso like crazy - watch how easy it is to get the entire side of the floor to yourself, less athletic perimeter defenders (on average), more transition shots/opportunities, and anything past 15 feet was barely contested. Teams didn't want to beat you by defending you, they wanted to outscore you. This philosophy didn't change till the early/mid 90s thanks to the influence of the Pistons.
Holy shit - Dale Ellis shot 48% on threes in 1989 on 4.1 attempts per game. I know he was a good 3 point shooter but that's ridiculous.

As far as high scoring perimeter players shooting 50%, I think nobody does it now because players take so many more threes. Lebron shot over 50% last season despite taking 5.1 threes per game - he actually shot 56% on 2 pointers. I doubt the TS% is much different now even if the FG% is.

[Showtime]

When the pace is that fast, generally, not much defense is being played.
This is a common misconception. It's not that defense wasn't played, it's that teams actually ran offenses, so open shots opened up and were taken earlier in the clock. It's not just one guy standing around with 4 guys watching him, like in today's NBA. Also, teams' transition was sparked by defense, not just letting them score and hustling back.

[ILLsmak]

Again I'll point out that the successful NBA teams often defend the 3pointer well. So even if you're not focusing on it offensively you need to defensively. Because if you don't, teams will be shooting open 3's all day, and in pro ball they will do it and beat you.

Our views on the 3pt shot is pretty different.

I'm not saying that taking it to the basket isn't the most important thing in basketball, because it is. But teams mostly become better when they get to the basket, get FT's and shoot well from the perimeter. The mid-range area is the worst place to be shooting from in basketball unless you can draw fouls while doing it, which most players cant. Mid range shots also creates the least offensive rebounds of any shot possible except for free throws.

You will see that most teams who have a focus on their jump shots being 3pointers most often also has a focus that most other shots are either layups or free throws. The same place Calipari has his focus.

The midrange is the most inefficient shot, but I'd say it is more likely the area where the most games are won. Why? Because it's the area where most players can do work. Most game winners, I'd say, are from midrange.

I think 3 pointers should be taken mostly with feet set. Shooting an off the dribble 3 pointer when you are on a good team is kind of a travesty unless you are just trying to psychologically mess with the defense (i.e. it's not guarding you or spacing correctly.)

I tend to look at things that can't be proven by stats and state them anyway, so take it with a grain of salt, but here is my theory about good teams being better at defending the 3 point line:

No doubt, you have to guard people out there... nobody is denying that. But I believe that when facing a good team that is getting scores and offense, the players 'choke' more on 3 pointers. Everything is more serious when playing against a good team and people start thinking too much and therefore miss threes. I have seen this first hand with certain teams and assume it to be the case for most games. But the idea of locking down the 3 point line seems kind of weird because you'd have to basically give up on everything else to defend hard out there.

The key, I believe, is to be able to defend the paint and midrange without leaving shooters wide open. Is that defending the 3 point line? In a way, but it's not as serious as you make it. It's not like people are playing guys for the 3 the whole game. They are just trying to keep those guys out of rhythm.

-Smak

[ShaqAttack3234]

Bunch of high-volume seasons like that post 86.

87 Aguirre--26 PPG/50% FG
87 English--30 PPG/50% FG
87 Kiki--29 PPG/52% FG

That's 3 already. :roll:

Aguirre? Lets compare that season to Melo's from '08

Aguirre- 25.7 ppg, 49.5 FG%, 51.2 eFG%, 56 TS%
Melo- 25.7 ppg, 49.2 FG%, 51.1 eFG%, 56.8 TS%

Aguirre's Mavs had a pace factor 100.5 and the average defensive rating that year was 108.3.

Melo's Nuggets had a pace factor of 99.7 and the average defensive rating was 107.5.

We're talking a tiny difference in the conditions of Aguirre's season and Melo's season which occurred just 2 seasons ago, and damn near identical scoring and shooting numbers.

English? Didn't Oldschool mention with the exceptions of ridiculous pace Western Conference teams? The Nuggets that English played on had a pace factor of 106.2. Kiki's Blazers had a pace factor 105.



Wilt in his '67 season could EASILY have averaged 40 ppg.

I just don't see how he could have easily done it in '67, if Wilt with a scoring mentality just a season before that "only" managed 33.5 ppg on over 25 shots per game.


Now, as for MJ's 86-87 season. Forget pace. In fact, G.O.A.T pretty much blew that theory away. I go with the actual numbers. In Wilt's '62 season, he shot 39.5 FGAs per game and 17 FTAs per game, in a league that averaged 108 FGAs and 37 FTAs per game. In the '86-87 season, the NBA averaged 81 FGAs per game, and a little over 30 FTAs per game.

So, reduce Wilt's FGAs down to '87 levels, and he would have shot 30 FGAs per game. Reduce his FTAs down to '87 levels, and 14 FTAs per game. using his actual percentages, he would have made 15 FGs per game, and 9 FTs per game, or 39 ppg. However, he shot .506 in a league that averaged .426. And in '87, the NBA shot .480. Bump his FG% up to '87 levels to a conservative .570, and he would have made a little over 17 FGs per game, or 43 to 44 ppg.

I think pace makes a big difference when the difference is extreme. According to basketball-reference, Wilt's Warriors played with a pace factor of around 129.7 and Jordan's Bulls had a pace factor of 95.8.

Give Wilt the same amount of shots per team's possessions on Jordan's Bulls and he averages 29.2(close to your number), but, while we don't know how many minutes he'd play in '87, I'd almost guarantee it's not 48.5, just to compare scoring, for arguments sake, give him the 40 mpg MJ played, which is fair enough because Jordan, like Wilt was an excellent conditioned athlete who had to carry a team.

With the same amount of shots per possession and per minute prorated to Jordan's team's pace and Jordan's minutes, he'd average 24.1 shots per game. If he maintains his '62 efficiency then he ends up at 30.7 ppg.

I also think that the lane widening made it tougher for post players to get as many shots, particularly high percentage shots, but I have no real way to incorporate that statistically.

I also don't agree with raising his FG% based on league averages for the reasons I've stated, and neither of us really have a clue what he'd average, what he'd shoot or how many minutes he'd play in '87, I just wanted to introduce a different side to the argument.


And we don't know exactly why players shot MUCH worse in the 60's than in the 80's, but players who played in the 70's and '80's, at least the great one's, almost to a man, shot considerably better in the 80's. So, yes, I believe defenses played tougher in the 60's, and that Wilt would have faced much worse defenses in the 80's. Not only that, but Chamberlain would have been just as great at running the floor in the 80's, too.

The great players in the 60's were able to shoot a good percentage.

Jerry West shot a career best 51.4% in '68, 49.7% in '65 and 48.4% in '64 which is excellent for a perimeter player considering he averaged 26.3, 31 and 28.7 ppg in those seasons, respectively.

Oscar shot 51.8% in '63 while scoring 28.3 ppg, 50% in '68 while scoring 29.2 ppg, 49.3% and 30.5 ppg in '67 and consistently solid percentages throughout the decade. That's great for a perimeter player in any era.

Rick Barry averaged 35.6 ppg and shot 45.1% in just his second season in '67, which is excellent very good for a perimeter player taking that many shots(28.7 per game).

Hal Greer averaged 24.1 ppg on 47.8% shooting in '68.

So I think the stars could shoot, but I think the average player was far less skilled back then, atleast on the perimeter. My theory for that is the increase in popularity of the sport. It makes more players watch and want to play which makes for a greater amount of talented players.


This is a common misconception. It's not that defense wasn't played, it's that teams actually ran offenses, so open shots opened up and were taken earlier in the clock. It's not just one guy standing around with 4 guys watching him, like in today's NBA. Also, teams' transition was sparked by defense, not just letting them score and hustling back.

I'm not saying every team was bad defensively, but I see a lot of open transition or semi-transition jumpers and it's a lot easier to get lay ups and get high percentage shots at the basket when you run as opposed to creating something 5 on 5 vs a set defense.

[97 bulls]

lol @ ignoring MJ's 1996/1997/1998 seasons. How about comparing their 12 best seasons? 1984-1993/96-98 for MJ and 1998-2010 for Kobe. :confusedshrug: That seems the fairest to me. Takes out Jordan's Wizard years and Kobe's 2 seasons off the bench.

MJ--58% TS/31.5

Kobe--56% TS/28 PPG

And the PPG gap doesn't matter because Kobe has proven that his efficiency isn't affected by volume. If you're strictly talking efficiency, a 2% advantage is certainly not HUGE.
I think its hard to qualify jordans 96-98 seasons. The game was just played differently. It was slower, more physical, and just downright ugly at times. That's why the league made the rule changes. Which definately benefitted guys like kobe, wade, and lebron.

[Jacks3]

I think its hard to qualify jordans 96-98 seasons. The game was just played differently. It was slower, more physical, and just downright ugly at times. That's why the league made the rule changes. Which definately benefitted guys like kobe, wade, and lebron.

Meh. Kobe played before those rule changes and was widely regarded as the best perimeter player in basketball. I don't think they benefited him all that much tbh.

[ZenMaster]

The midrange is the most inefficient shot, but I'd say it is more likely the area where the most games are won. Why? Because it's the area where most players can do work. Most game winners, I'd say, are from midrange.

I think 3 pointers should be taken mostly with feet set. Shooting an off the dribble 3 pointer when you are on a good team is kind of a travesty unless you are just trying to psychologically mess with the defense (i.e. it's not guarding you or spacing correctly.)

I tend to look at things that can't be proven by stats and state them anyway, so take it with a grain of salt, but here is my theory about good teams being better at defending the 3 point line:

No doubt, you have to guard people out there... nobody is denying that. But I believe that when facing a good team that is getting scores and offense, the players 'choke' more on 3 pointers. Everything is more serious when playing against a good team and people start thinking too much and therefore miss threes. I have seen this first hand with certain teams and assume it to be the case for most games. But the idea of locking down the 3 point line seems kind of weird because you'd have to basically give up on everything else to defend hard out there.

The key, I believe, is to be able to defend the paint and midrange without leaving shooters wide open. Is that defending the 3 point line? In a way, but it's not as serious as you make it. It's not like people are playing guys for the 3 the whole game. They are just trying to keep those guys out of rhythm.

-Smak

I disagree a little bit.

Good teams take 3 pointers with their feet set, I agree 3pointers shouldn't be taken off the dribble.

Mid-range shots should also not be taken off the dribble, but that's what will happen mostly. Players most often take a mid range shot off the dribble because you're driving from a close out situation and the defense loads up the paint.

The Spurs won a championship buy enforcing this strategy. They played some of the worst mid range defense in the league, but where at the top in FT's given, 3pt% and 3pt Atmp. It lead to them playing some of the best defense of the century.
I've been told by a guy who knows a lot about this that in a playoff series vs Seattle, the Sonics shot a historically high % from mid-range, but it just wasn't enough.

I believe in this strategy very much so myself, I teach my own guys always to play defense with the intent of giving the other guy a somewhat contested(the more the better) mid-range shot off the dribble. I tell them that if we are successful in doing that while going for the opposite when playing offense we will never lose. And when we do execute those thing I'm almost always right.
"3 or key" is the way to go.

[White Chocolate]

The pace of the game is extremely underrated. Guys will naturally score and dish more when the pace is fast. Same reason why Steve Nash went from averaging around 7-8 APG in Dallas to 11 APG in Phoenix.

[che guevara]

The pace of the game is extremely underrated. Guys will naturally score and dish more when the pace is fast. Same reason why Steve Nash went from averaging around 7-8 APG in Dallas to 11 APG in Phoenix.
Phoenix's pace was barely any faster than Dallas.

[White Chocolate]

Phoenix's pace was barely any faster than Dallas.


Dallas was around 92-93 and Phoenix around 96 and even 97 one year. We're not talking about a 1 point difference.

[OldSchoolBBall]

that's not a "LARGE advantage" but a nice try on your part...

A 3.4% gap in TS% is LARGE when talking about players who are scoring the same volume (it's almost the difference between AI and Kobe - and we know how much Kobe fans love to deride AI as an inefficient chucker). Now add the fact that he was doing it on 4.5 more ppg and it becomes very sizeable.

No one is going to act like a player who has 55.8% TS is anywhere near as efficient as one who has a 59.2% TS. Now add in that the latter player averaged 4.5 more ppg on top of that. Like I said, not even close.


besides for every season he shot better than kobe he had one where he shot worse, jordan had 5 years worse ts% than kobe worst season ever..

Wht is this nonsense? Yeah, one of those seasons was at age 35 when his second option missed like 45 games; two of the others were at age 39/40 in Washington, and the last wasn't a "season" at all - it was in 1986 when he broke his foot early in the year and played ~15 games after returning trying to work himself back into shape. He played 18 games total that season.

Nice try, though.


Bunch of high-volume seasons like that post 86.

87 Aguirre--26 PPG/50% FG
87 English--30 PPG/50% FG
87 Kiki--29 PPG/52% FG

That's 3 already. :roll:

I meant to say post-'87.

[Jacks3]

Why does it matter if it's 86 or 87? lol @ this arbitrary garbage.

[jlauber]

Aguirre? Lets compare that season to Melo's from '08

Aguirre- 25.7 ppg, 49.5 FG%, 51.2 eFG%, 56 TS%
Melo- 25.7 ppg, 49.2 FG%, 51.1 eFG%, 56.8 TS%

Aguirre's Mavs had a pace factor 100.5 and the average defensive rating that year was 108.3.

Melo's Nuggets had a pace factor of 99.7 and the average defensive rating was 107.5.

We're talking a tiny difference in the conditions of Aguirre's season and Melo's season which occurred just 2 seasons ago, and damn near identical scoring and shooting numbers.

English? Didn't Oldschool mention with the exceptions of ridiculous pace Western Conference teams? The Nuggets that English played on had a pace factor of 106.2. Kiki's Blazers had a pace factor 105.



I just don't see how he could have easily done it in '67, if Wilt with a scoring mentality just a season before that "only" managed 33.5 ppg on over 25 shots per game.



I think pace makes a big difference when the difference is extreme. According to basketball-reference, Wilt's Warriors played with a pace factor of around 129.7 and Jordan's Bulls had a pace factor of 95.8.

Give Wilt the same amount of shots per team's possessions on Jordan's Bulls and he averages 29.2(close to your number), but, while we don't know how many minutes he'd play in '87, I'd almost guarantee it's not 48.5, just to compare scoring, for arguments sake, give him the 40 mpg MJ played, which is fair enough because Jordan, like Wilt was an excellent conditioned athlete who had to carry a team.

With the same amount of shots per possession and per minute prorated to Jordan's team's pace and Jordan's minutes, he'd average 24.1 shots per game. If he maintains his '62 efficiency then he ends up at 30.7 ppg.

I also think that the lane widening made it tougher for post players to get as many shots, particularly high percentage shots, but I have no real way to incorporate that statistically.

I also don't agree with raising his FG% based on league averages for the reasons I've stated, and neither of us really have a clue what he'd average, what he'd shoot or how many minutes he'd play in '87, I just wanted to introduce a different side to the argument.



The great players in the 60's were able to shoot a good percentage.

Jerry West shot a career best 51.4% in '68, 49.7% in '65 and 48.4% in '64 which is excellent for a perimeter player considering he averaged 26.3, 31 and 28.7 ppg in those seasons, respectively.

Oscar shot 51.8% in '63 while scoring 28.3 ppg, 50% in '68 while scoring 29.2 ppg, 49.3% and 30.5 ppg in '67 and consistently solid percentages throughout the decade. That's great for a perimeter player in any era.

Rick Barry averaged 35.6 ppg and shot 45.1% in just his second season in '67, which is excellent very good for a perimeter player taking that many shots(28.7 per game).

Hal Greer averaged 24.1 ppg on 47.8% shooting in '68.

So I think the stars could shoot, but I think the average player was far less skilled back then, atleast on the perimeter. My theory for that is the increase in popularity of the sport. It makes more players watch and want to play which makes for a greater amount of talented players.



I'm not saying every team was bad defensively, but I see a lot of open transition or semi-transition jumpers and it's a lot easier to get lay ups and get high percentage shots at the basket when you run as opposed to creating something 5 on 5 vs a set defense.

Fair enough.

[necya]

Players being better FT shooter and jumpshooters back then is nonsense. The FT% is the same as it was back then, in fact in '09 teams shot 77.1% and that is higher than ANY of the years in the 80s. They were getting looks on a regular basis that simply don't exist today. It has nothing to do with ball movement either (Dantley benefited from ball movement...really?). Ever watched some of the bottom feeder team from the 80s play? They were shooting 49-50% from the field as well with not much talent and poor ball movement.

As for post '86 high volume scoring?

'88 Drexler - 27 ppg on 51%
'88 Ellis - 28 ppg on 50% (taking a lot of threes too)
'89 Ellis - 26 ppg on 50%
'87 English - 29 ppg on 50%
'86 Dantley - 30 ppg on 56%
'89 Mullin - 27 ppg on 51%
'87 Kiki - 27 ppg on 52%

Compare that with LeBron who last season was the first player since Mullin in '93 to average 25+ ppg and shoot 50+%, and he just barely made it. This doesn't need to be spelled out, just watch like 10 minutes of footage. You'll see players iso like crazy - watch how easy it is to get the entire side of the floor to yourself, less athletic perimeter defenders (on average), more transition shots/opportunities, and anything past 15 feet was barely contested. Teams didn't want to beat you by defending you, they wanted to outscore you. This philosophy didn't change till the early/mid 90s thanks to the influence of the Pistons.


Hell NO.
so you have checked the stats and that's all? the league FT % won't really changed, big men will always be worser than guards at FT that will make the balance around 75%.
but the great scorer you named were specialist of the FT some shooting near 90%. i don't think it's the case for our "great scorer" of today...

then, the raptors didn't make the playoffs last year and still shot the ball at 48% so how will be your weird interpretation this time? and without all those stupid 3's today, the league would average the same % than in the 80's...your statement is false.
plus, those scorer who use to shoot above the 50%, still do it in the 90's.

then some talk about pace, i would talk about era.
look at the point guard in the 80's : he is underrated by people today cause he had a different role. he was there to push the ball, to run the floor, make his open shots, he didn't wait the camera to attack. in the 00's, the point guard lose a lot of time, they dribble, crossover, between the legs, they are allowed to take many shots...that's pathetic sometimes.

and yeah, there were way more movements and team basketball back in the days. that's totally incredible you tried to tell the contrary. Do you saw players like today or in the 00's doing ****ing dribbles for nothing in the 80's ??? no. that's why the "pace" and the scoreboard is reduced.

the talk was about the scorer, and when you compare you won't find in the 80's someone jacking 10 threes in the game or 15 contested shots. the players were more intelligent and made better decision. that's why they had better %, they didn't forced, they had a better selection of shots.

but for me, the best difference is when it comes the playoffs. the intensity of the games has dropped so much today.
i was speechless when i saw, in the most important moment of the game 6 WCF suns@lakers, Artest not contested for the rebound.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Why does it matter if it's 86 or 87? lol @ this arbitrary garbage.

Because the league changed a ton from the mid to late 80's, and even more so into the early 90's.

[elementally morale]

Because the league changed a ton from the mid to late 80's, and even more so into the early 90's.

True. The biggest change I can remember was between 1988-1992

[kentatm]

part of that higher shooting % has to do with almost all players back then having dependable mid range games, something that has almost vanished from the L

[PHILA]

The great players in the 60's were able to shoot a good percentage.

'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-1982



"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-1985

[Round Mound]

part of that higher shooting % has to do with almost all players back then having dependable mid range games, something that has almost vanished from the L

:applause:

[sekachu]

yeah, i was watching a 80's game and saw magic johnson get WIDE OPEN mid-range jumpers on like 5 straight possessions. do you EVER see that shit today? a spot-up mid-range shot? LOL


move your ass, using off screen, tell your teammate to pick for you, i am sure you ll get open mid-range jumper.
You can't learn that from watcing kobe. :rolleyes:

[Nash-tastic]

:facepalm

[SinJackal]

No one's addressed my post. . .which posted stats proving this decade's eFG% is actually higher than it was in the 80's, not lower.

FG% only appears worse because the league is taking nearly 3x as many threes now than they were in the 80's. This drops FG%. eFG%, which accounts for 3's being worth an extra point (meaning if you shoot 30% from three, and only shot 3s, your eFG% would be 45%. Meaning relative to your FGAs, you scored as many points as a guy only shooting 2s who shot 45%)

80's eFG: Hovered between 47-49 every season, a couple years it touched 50%.

Not surprisingly, the league's FG% started to go down due to more teams focusing solely on defense (Pistons for example), and actually winning with it, rather than just going to straight killer offensive teams like the Showtime Lakers. Also, this is concurrent with Jordan starting to destroy games by himself (The '86-'87 year).

The league started to change at that point, and it's undeniable.

As time went on, more and more teams decided to try winning with a slower pace since it could control the opposing team's offenses. What this didn't do, however, was stop players from taking their 20+ shots a game if they wanted to make sure they got them. Players are going to take their shots regardless, so even if you're playing on a team who plays at a slow pace every single night, you can still average 30 points a game today (Example: LeBron, Durant, Wade. The Cavs, Thunder, and Heat, are all slow-paced teams, and yet they averaged 30 PPG anyway).

Once Jordan retired the first time, league scoring dropped significantly since there was less pressure to keep up. A year later, the first rule changes occured to increase scoring output since it had clearly dropped. The 3pt line was shortended, handchecking on certain areas of the court was now not allowed (from the end line in the backcourt to the opposite foul line) in order to free up offense more, 3 shots were given to a player who got fouled when taking a three, and the clear path rule was changed to include contact in the backcourt.

And yet, that didn't make a difference in terms of volume scoring. eFG% shot way up (due to the tons of 3s being taken, and being made due to shortened line), but less shots per game were being taken now as the 3pt shot was being relied on more.

Again, points per game were dropping slowly, but scoring efficiancy was up (this is what happens when you don't rush shots as much). Once Jordan retired the second time, once again league scoring dropped through the floor, just like last time (by 4 PPG, again). After that single season of dropoff, the league scoring per game went back up, but started dropping slowly as teams began dominating the league with D', rather than offense (Spurs won the title in '03, then the Pistons in '04, and Stern wouldn't have that). So the handchecking rules were eliminated to increase scoring, and to push the scoring to guards to pseudo simulate what Jordan used to do, which was take over games as a guard when bigs were dominating the league.


So anyway, while the pace is slower now than it used to be, that doesn't stop players, specifically guards, from getting the same number of shot attempts while scoring at the same or better efficiancy (account for 3s). This whole garbage about the league scoring more efficiancy is also bogus, as for the second time now I've disproved. You're only looking at FG%, which doesn't tell the whole story. When you look at eFG%, and TS%, you'll see that it's equal to or higher than most years in the 80's. Other than '02-'04 when the Spurs and Pistons were choking the league out of good efficiancy.

Players now don't get any less shots than players in the 80's did. The game is set up currently for guards and SFs to be able to score a lot even among the current slower paced systems.

This is all evidenced here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/league_stats.html

[Scoooter]

The 80's > your mom. Proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoHdC9hCQNA).

[jlauber]

No one's addressed my post. . .which posted stats proving this decade's eFG% is actually higher than it was in the 80's, not lower.

FG% only appears worse because the league is taking nearly 3x as many threes now than they were in the 80's. This drops FG%. eFG%, which accounts for 3's being worth an extra point (meaning if you shoot 30% from three, and only shot 3s, your eFG% would be 45%. Meaning relative to your FGAs, you scored as many points as a guy only shooting 2s who shot 45%)

80's eFG: Hovered between 47-49 every season, a couple years it touched 50%.

Not surprisingly, the league's FG% started to go down due to more teams focusing solely on defense (Pistons for example), and actually winning with it, rather than just going to straight killer offensive teams like the Showtime Lakers. Also, this is concurrent with Jordan starting to destroy games by himself (The '86-'87 year).

The league started to change at that point, and it's undeniable.

As time went on, more and more teams decided to try winning with a slower pace since it could control the opposing team's offenses. What this didn't do, however, was stop players from taking their 20+ shots a game if they wanted to make sure they got them. Players are going to take their shots regardless, so even if you're playing on a team who plays at a slow pace every single night, you can still average 30 points a game today (Example: LeBron, Durant, Wade. The Cavs, Thunder, and Heat, are all slow-paced teams, and yet they averaged 30 PPG anyway).

Once Jordan retired the first time, league scoring dropped significantly since there was less pressure to keep up. A year later, the first rule changes occured to increase scoring output since it had clearly dropped. The 3pt line was shortended, handchecking on certain areas of the court was now not allowed (from the end line in the backcourt to the opposite foul line) in order to free up offense more, 3 shots were given to a player who got fouled when taking a three, and the clear path rule was changed to include contact in the backcourt.

And yet, that didn't make a difference in terms of volume scoring. eFG% shot way up (due to the tons of 3s being taken, and being made due to shortened line), but less shots per game were being taken now as the 3pt shot was being relied on more.

Again, points per game were dropping slowly, but scoring efficiancy was up (this is what happens when you don't rush shots as much). Once Jordan retired the second time, once again league scoring dropped through the floor, just like last time (by 4 PPG, again). After that single season of dropoff, the league scoring per game went back up, but started dropping slowly as teams began dominating the league with D', rather than offense (Spurs won the title in '03, then the Pistons in '04, and Stern wouldn't have that). So the handchecking rules were eliminated to increase scoring, and to push the scoring to guards to pseudo simulate what Jordan used to do, which was take over games as a guard when bigs were dominating the league.


So anyway, while the pace is slower now than it used to be, that doesn't stop players, specifically guards, from getting the same number of shot attempts while scoring at the same or better efficiancy (account for 3s). This whole garbage about the league scoring more efficiancy is also bogus, as for the second time now I've disproved. You're only looking at FG%, which doesn't tell the whole story. When you look at eFG%, and TS%, you'll see that it's equal to or higher than most years in the 80's. Other than '02-'04 when the Spurs and Pistons were choking the league out of good efficiancy.

Players now don't get any less shots than players in the 80's did. The game is set up currently for guards and SFs to be able to score a lot even among the current slower paced systems.

This is all evidenced here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/league_stats.html

I would rep you, but I have to wait.

[Hoopz2332]

To anyone saying defense was better (or even equal) in the 80's than in the present day... WATCH THE GAMES. Forget nostalgia, forget hype, forget turf wars between stans of different eras... watch the games. Please.

You literally have to be retarded, blind or in the possession of a heavy agenda to not see that people were barely bending their knees when playing D in the 80's. 6'3'' shooting guards jogged undisturbed to the high post for jump shots and matador defense was the norm at the perimeter.


facts!