My problem with Defensive Rating (DRtg)

[D-Wade316]

Bad Boy Pistons: (arrival of Chuck Daly)
108.1
107.2
107.9
105.8
105.3
104.7
103.4
104.6
105.3

New York Knicks: (arrival of Pat Riley)
103.8
98.2
99.7
104.2

Milwaukee Bucks: (Skiles era)
107.9
103.1
102.5

So is Milwaukee's best defensive year better than any of the Bad Boys? :confusedshrug:

[Clippersfan86]

Not saying I necessarily agree but here are some possibilities and reasons.

1. While being the most physical and intimidating defense ever I think the Bad Boys defense is a bit overrated. Not saying it wasn't great but they weren't as good as a handful of other defensive teams. I mean they weren't as good as the 08 Celtics or 04 Pistons defensively and you can add a few other teams into the discussion like 99 Spurs and 05 Spurs.

2. The Pat Riley Knicks team was underrated defensively. They were known for being a very scrappy and physical defense. You realize Pat Riley's specialty was the Bad Boy style physical, in your face defense right? He was a defensive coach. Ewing may not have been Hakeem defensively but he had a massive impact in the paint defensively, which shouldn't be forgotten. John Starks was also an underrated perimeter defender.

3. Milwaukee Bucks are a really good defensive team. You may think it's humorous that a bunch of "scrubs" can hold teams in check but they do. They are like the 5th overall defense in the NBA now. Also you have to remember that players now are forced to actually play defense with their feet. You can't get away with hand checking and roughing people up anymore. Maybe it appeared the Pistons were amazing because they roughed people up and intimidated but defensive rating goes PURELY by getting stops and apparently Pistons are overrated.

[D-Wade316]

Not saying I necessarily agree but here are some possibilities and reasons.

1. While being the most physical and intimidating defense ever I think the Bad Boys defense is a bit overrated. Not saying it wasn't great but they weren't as good as a handful of other defensive teams. I mean they weren't as good as the 08 Celtics or 04 Pistons defensively and you can add a few other teams into the discussion like 99 Spurs and 05 Spurs.
To prove that the 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons were indeed better than the Bad Boys, we may need someone here who has knowledge on the defensive schemes of Daly (The Jordan Rules:confusedshrug: ), like rotations, help defense, rebounding.

2. The Pat Riley Knicks team was underrated defensively. They were known for being a very scrappy and physical defense. You realize Pat Riley's specialty was the Bad Boy style physical, in your face defense right? He was a defensive coach. Ewing may not have been Hakeem defensively but he had a massive impact in the paint defensively, which shouldn't be forgotten. John Starks was also an underrated perimeter defender.
Yeah they were. The 94 Finals was brutal, and is a perfect example of Pat's defensive schemes.

3. Milwaukee Bucks are a really good defensive team. You may think it's humorous that a bunch of "scrubs" can hold teams in check but they do. They are like the 5th overall defense in the NBA now. Also you have to remember that players now are forced to actually play defense with their feet. You can't get away with hand checking and roughing people up anymore. Maybe it appeared the Pistons were amazing because they roughed people up and intimidated but defensive rating goes PURELY by getting stops and apparently Pistons are overrated.
They're no "scrubs" for me at all. Bogut is hardly a scrub.

Don't you think that the era they played in, run and gun, played a role in their high DRtg? What I'm saying is that it is harder to stop the offense in transition than in half court.

[B]

Bad Boy Pistons: (arrival of Chuck Daly)
108.1
107.2
107.9
105.8
105.3
104.7
103.4
104.6
105.3

New York Knicks: (arrival of Pat Riley)
103.8
98.2
99.7
104.2

Milwaukee Bucks: (Skiles era)
107.9
103.1
102.5

So is Milwaukee's best defensive year better than any of the Bad Boys? :confusedshrug:It's a simple formula not meant to be used season to season. If you do you use it to compare across eras or seasons you need to balance it out against the offensive ratings of the same periods

[D-Wade316]

[QUOTE=B

[Clippersfan86]

To prove that the 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons were indeed better than the Bad Boys, we may need someone here who has knowledge on the defensive schemes of Daly (The Jordan Rules:confusedshrug: ), like rotations, help defense, rebounding.

Yeah they were. The 94 Finals was brutal, and is a perfect example of Pat's defensive schemes.

They're no "scrubs" for me at all. Bogut is hardly a scrub.

Don't you think that the era they played in, run and gun, played a role in their high DRtg? What I'm saying is that it is harder to stop the offense in transition than in half court.

Yea but a lot of Milwaukee's best defenders like Luc Richard are relatively unknown players. I agree Bogut is a great defensive big. I think a lot of it has to do with pace, zone defense not being allowed and hand checking too.

[catch24]

Do you think the run and gun offense that was dominant in the 80s affected their DRtg?

What do you think?

[insidehoops]

What is DRtg?

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

What is DRtg?

Defensive Rating

[chazzy]

What is DRtg?
Defensive rating. It's the number of points allowed per 100 possessions, it's the stat used to rank the best defensive teams in a given season. It's just difficult to compare across eras because of the differences in style of play.

[insidehoops]

Ah, yeah

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why is it people have no problem comparing offensive performances from different seasons (with as small of a sample size of a few playoff games) but think there is something wrong with comparing defensive efficiency ratings made up of 82 games worth of data?

Example comparing Jordan's finals stats to Kobe final's stats is fine but comparing the defensive stats of the opponents Jordan faced in the Finals to the defensive stats of the opponents Kobe faced in the Finals is somehow wrong or misleading because its across different eras?

[RRR3]

Why is it people have no problem comparing offensive performances from different seasons (with as small of a sample size of a few playoff games) but think there is something wrong with comparing defensive efficiency ratings made up of 82 games worth of data?

Example comparing Jordan's finals stats to Kobe final's stats is fine but comparing the defensive stats of the opponents Jordan faced in the Finals to the defensive stats of the opponents Kobe faced in the Finals is somehow wrong or misleading because its across different eras?
:facepalm Don't start that shit up again.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:facepalm Don't start that shit up again.

Care to answer the question?

[RRR3]

Care to answer the question?
No, I don't want to beat a dead horse and ruin this thread.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

No, I don't want to beat a dead horse and ruin this thread.

What is it with you guys? Defensive Rating is the topic. You don't want to ruin the thread by discussing the topic?

[Clippersfan86]

What is it with you guys? Defensive Rating is the topic. You don't want to ruin the thread by discussing the topic?

Kobe vs Jordan topic is what will ruin a thread. As if that topic doesn't come up enough :confusedshrug: ?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Kobe vs Jordan topic is what will ruin a thread. As if that topic doesn't come up enough :confusedshrug: ?

Its not about Jordan vs Kobe. Its about a player from one era being compared to a player from another. Do people list their offensive numbers when comparing two players or do they say you can't compare across era?

[Clippersfan86]

Its not about Jordan vs Kobe. Its about a player from one era being compared to a player from another. Do people list their offensive numbers when comparing two players or do they say you can't compare across era?

This thread also isn't about offensive rating or general metrics though dude. It's about DRTG specifically. All of us get off topic at times but Kobe vs Jordan is a notorious basketball thread destroyer and it's best to avoid ANYTHING regarding that.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

This thread also isn't about offensive rating or general metrics though dude. It's about DRTG specifically. All of us get off topic at times but Kobe vs Jordan is a notorious basketball thread destroyer and it's best to avoid ANYTHING regarding that.

That's fine but feel free to answer the question. Why are defensive ratings subject to the "across eras" disclaimer while other statistics are not?

[Clippersfan86]

That's fine but feel free to answer the question. Why are defensive ratings subject to the "across eras" disclaimer while other statistics are not?

I think all metrics should factor in era.

[97 bulls]

Care to answer the question?
I actually agree with you. But regardless, shooting in around 40% in 7 nba finals is bad. Unless were talking about the 60s.

But all stats must be put in context. Dennis rodman led the league in fg% does that mean he's one of the bettter scorers in the legue? Thee bad boy pistons were one of the greatest defenses ever, but on avg they gave up over 100 ppg during their run. That would be considered terrible now defensivly. Larrry bird routinely shot in the high to mid 40s in the 80s. That's considered great now. But avg back then. One year carlo boozer was top 6 in defensive rting. John stockton true shooting efficiency is on par with shaqs. Wilt chamberlains fg% was in the high 40s during the 60s. I could go on and on.

[97 bulls]

That's fine but feel free to answer the question. Why are defensive ratings subject to the "across eras" disclaimer while other statistics are not?
Only golden 80s fans feel this way. But good point.

[DMAVS41]

That's fine but feel free to answer the question. Why are defensive ratings subject to the "across eras" disclaimer while other statistics are not?

I think they all are. Comparing across eras is really hard. defensive rating is just absolutely impossible. it can't be done.

other offensive measures are hard. that is why things like PER, rebound percentage....etc. give you a better idea than some raw numbers.

PER at least accounts for league averages. So those players are being compared to their actual peers. which makes sense.

but its really hard. even comparing within just a few years is hard. a perimeter player averaging 30 a game in 06 is simply not the same as a player averaging 30 a game in 04.

a lot of context is lost when comparing across eras...especially just going off stats.

[97 bulls]

I think they all are. Comparing across eras is really hard. defensive rating is just absolutely impossible. it can't be done.

other offensive measures are hard. that is why things like PER, rebound percentage....etc. give you a better idea than some raw numbers.

PER at least accounts for league averages. So those players are being compared to their actual peers. which makes sense.

but its really hard. even comparing within just a few years is hard. a perimeter player averaging 30 a game in 06 is simply not the same as a player averaging 30 a game in 04.

a lot of context is lost when comparing across eras...especially just going off stats.
But even per doesn't fully measure a players impact. Because it doesn't take into account thee defensive side of the ball.

[Legends66NBA7]

But even per doesn't fully measure a players impact. Because it doesn't take into account thee defensive side of the ball.

The only thing it does include on defense is steals and blocks. And yes, that's not enough.

[DMAVS41]

But even per doesn't fully measure a players impact. Because it doesn't take into account thee defensive side of the ball.

of course not. no one measure can fully measure impact. just using PER is idiotic. but what it does do is allow players to be compared better across eras because it uses league averages to calculate. something raw stats simply can't do.

we all know that 30ppg in 06 was much easier to get than in 04 for perimeter players because we watched it happen. someone 50 years from now won't know that and a measure that takes into account what was happening in the league each year individually is worth something.

[B]

That's fine but feel free to answer the question. Why are defensive ratings subject to the "across eras" disclaimer while other statistics are not?I don't think a lot of stats should be used across eras. But Defensive ratings really can be more misleading because they are not complicated formulas that were ever meant to be end all discussion type formulas.

Rule changes not withstanding look at how just reffing the game evolves season to season. The league sees things it wants to adjust and the refs start calling things different. If the Bad Boy Pistons played today they'd all foul out by half time.

The league has consistently over the years slowly evolved the game to be more offensive friendly without major rule changes, just by adjusting how the game is called but if you didn't know that or you're a younger fan you'd think it's the same today as it was in the 80's because for the most part the same basic rules of the game apply today as they did back then. It's just impossible to create a stat that accounts for how hand checking or illegal defense is reffed now vs 1985.

Example for 3 years in the 90's the 3 point line was moved closer. Did teams suddenly stop defending the 3 point shot? No but if you don't account for that when playing with the numbers it sure looks like teams were suddenly defending the 3 point line looser

[D-Wade316]

But even per doesn't fully measure a players impact. Because it doesn't take into account thee defensive side of the ball.
PER strictly measures a player's impact on offense.

[D-Wade316]

[QUOTE=B

[senelcoolidge]

So what is considered a good DRtg and bad DRtg for a player? Is 112 considered good?

[SamuraiSWISH]

Why is it people have no problem comparing offensive performances from different seasons (with as small of a sample size of a few playoff games) but think there is something wrong with comparing defensive efficiency ratings made up of 82 games worth of data?

Example comparing Jordan's finals stats to Kobe final's stats is fine but comparing the defensive stats of the opponents Jordan faced in the Finals to the defensive stats of the opponents Kobe faced in the Finals is somehow wrong or misleading because its across different eras?
It's just more simple to say Jordan performed better against his era's best defense in comparison to how Kobe performed against his era's best team defenses. Anything else is mental gymnastics, or excuse making.

[3ball]

It's just more simple to say Jordan performed better against his era's best defense in comparison to how Kobe performed against his era's best team defenses. Anything else is mental gymnastics, or excuse making.


you are advocating for people to be dumb and not understand how the game works, which is lazy and leads to bad analysis and conclusions.

it's always important to understand the facts and context surrounding any stat, otherwise the stat can't be used to reach accurate conclusions - in this case, it's important to understand that a higher proportion of two-point shots comes with higher offensive rebounding and FT rates, which increases ORtg's and DRtg's (since offensive rebounds aren't counted as extra possessions).

understanding concepts like this is necessary for proper understanding and evaluation of ORtg's and DRtg's... it shouldn't require any mental gymnastics.
.

[ImKobe]

it's the pace you dumbass :facepalm

Guys played at a higher pace and scored more consistently in transition back in the 80s, got easier buckets. If you look at the numbers, damn near every team averaged 100 or more points per game and allowed at least 99-100 points a game, best defenses usually allowed only 98-100.

Pistons might have had a 100+ DRTG, but they were top 5 defense in the league at that time and were top 3 in allowing the lowest FG% and 3PT% by the opposing teams and top 3 in allowing the least amount of ppg, top 3 in opponent rebounding if you look at their better seasons.

It's not just one fricken stat, people need to use context and look at all the damn numbers, DRTG isn't shit by itself.

[3ball]

If teams score less today = defense is better.


today's lower scoring is due to a slower-paced game... the slower-paced game is due to the number of 3-point shots taken in today's game (26% of all shot attempts), which take extra time to set up, because they need to be more open than two-pointers.

pace has generally declined as more 3-pointers have been taken over the years.. the stats have shown this correlation, and the slower pace is the reason for less scoring in today's game.

but while the scoring is lower today due to the slower-paced offenses designed to get 3-pointers, the spacing achieved by 3-pointers makes it easier to get an open shot, which is why EFFICIENCIES are higher today... however, the higher efficiency and spacing of today's game comes at a cost - more setup time, slower pace and less scoring.
.

[eliteballer]

it's the pace you dumbass :facepalm

Guys played at a higher pace and scored more consistently in transition back in the 80s, got easier buckets. If you look at the numbers, damn near every team averaged 100 or more points per game and allowed at least 99-100 points a game, best defenses usually allowed only 98-100.

Pistons might have had a 100+ DRTG, but they were top 5 defense in the league at that time and were top 3 in allowing the lowest FG% and 3PT% by the opposing teams and top 3 in allowing the least amount of ppg, top 3 in opponent rebounding if you look at their better seasons.

It's not just one fricken stat, people need to use context and look at all the damn numbers, DRTG isn't shit by itself.

Uhh...the bolded. What the hell do you think that means?

If it's easier to score=defense is worse.

[navy]

Pretty sure it's universally agreed the 80s were a weak defensive era.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Don't compare it across eras, but rather against their peers... And those Bucks' offense (awful at some point) can't compare to the Bad Boys' or the Knicks'; game won't be competitive anymore if you're just not scoring nearly as well as the other team and you're getting blown out at some point, let's say... So yea, gotta "balance it out" with ORtg and league averages.

[3ball]

it's the pace you dumbass :facepalm

Guys played at a higher pace and scored more consistently in transition back in the 80s.


but why is today's game slower?

it's because more than a quarter of today's shot attempts are 3-pointers, which take extra time to set up, because they need to be more open than two-pointers.

pace has generally declined as more 3-pointers have been taken over the years.. the stats have shown this correlation... slower pace means less scoring.

but while the scoring is lower today due to the slower-paced offenses designed to get 3-pointers, the spacing achieved by 3-pointers makes it easier to get an open shot, which is why EFFICIENCIES are higher today... however, the higher efficiency and spacing of today's game comes at a cost - more setup time, slower pace and less scoring.

[Micku]

I wouldn't compare DRtg across eras. The style of play, pacing, shot selection, rules and mindset are too different. It's better to rate DRtg with their peers in the same year than saying Celtics of 86 (DTrg=102.6) is better than the Celtics 10 (103.8) or how the 72 Houston Rockets (96.8) is better than the Celts 08 (98.9) because of DRtg.

You don't really need DRtg to say that the defense got more complex tho.

[3ball]

I wouldn't compare DRtg across eras. The style of play, pacing, shot selection, rules and mindset are too different.

It's better to rate DRtg with their peers in the same year than saying Celtics of 86 (DTrg=102.6) is better than the Celtics 10 (103.8) or how the 72 Houston Rockets (96.8) is better than the Celts 08 (98.9) because of DRtg.

You don't really need DRtg to say that the defense got more complex tho.


the complexity is only related to how defenses deal with spacing, along with physical and logistical restrictions mandated by the league... it's not an indicator that it's harder to score.. naturally, in a no-spacing environment, defenses will be less complex... less complexity is also required when defense are free to be physical and aren't restricted from staying in the paint.

also, spacing and defensive 3 seconds restricts the movement of players - players are forced to camp behind the 3-point line and stay out of the lane... the spacing often looks very organized and neat, like a marching band or rows of corn, and the is play much more predictable.

otoh, in previous eras, spacing did not restrict where players stood on offense, and defenses didn't have any physical or logistical restrictions placed on them either, so the play was more random, free-flowing and instinctive, resulting in a higher skill level in many aspects of the game (i.e. passing amongst no spacing is harder).

[La Frescobaldi]

Uhh...the bolded. What the hell do you think that means?

If it's easier to score=defense is worse.

Not necessarily true at all. It is almost always easy to score in the NBA. Almost every single NBA player is stratospherically skilled with the ball in their hands. That's one reason why there are so many games that go right down to the wire. If a team had elite defense and good/great scoring, they'd be blowing teams out on a regular basis.... but in fact this is something you see only very very rarely.... maybe one or two teams a decade work at that level.

When it is mostly a transition game -'60s, some of the '70s, and '80s - it is always "easier to score" because the defense doesn't have time to set up. That doesn't mean defenses are worse, it means they aren't getting used at all. Forcing the other team to play your game is a hallmark of great offense.
You will see blazing transition offense teams getting lots of points against everybody in the League in any year of any decade.

In the slower half-court set game... post-Daly, to a certain extent, but also late-vintage Pat Riley and also the strategy of the 3 pointer... it appears to be harder to score because the defense is already set.

But contrary to what many people say, it's not any harder to destroy a defense in today's game than in older eras.

One big reason defenses look 'better' is there are so many teams - especially point guard dominant shooter/drivers but also the Bernard King / Carmelo Anthony / Kevin Durant / endless list of sf scorers - still playing too much hog ball. This is nothing new.

Those kinds of guys take too many shots and destroy their team's rhythm. Always been that way, probably always will be.

[3ball]

When it is mostly a transition game -'60s, some of the '70s, and '80s - it is always "easier to score" because the defense doesn't have time to set up.


Basketball in previous eras wasn't mostly a transition game - that's just ignorant.





One big reason defenses look 'better' is there are so many teams


Defenses don't look better - the paint is wide open on every play and there is spacing.. you forgot about spacing - spacing makes it easier to do every aspect of offense.

The open paint and spacing preclude today's defenses from ever being better than previous eras.

[3ball]

it's pretty silly really - it's all a conspiracy... :rolleyes: ... the NBA's stat geeks got together and were like:

"let's make offensive rebounds not count as an extra possession in the calculation of offensive and defensive ratings - that way, since previous eras took a higher proportion of 2-pointers that have higher offensive rebounding rates, it will look like previous eras had higher offensive ratings and defenses were worse!!!"

"excellent billy... and two-pointers don't just have a higher offensive rebounding rate, but they have a higher FT rate as well, which increases offensive rating too!!"

shameless stat guys... :facepalm

[3ball]

:rant

[3ball]

.
.................................................. ...Per Team, Per Game


............ 2PT ATT .......... 3PT ATT........ 3PT ATT as % of FGA ........... OREB %............ FT RATE %

1985.........86.1...................3.1........... ...............3.5%............................32. 9%................ 25.2%

2015.........60.9..................21.8........... .............26.4%........................... 25.3%.................21.5%


When evaluating Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg (they're the same number), it's important to know that higher offensive rebounding and FT rates increase at team's ORtg in the calculation.

Two-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, so the higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras (see above table) caused ORtg and DRtg to be higher back then.

On the flipside, today's game takes far more 3-pointers - 3-pointers have a lower offensive rebounding and FT rate, which lowers Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg.

Here's another important fact of basketball regarding how 3-pointers affect the game - they slow the game down... historically, pace has declined as 3-PT attempts have increased (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html).

The closer a shot is to the rim, the better it's percentage is maintained when contested - 3-pointers simply don't maintain their percentage when contested as well as two-pointers... Accordingly, they need to be more open than two-pointers, which requires teams to run more offense to get open looks... The purpose of running offense IS to get open looks, so running offense applies to 3-pointers more than 2-pointers.


CLIFFS: The higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras resulted in higher offensive rebounding rate and higher FT rate, which in turn resulted in higher offensive/defensive ratings... Two-pointer basketball also resulted in a faster pace, since tougher looks are more acceptable for two-pointers, so less offense needed to be run.
.

[La Frescobaldi]

Basketball in previous eras wasn't mostly a transition game - that's just ignorant.



Defenses don't look better - the paint is wide open on every play and there is spacing.. you forgot about spacing - spacing makes it easier to do every aspect of offense.

The open paint and spacing preclude today's defenses from ever being better than previous eras.

Let's check.

Did you watch by chance... Denver, San Antonio, Lakers, Golden State in the '70s? Were they on national TV? How about New Orleans Jazz? Did they play a lot of half-court ball?
How about Philly in '68? Watch all that, did you? Did the Sixers play any transition game in '67-'68? Do you know where the Showtime Lakers style came from?
What was Austin Carr all about?

Were the Willis Reed Knicks a transition team?
lololololololololololol
The mid-'70s nba was low scoring. Do you know why? Was it because of your theory about 2 point shots? Was it no 3 pointers?

[DukeDelonte13]

any advanced defensive metric is garbage. Way too many variables than can't be accounted for.

[3ball]

Did you watch by chance... Denver, San Antonio, Lakers, Golden State in the '70s? Were they on national TV? How about New Orleans Jazz? Did they play a lot of half-court ball?
How about Philly in '68? Watch all that, did you? Did the Sixers play any transition game in '67-'68? Do you know where the Showtime Lakers style came from?
What was Austin Carr all about?

Were the Willis Reed Knicks a transition team?
lololololololololololol
The mid-'70s nba was low scoring. Do you know why? Was it because of your theory about 2 point shots? Was it no 3 pointers?


it's just disingenuous and/or ignorant to say the game at those times was "mostly a transition game"... that's just not true.

also, the 60's and 70's had far different rules than the 80's... the rules back then gave even MORE liberties to the defense than the 80's did... for example, there was no defensive 3 seconds rule whatsoever before 1982, and there was no 3-point shot or spacing whatsoever before 1980.

the rules really have gotten softer as the eras pass by.

[La Frescobaldi]

it's just disingenuous and/or ignorant to say the game at those times was "mostly a transition game"... that's just not true.

also, the 60's and 70's had far different rules than the 80's... the rules back then gave even MORE liberties to the defense than the 80's did... for example, there was no defensive 3 seconds rule whatsoever before 1982, and there was no 3-point shot or spacing whatsoever before 1980.

the rules really have gotten softer as the eras pass by.

Sure it is true. Teams ran, and ran, and ran..... and ran. Lemme help you out here.

In those days, I'm talking '60s and '70s, fans of the NBA would not sit still for a half-court team. They would literally get up and walk out. This is why mid-70s NBA had low attendence #s. Did teams suddenly forget how to score? lulz
The league was changed in the mid-70s to make defense incredibly stronger.

Since everyone but you is "ignorant," tell us, 3ball, what changed in the mid-70s that made defense suddenly better.

You have some nice ideas, 3ball, you really do. I wish they weren't so repetitive but you do have a brain.

But you have to do a lot of research because to a great degree you really don't know what you're talking about. You clearly weren't watching the games at the time, and are trying to write history after the fact, in a way. Just this last post of yours is an example of you not watching the League in those days so you don't know what happened.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

1966-67
• The team foul limit is reduced to five per quarter. In the last two minutes of any period, a team is allowed only one foul before the penalty, even if it hadn’t used up its allotment.
• The following language was added to the Zone Defense Rule: "After the offensive team has advanced the ball to its front court, a defensive player may not station himself in the key area longer than three seconds if it is apparent he is making no effort to play an opponent. The three second count starts when the offensive team is in clear control in the front court."

Why did they have a 3 second count starting in '67, 3ball ? Why did the League implement that rule?


no defensive 3 seconds rule whatsoever before 1982, and there was no 3-point shot or spacing whatsoever before 1980

You are simply wrong, see.

And that comment about spacing ........ lol ask Satch Sanders and Donnie Nelson about how the late '60s Celtics created space. Ask Kareem what the early '70s Bucks were doing to create space for Jon McGlocklin.

[GimmeThat]

Good to know that you probably also consider Kobe as clutch, even given the stats.

[3ball]

Teams ran, and ran, and ran..... and ran.


of course they ran - every era runs to a certain extent - but you said basketball in the 60's and 70's was mostly fastbreaking.. that's just dumb.




In those days, I'm talking '60s and '70s, fans of the NBA would not sit still for a half-court team. They would get up and walk out. This is why mid-70s NBA had low attendence #s.


so they would walk out of games where the teams were playing half-court ball, which is why attendance was low..... but i thought basketball back then was mostly fastbreaking?... clear contradiction... :facepalm





Why did they have a 3 second count starting in '67, 3ball ? Why did the League implement that rule?


you're right on this part - the 3 seconds rule began in 1967, not 1982 - the point remains that the NBA made the rules softer and softer with each era.

the 3 seconds rule in 1982 was softer than the original one in 1967... the final 3 seconds rule implemented in 2005 is the softest yet, since it eliminates paint-camping entirely with the "armslength" requirement.

[La Frescobaldi]

of course they ran - every era runs to a certain extent - but you said basketball in the 60's and 70's was mostly fastbreaking.. that's just dumb.
read more carefully.


so they would walk out of games where the teams were playing half-court ball, which is why attendance was low..... but i thought basketball back then was mostly fastbreaking?... clear contradiction... :facepalm
learn to read. I just got through telling you defense got better in the mid-70s.



you're right on this part - the 3 seconds rule began in 1967, not 1982 - the point remains that the NBA made the rules softer and softer with each era.

the 3 seconds rule in 1982 was softer than the original one in 1967... the final 3 seconds rule implemented in 2005 is the softest yet, since it eliminates paint-camping completely with the "armslength" requirement.
You didn't sit bleachers or watch games on tv back then man. It's blatantly clear.
Which is fine, young guys are gonna run wild i know i did - but don't go around acting like you know alot about the older eras of basketball, declaiming on defensive changes when really..... you don't know the changes that happened.

Especially...... don't call guys ignorant WHEN YOU ARE THE DUDE THAT IS IGNORANT. :lol

Also you haven't even attempted to answer a single one of my questions, bro.

Why did the NBA implement the 3 second rule in {not 1982 like you think} but 1967?
This is actually an interesting question (although the '70s New Orleans Jazz was also crazy to watch, or why the '70s defense was such an outlier.... and knowing how Donnie Nelson was inventing a form of small-ball as a player is, too).
Can you answer it?

[Dr.J4ever]

read more carefully.


learn to read. I just got through telling you defense got better in the mid-70s.



You didn't sit bleachers or watch games on tv back then man. It's blatantly clear.
Which is fine, young guys are gonna run wild i know i did - but don't go around acting like you know alot about the older eras of basketball, declaiming on defensive changes when really..... you don't know the changes that happened.

Especially...... don't call guys ignorant WHEN YOU ARE THE DUDE THAT IS IGNORANT. :lol

Also you haven't even attempted to answer a single one of my questions, bro.

Why did the NBA implement the 3 second rule in {not 1982 like you think} but 1967?
This is actually an interesting question (although the '70s New Orleans Jazz was also crazy to watch, or why the '70s defense was such an outlier.... and knowing how Donnie Nelson was inventing a form of small-ball as a player is, too).
Can you answer it?

Thanks for putting 3ball in his place, man. He seems to be a 90s guy, and I'm an 80s guy so I hate when he tries to tell me about the 80s because he has a couple of gifs. Damn, you can come up with a gif of literally anything in basketball. It wouldn't prove it's a pattern or anything.

Anyway, I've been researching on Doc, as you may know. Since I started watching NBA hoops in 1981, most of my knowledge on Doc from the 70s comes from research and Youtube.

I'm interested in knowing what possible rules changes contributed to Doc's lower stats in his first couple of years in the newly merged NBA than during his ABA years. Of course, other than the fact he went to a loaded team in Philly with selfish players and all.

What's your take on that?

[La Frescobaldi]

Thanks for putting 3ball in his place, man. He seems to be a 90s guy, and I'm an 80s guy so I hate when he tries to tell me about the 80s because he has a couple of gifs. Damn, you can come up with a gif of literally anything in basketball. It wouldn't prove it's a pattern or anything.

Anyway, I've been researching on Doc, as you may know. Since I started watching NBA hoops in 1981, most of my knowledge on Doc from the 70s comes from research and Youtube.

I'm interested in knowing what possible rules changes contributed to Doc's lower stats in his first couple of years in the newly merged NBA than during his ABA years. Of course, other than the fact he went to a loaded team in Philly with selfish players and all.

What's your take on that?

Doc's stats went down for couple reasons... he had some injuries, hamstring, elbow if i remember, and knees... and he would play hurt. Of course the NBA's defense was always stronger than the ABA's but especially in the mid-late '70s.... also a lot of guys were loading for bear when Dr. J came to town. They went hard against him all year long and there were quite a few enforcers around in those days.
It wasn't rule changes that created the better defense.... but I'm not telling 3ball why defenses suddenly got better for a few years in the mid-70s. He'll have to find that out on his own. :lol

I dunno about selfish Sixers especially.... let's see.
33 Jim Barnett
14 Henry Bibby
23 Joe Bryant
3 Fred Carter
42 Harvey Catchings
20 Doug Collins
53 Darryl Dawkins
10 Mike Dunleavy
6 Julius Erving
21 World B. Free
25 Terry Furlow
11 Caldwell Jones
30 George McGinnis
50 Steve Mix

WBFree yeah, some. Maybe like George McGinnis? He could get real ball dominant... but that's what teams are supposed to do, get the ball to the big dude in the paint. Caldwell Jones, same deal I mean the guy was a C and in those days they were the closest man to the basket almost always.

To me Erving had to adjust to a different style of game and that was just a lot of it... for example the 3 point line was suddenly gone.

edit ~~~~ you know, i was thinking about this team right here and went over to bbref trying to remember those days.

The Sixers had Gene Shue as their coach and he was always a balanced attack guy. He used to say stuff like "it's better to have three guys score 15 than 1 guy to score 50" which is something I agree with completely.
So that's another thing that would have lowered anybody's stats.

[Dr.J4ever]

Doc's stats went down for couple reasons... he had some injuries, hamstring, elbow if i remember, and knees... and he would play hurt. Of course the NBA's defense was always stronger than the ABA's but especially in the mid-late '70s.... also a lot of guys were loading for bear when Dr. J came to town. They went hard against him all year long and there were quite a few enforcers around in those days.
It wasn't rule changes that created the better defense.... but I'm not telling 3ball why defenses suddenly got better for a few years in the mid-70s. He'll have to find that out on his own. :lol

I dunno about selfish Sixers especially.... let's see.
33 Jim Barnett
14 Henry Bibby
23 Joe Bryant
3 Fred Carter
42 Harvey Catchings
20 Doug Collins
53 Darryl Dawkins
10 Mike Dunleavy
6 Julius Erving
21 World B. Free
25 Terry Furlow
11 Caldwell Jones
30 George McGinnis
50 Steve Mix

WBFree yeah, some. Maybe like George McGinnis? He could get real ball dominant... but that's what teams are supposed to do, get the ball to the big dude in the paint. Caldwell Jones, same deal I mean the guy was a C and in those days they were the closest man to the basket almost always.

To me Erving had to adjust to a different style of game and that was just a lot of it... for example the 3 point line was suddenly gone.

Thanks..

Well, the history as its told went on that Mcginnis, Collins, Free, Dawkins were all primarily interested in one thing: scoring. The GM Pat Williams told Julius and the team that the 76ers were not interested in 30ppg scorers but more of spread the wealth offense, if you will. It ended up being more of it's your turn now, and on the next possession, it's my turn. It was one iso after another. Not too much team basketball there.

Anyway, Doc's genius would occasionally come out when needed like in the 77 Finals vs Portland when he aver. 30ppg with a high of 40 in game 6.

Bottom line, Doc wasn't used right, but I do agree that the post merger NBA was a much stronger league than either the pre merger NBA or old ABA. See, I would make a distinction between the NBA pre and post merger. I believe whatever numbers Doc put up in the old ABA was just as legit, just because they stand alone as all numbers(NBA stats and ABA stats post 1972) put up before the 1976 merger should be legit. That's my contention.

I did hear of defensive adjustments during the time when Doc got in the NBA but mostly from coaches like old ABA hands Hubie Brown and Larry Brown.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jesus people, it's not hard to understand: THESE TEAMS ARE NOT PLAYING DEFENSE AGAINST THE SAME TEAMS. The Bucks (or any modern team) would NOT have the same DRTG if they were playing against the 1984-1990 NBA, because offense were much better then.

[La Frescobaldi]

Thanks..

Well, the history as its told went on that Mcginnis, Collins, Free, Dawkins were all primarily interested in one thing: scoring. The GM Pat Williams told Julius and the team that the 76ers were not interested in 30ppg scorers but more of spread the wealth offense, if you will. It ended up being more of it's your turn now, and on the next possession, it's my turn. It was one iso after another. Not too much team basketball there.

Anyway, Doc's genius would occasionally come out when needed like in the 77 Finals vs Portland when he aver. 30ppg with a high of 40 in game 6.

Bottom line, Doc wasn't used right, but I do agree that the post merger NBA was a much stronger league than either the pre merger NBA or old ABA. See, I would make a distinction between the NBA pre and post merger. I believe whatever numbers Doc put up in the old ABA was just as legit, just because they stand alone as all numbers(NBA stats and ABA stats post 1972) put up before the 1976 merger should be legit. That's my contention.

I did here of defensive adjustments during the time when Doc got in the NBA but mostly from coaches like old ABA hands Hubie Brown and Larry Brown.

yeah..... see my very late edit talking about Gene Shue.... who was actually a real good coach tbh tho not that popular or remembered

[3ball]

Why did the NBA implement the 3 second rule in 1967?


i don't know - but the rule made the game softer.

and when that rule was modified in 1982, it made the game even softer... and when the rule was modified a final time in 2005, it put the game in the softest state it's ever been.

this is the consensus among players, coaches and all NBA people alike.





why was the '70s defense was such an outlier?.... Can you answer it?


no, i have no idea... but your question is a thread derail, so i don't care...

my posts itt relate to team offensive and defensive ratings (ORtg and DRtg), which are the topic of the thread.

however, to properly evaluate team ORtg and DRtg, it's important to understand that higher offensive rebounding rates increase team ORtg's and DRtg's, since offensive rebounds aren't counted as an extra possession... Higher FT rates also increase ORtg's and DRtg's.

since two-pointers have higher offensive rebounding rates and FT rates than 3-pointers, the much higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras are the cause for the higher ORtg's and DRtg's of previous eras.
.

[Micku]

the complexity is only related to how defenses deal with spacing, along with physical and logistical restrictions mandated by the league... it's not an indicator that it's harder to score.. naturally, in a no-spacing environment, defenses will be less complex... less complexity is also required when defense are free to be physical and aren't restricted from staying in the paint.

also, spacing and defensive 3 seconds restricts the movement of players - players are forced to camp behind the 3-point line and stay out of the lane... the spacing often looks very organized and neat, like a marching band or rows of corn, and the is play much more predictable.

otoh, in previous eras, spacing did not restrict where players stood on offense, and defenses didn't have any physical or logistical restrictions placed on them either, so the play was more random, free-flowing and instinctive, resulting in a higher skill level in many aspects of the game (i.e. passing amongst no spacing is harder).

I agree that with your statement about spacing and less physical rules lead to more complex defense. The pacing as well. Teams are more willing to slow down the space and take their team with their plays, sometimes using most of the shot clock to execute their plays. But there's also more emphasis on transition defense and guarding shooters than in previous eras. Even at the start of the 90s, there were articles saying how defense changed compared to the 80s:



"Detroit has created a defensive mind-set around the league, and teams copy success," Laker Coach Pat Riley said. "In the early 80s, transition defense was non-existent. When a team was running, a coach would say 'Just get back.' Now there's sophistication to defense.


http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/sports/sp-2723_1_defense-wins-games

Of course back, the rules were different then there were more big bodies that could to clog the paint better. We also have better tech and advance statistic to help scout players.

With spacing, I would say it depends on how you use it. You would see some teams use the same plays and their players don't move around. They just stand still. It was just the matter if you could stop the play or not. Spacing is meant to spread out the defense and constant movement defense work. You could be freeflowing with spacing nowadays. You could appear to have freeflowing with your plays if you have multiple options ie Spurs. Nash lead Suns were another team that spaced the floor a lot and move around to make appear more free flowing since their plays have multiple options and their PG had a high IQ. It seems like Golden State does this too.

As you mention, the pervious eras they were better at moving while they space the floor. You could look at the Celtics 86 since they had the shooters to spread the defense. They didn't call as many plays as the Spurs it seems, but they had the IQ and passing ability to make it more free flowing.

But going back to the DRtg, it's basically unfair to compare it across eras and even a few years gap. It shouldn't be compared. Different rules, different mindset.

[La Frescobaldi]

i don't know - but the rule made the game softer.

and when that rule was modified in 1982, it made the game even softer... and when the rule was modified a final time in 2005, it put the game in the softest state it's ever been.

this is the consensus among players, coaches and all NBA people alike.



no, i have no idea... but your question is a thread derail, so i don't care...

my posts itt relate to team offensive and defensive ratings (ORtg and DRtg), which are the topic of the thread.

however, to properly evaluate team ORtg and DRtg, it's important to understand that higher offensive rebounding rates increase team ORtg's and DRtg's, since offensive rebounds aren't counted as an extra possession... Higher FT rates also increase ORtg's and DRtg's.

since two-pointers have higher offensive rebounding rates and FT rates than 3-pointers, the much higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras are the cause for the higher ORtg's and DRtg's of previous eras.
.

well pard you really are a one trick pony aren't you. It's obsession, clearly.

I thought you were a basketball fan, at least, with a sense of inquiry. Oh well, I've been wrong before.

Here ya go, have fun. Go away.

******************************
ScPoss = (FG_Part + AST_Part + FT_Part) * (1 - (Team_ORB / Team_Scoring_Poss) * Team_ORB_Weight * Team_Play%) + ORB_Part

where:

FG_Part = FGM * (1 - 0.5 * ((PTS - FTM) / (2 * FGA)) * qAST)
qAST = ((MP / (Team_MP / 5)) * (1.14 * ((Team_AST - AST) / Team_FGM))) + ((((Team_AST / Team_MP) * MP * 5 - AST) / ((Team_FGM / Team_MP) * MP * 5 - FGM)) * (1 - (MP / (Team_MP / 5))))
AST_Part = 0.5 * (((Team_PTS - Team_FTM) - (PTS - FTM)) / (2 * (Team_FGA - FGA))) * AST
FT_Part = (1-(1-(FTM/FTA))^2)*0.4*FTA
Team_Scoring_Poss = Team_FGM + (1 - (1 - (Team_FTM / Team_FTA))^2) * Team_FTA * 0.4
Team_ORB_Weight = ((1 - Team_ORB%) * Team_Play%) / ((1 - Team_ORB%) * Team_Play% + Team_ORB% * (1 - Team_Play%))
Team_ORB% = Team_ORB / (Team_ORB + (Opponent_TRB - Opponent_ORB))
Team_Play% = Team_Scoring_Poss / (Team_FGA + Team_FTA * 0.4 + Team_TOV)
ORB_Part = ORB * Team_ORB_Weight * Team_Play%

Missed FG and Missed FT Possessions are calculated as follows:

FGxPoss = (FGA - FGM) * (1 - 1.07 * Team_ORB%)
FTxPoss = ((1 - (FTM / FTA))^2) * 0.4 * FTA

Total Possessions are then computed like so:

TotPoss = ScPoss + FGxPoss + FTxPoss + TOV

Now, Individual Points Produced must also be calculated:

PProd = (PProd_FG_Part + PProd_AST_Part + FTM) * (1 - (Team_ORB / Team_Scoring_Poss) * Team_ORB_Weight * Team_Play%) + PProd_ORB_Part

where:

PProd_FG_Part = 2 * (FGM + 0.5 * 3PM) * (1 - 0.5 * ((PTS - FTM) / (2 * FGA)) * qAST)
PProd_AST_Part = 2 * ((Team_FGM - FGM + 0.5 * (Team_3PM - 3PM)) / (Team_FGM - FGM)) * 0.5 * (((Team_PTS - Team_FTM) - (PTS - FTM)) / (2 * (Team_FGA - FGA))) * AST
PProd_ORB_Part = ORB * Team_ORB_Weight * Team_Play% * (Team_PTS / (Team_FGM + (1 - (1 - (Team_FTM / Team_FTA))^2) * 0.4 * Team_FTA))

[SHAQisGOAT]

Jesus people, it's not hard to understand: THESE TEAMS ARE NOT PLAYING DEFENSE AGAINST THE SAME TEAMS. The Bucks (or any modern team) would NOT have the same DRTG if they were playing against the 1984-1990 NBA, because offense were much better then.

This.

They wouldn't be able to **** with the Bad Boys Pistons' DRtg if both teams were in the same league, for example.

It's harder to play (good) defense against teams with great(er) overall offense, teams that really play as a team and have big-time players, teams that share the ball and look for the best shots (be it the 1st "available" or not) and mismatches...
Just look at last year's Finals, Spurs completely obliterated the Heat playing that type of offense, setting records and whatnot. A team that got to the Finals got shitted on probably like never before, what it says about this era? Bad defensive era? :confusedshrug:

Somebody could also please tell me why league average DRtg has been basically the same since the 80's? Where are those advanced defenses? :rolleyes:
And it was even lower before, guess the 60's/70's are the GOAT defensive eras, huh? Or worse offense? :confusedshrug:
Gets pretty subjective many times and can't be compared "rawly"...

And people wanna talk about PACE... Warriors right now play at the highest pace in the league, guess they play no D because they like to run, guess they can't be great... Well, they got the best defense and the best record, how about that?

Also, it's hard to keep the pace slower when you're playing against teams that like to run more, on average.
Style of play, rules (written/unwritten), teams, players, so on... all play a part in these "things", can't compare it straight up like that.

I can also post quotes from players (former or active), coaches, analysts, so on... Downgrading this era. What it leaves us at? :confusedshrug:

[Milbuck]

I can also post quotes from players (former or active), coaches, analysts, so on... Downgrading this era. What it leaves us at? :confusedshrug:

It leaves us with a bunch of nostalgic old farts who can't accept that the game is evolving, who think that the only way to celebrate the players of their time is to shit on the players of today and tomorrow.

[3ball]

Here ya go.. have fun..

..Missed FG and Missed FT Possessions are calculated as follows:

FGxPoss = (FGA - FGM) * (1 - 1.07 * Team_ORB%)
FTxPoss = ((1 - (FTM / FTA))^2) * 0.4 * FTA



Higher offensive rebounding rates increase Team ORtg because offensive rebounds aren't counted as an extra possession in the calculation.. it should be noted that Team ORtg equals Opponent DRtg - it's important to remember that they're the same number.

Higher free throw rates also increase Team ORtg and DRtg... Check out the last 6 columns on this page (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html), which show some key drivers of the league-wide ORtg calculation (i.e. offensive rebounding rate, FT rate, turnover rate, etc.).

Since 2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, the higher proportion of 2-pointers attempted in previous eras is one of the primary reasons why ORtg and DRtg were higher back then.

If you cannot understand this basic concept, then you should go back to school.

The higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras didn't only increase ORtg and DRtg, it also increased PACE - it takes extra time to set up the spacing and run offense to get good three-point looks.. 3-pointers simply need to be more open than two-pointers, so more offense needs to be run to get these better looks, which slows the game down.

[Anaximandro1]

Bad Boys Pistons and Knicks were great defensive teams relative to their league

Scott's Bucks played in the historically weak East

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zgvblgnfPkI/VLuj6Afr4PI/AAAAAAAADqQ/pHqYQZjDa6E/s1600/12.jpg

[DatAsh]

It's just hard to compare across eras, as they're not playing the same teams.

Was Jordan a better defender in 2003 than he was in 1992? He led a team with less talent to a better defensive rating, so clearly that must be the case.

Obviously not, the more logical conclusion is that the offenses of the early 90s were better than the offenses of the early 2000s.

[3ball]

Jordan led the 2003 Wizards to a better defensive rating than the 1992 Bulls..

the most logical conclusion is that offenses were better back then.


there is no need to arrive at a "most logical" conclusion, when we can just go with the facts:

the higher ORtg and DRtg of the 80's and early 90's was due to a much higher proportion of 2-pointers being taken, and their associated higher offensive rebounding and FT rate, which increases Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg.

With regards to the Wizards having a better DRtg in 2003 than the 1992 Bulls - the Wizards DRtg was better because their defensive rebounding rate was higher, plain and simple.

Why was the 2003 Wizards defensive rebounding rate higher than the 1992 Bulls?... Because opponents' OFFENSIVE rebounding rates in 2003 were much lower from shooting so many more 3-pointers - when the opponent's offensive rebounding is lower, a team's defensive rebounding rate will be higher... Higher defensive rebounding rate increases DRtg, as it did with the 2003 Wizards.
.

[La Frescobaldi]

It's just hard to compare across eras, as they're not playing the same teams.

Was Jordan a better defender in 2003 than he was in 1992? He led a team with less talent to a better defensive rating, so clearly that must be the case.

Obviously not, the more logical conclusion is that the offenses of the early 90s were better than the offenses of the early 2000s.
Of course; your logic is plain enough.

[3ball]

Of course; your logic is plain enough.


DatAsh is right - the better offenses of the 90's contributed to higher Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg (they're the same number).

But higher ORtg was also due to the way the stat is calculated - higher offensive rebounding and FT rates increase at team's ORtg in the calculation.

It's a fact that two-pointers have a much higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, so the higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras caused Team ORtg's (and therefore Opponent DRtg) to be higher than today.

On the flipside, today's game takes far more 3-pointers, which have a lower offensive rebounding and FT rate, and therefore decrease Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg.

the logic can't get any plainer than that.

[La Frescobaldi]

It leaves us with a bunch of nostalgic old farts who can't accept that the game is evolving, who think that the only way to celebrate the players of their time is to shit on the players of today and tomorrow.

that is always a problem, and one i always guard against because I've seen it so many times. I remember old guys when I was a kid, defending Ted Williams or Bronko Nagurski or whoever it was, Rocky Marciano, you know?

Absolutely the worst I have seen - regardless of the sport - have been Michael Jordan fans. Nothing is even close.

It's like they spent 16 hours a day being buried in TV propaganda and mythical tales, and they can't bear anything that would mar the edifice.

[3ball]

Absolutely the worst I have seen - regardless of the sport - have been Michael Jordan fans. Nothing is even close.

It's like they spent 16 hours a day being buried in TV propaganda and mythical tales, and they can't bear anything that would mar the edifice.


this thread has nothing to do with you hating Jordan fans or not believing his stats or that he was 6/6.. DatAsh hit the nail on the head with his post - better offenses contributed to higher Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg (they're the same number) in the 80's and 90's.

But higher ORtg was also due to the way the stat is calculated - higher offensive rebounding and FT rates increase at team's ORtg in the calculation.

Two-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, so the higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras caused Team ORtg's (and therefore Opponent DRtg) to be higher than today.

On the flipside, today's game takes far more 3-pointers, which have a lower offensive rebounding and FT rate, and therefore decrease Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg.

[andgar923]

that is always a problem, and one i always guard against because I've seen it so many times. I remember old guys when I was a kid, defending Ted Williams or Bronko Nagurski or whoever it was, Rocky Marciano, you know?

Absolutely the worst I have seen - regardless of the sport - have been Michael Jordan fans. Nothing is even close.

It's like they spent 16 hours a day being buried in TV propaganda and mythical tales, and they can't bear anything that would mar the edifice.
which mythical tales?

Most of what we post is based on shit that happened!