Overrated defense of the 80s/90s

[Deuce Bigalow]

The "bad boy" Pistons were known as the premiere defensive team of its era. Lets take a look at what they held their opponents to.

Opponents stats
87-88 Pistons: 104.1 PPG/46.7 FG%
88-89 Pistons: 100.8 PPG/44.7 FG%
89-90 Pistons: 98.3 PPG/44.7 FG%

The Pistons in 88-89 ended up winning the championship, their defense was good enough to be ranked 3rd in the league. They were some "bad boys" on the defensive end locking down opponents to 100 points.

Lets compare that to the Mike Antoni Los Angeles Lakers

Beware. Reading below this sentence may be harmful to some posters with 80s/90s nostalgia.

Opponents stats
12-13 Lakers: 100.3 PPG/44.6 FG%

This current defense in this era is good enough for 19th best.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Except that they weren't playing against equal quality offenses. Offenses back then were substantially better for a variety of reasons (more pass-first PG's, better team play, better fundamentals, less micromanagement by coaches, and most importantly greater concentration of talent (most teams had 3-4 guys who could get you 18-22 ppg on any given night, and good teams had 4-5 such guys).

Today's teams would NOT hold the teams of the 1988 NBA to the same averages that they're holding 2013 teams to. Fact.

[DatAsh]

Defensive rating is tied to offensive rating. Those same statistics could just as easily be used to conclude that the 80's and 90's offenses were better than the offenses of today.

I don't agree with either conclusion per say, but it is what it is.

[Colbertnation64]

Not that I agree with the OP, who is an idiot but...


Except that they weren't playing against equal quality offenses. Offenses back then were substantially better for a variety of reasons (more pass-first PG's, better team play, better fundamentals, less micromanagement by coaches, and most importantly greater concentration of talent (most teams had 3-4 guys who could get you 18-22 ppg on any given night, and good teams had 4-5 such guys).

Today's teams would NOT hold the teams of the 1988 NBA to the same averages that they're holding 2013 teams to. Fact.

is a prime example of someone who is equally idiotic, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Round Mound]

Except that they weren't playing against equal quality offenses. Offenses back then were substantially better for a variety of reasons (more pass-first PG's, better team play, better fundamentals, less micromanagement by coaches, and most importantly greater concentration of talent (most teams had 3-4 guys who could get you 18-22 ppg on any given night, and good teams had 4-5 such guys).

Today's teams would NOT hold the teams of the 1988 NBA to the same averages that they're holding 2013 teams to. Fact.

:applause:

[Leviathon1121]

Except that they weren't playing against equal quality offenses. Offenses back then were substantially better for a variety of reasons (more pass-first PG's, better team play, better fundamentals, less micromanagement by coaches, and most importantly greater concentration of talent (most teams had 3-4 guys who could get you 18-22 ppg on any given night, and good teams had 4-5 such guys).

Today's teams would NOT hold the teams of the 1988 NBA to the same averages that they're holding 2013 teams to. Fact.

Not to mention the greater number of serviceable centers. Having a quality big man with good fundamentals in the middle just makes the game so much easier for teams as a whole to run efficient offenses. It is a position that has been dying for awhile and is on it's last breath in today's NBA.

[TheBigVeto]

Any post 1999 Lakers will win 9 games max when they play in the 80s.
Fact.

[Chapallaz]

So you didnt see those games? Other era other style of play. Other scores.

[madmax]

Except that they weren't playing against equal quality offenses. Offenses back then were substantially better for a variety of reasons (more pass-first PG's, better team play, better fundamentals, less micromanagement by coaches, and most importantly greater concentration of talent (most teams had 3-4 guys who could get you 18-22 ppg on any given night, and good teams had 4-5 such guys).

Today's teams would NOT hold the teams of the 1988 NBA to the same averages that they're holding 2013 teams to. Fact.

LMAO at this agenda driven fool:roll:

[chips93]

Defensive rating is tied to offensive rating. Those same statistics could just as easily be used to conclude that the 80's and 90's offenses were better than the offenses of today.

this

[PistolPete44]

keep overrating this era to make kobe looks like GOAT
you will fail.

[ThaRegul8r]

Oh, look! Another "tear down a past era in order to prop up the one I actually watched!"

[The Iron Fist]

Except that they weren't playing against equal quality offenses. Offenses back then were substantially better for a variety of reasons (more pass-first PG's, better team play, better fundamentals, less micromanagement by coaches, and most importantly greater concentration of talent (most teams had 3-4 guys who could get you 18-22 ppg on any given night, and good teams had 4-5 such guys).

Today's teams would NOT hold the teams of the 1988 NBA to the same averages that they're holding 2013 teams to. Fact.
Lol "fact".

Prove it then.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Not that I agree with the OP, who is an idiot but...



is a prime example of someone who is equally idiotic, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

No, I'm not equally idiotic, because I believe that today's defenses would hold offenses of, say, 1988 to averages somewhere between what teams from 1988 held them to and what 2013 teams hold teams to today. Nice try, though.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Lol "fact".

Prove it then.

lol @ you if you think that the teams of the late 80's/early 90's wouldn't score more against teams today than today's teams do. So sad, so blind.

[eliteballer]

Except that they weren't playing against equal quality offenses. Offenses back then were substantially better for a variety of reasons (more pass-first PG's, better team play, better fundamentals, less micromanagement by coaches, and most importantly greater concentration of talent (most teams had 3-4 guys who could get you 18-22 ppg on any given night, and good teams had 4-5 such guys).

Today's teams would NOT hold the teams of the 1988 NBA to the same averages that they're holding 2013 teams to. Fact.

What a pile of CRAP:oldlol: These are the BEST players and coaches in the world, and if ANYTHING schemes on both ends have gotten more sophisticated. Again...this isn't you and me, the best players in your rec league, high school, park, or college...these are the 400 best players in the WORLD....basketball isn't that complicated. There has NEVER existed "substantially" better offenses than the ones they run. It's illogical.

You always talk about the eye test(which some of us dont need since we SAW IT)...well the eye test says the league was offense centric back then

[Pushxx]

Oh, look! Another "tear down a past era in order to prop up the one I actually watched!"

This.

[sundizz]

This.

In reality who knows. I've watched maybe 40 games from 80's and 90's end to end in my lifetime (on youtube). I've watched NBA heavily every year from 1997 onwards.

My opinion is similar to that of the OP. They didn't play great (or even good by today's standards) defense in that era. The difference is that they occasionally got into more arguments, or fights, or hard fouls and those weren't made into a big deal (i.e ejections). This is what was 'tougher' about that era.

In general though everyone played a much higher pace, more fun/team oriented style. At the same time, nowadays generally players don't get the same sort of free layups they allowed back then. Usually, they get hacked or put on the line.

[Leviathon1121]

What a pile of CRAP:oldlol: These are the BEST players and coaches in the world, and if ANYTHING schemes on both ends have gotten more sophisticated. Again...this isn't you and me, the best players in your rec league, high school, park, or college...these are the 400 best players in the WORLD....basketball isn't that complicated. There has NEVER existed "substantially" better offenses than the ones they run. It's illogical.

You always talk about the eye test(which some of us dont need since we SAW IT)...well the eye test says the league was offense centric back then

And yet, according to certain fans, "substantially" better defenses do exist. Amazing how the mind of a Kobe stan works.

[Deuce Bigalow]

In reality who knows. I've watched maybe 40 games from 80's and 90's end to end in my lifetime (on youtube). I've watched NBA heavily every year from 1997 onwards.

My opinion is similar to that of the OP. They didn't play great (or even good by today's standards) defense in that era. The difference is that they occasionally got into more arguments, or fights, or hard fouls and those weren't made into a big deal (i.e ejections). This is what was 'tougher' about that era.

In general though everyone played a much higher pace, more fun/team oriented style. At the same time, nowadays generally players don't get the same sort of free layups they allowed back then. Usually, they get hacked or put on the line.
Agreed. Good post.

[97 bulls]

This is why its hard to compare eras. Ive argued with both sides of this debate.

The old school side loves to try and compars eras scoring stats as a means to show the how dominant an 80s superstar would be. But when the script is turned, and thos high offensive numbers equate to low or relatively bad defensive numbers by today's standards, they want to put things into context.

By the same token, the new school side wants to claim defenses today are tougher now than back then. Are defenses really better? Or is it a case of bad basketball due to isos and pick and rolls as well as a lack of bigmen post presence.

All eras stand on their own merit. The 80s have their strengths as the 90s, 00s etc. And they all have their weaknesses. Compare teams and players based on how dominant and successful the person or team in question was when they played.

[Chapallaz]

What a pile of CRAP:oldlol: These are the BEST players and coaches in the world, and if ANYTHING schemes on both ends have gotten more sophisticated. Again...this isn't you and me, the best players in your rec league, high school, park, or college...these are the 400 best players in the WORLD....basketball isn't that complicated. There has NEVER existed "substantially" better offenses than the ones they run. It's illogical.

You always talk about the eye test(which some of us dont need since we SAW IT)...well the eye test says the league was offense centric back then
Don't forget there's about 40, or 80 if you count the Heat, Magic and Hornets, weaker talents added to that pool.

[andgar923]

Larry Bird one of the greatest shooters of all time shot a career high 227 3pt attempts for the entire season.

Meanwhile

[bdreason]

I'm sorry, but those late 80's champs would murk the current NBA champs. I honestly believe the '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, and '88 Pistons would have their way with the '10 Lakers, '11 Mavs, or '12 Heat. I think it could even end up being borderline embarrassing.

[Kiddlovesnets]

:facepalm

[TheMan]

Those teams in the 80s and early to mid 90s had some things that few teams today have...ball movement, legit bigmen and basic bball fundamentals.

Dwight Howard wouldn't sniff top 5 C in that era, today's game is different, it's more iso oriented, the 86 Celtics would murder the 12 Heat because of three things, a big FC, high b ball IQ and BALL MOVEMENT.

[jlip]

This is why its hard to compare eras. Ive argued with both sides of this debate.

The old school side loves to try and compars eras scoring stats as a means to show the how dominant an 80s superstar would be. But when the script is turned, and thos high offensive numbers equate to low or relatively bad defensive numbers by today's standards, they want to put things into context.

By the same token, the new school side wants to claim defenses today are tougher now than back then. Are defenses really better? Or is it a case of bad basketball due to isos and pick and rolls as well as a lack of bigmen post presence.

All eras stand on their own merit. The 80s have their strengths as the 90s, 00s etc. And they all have their weaknesses. Compare teams and players based on how dominant and successful the person or team in question was when they played.

This

[Round Mound]

[QUOTE=andgar923]Larry Bird one of the greatest shooters of all time shot a career high 227 3pt attempts for the entire season.

Meanwhile

[brain drain]

OK, in order find out whether the change in FG% was more due to defenses or talent dilution / worse players / shooters, I got some data on some players who were drafted in the mid / late eighties. I only tried to chose players with a decent longevity over 1990, so that declining athleticism wouldn't be too much of an issue.
So here it is: FG% of some players drafted in the mid / late 80s:

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4530/fgpct.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/fgpct.png/)

We probably need to ignore the last years of the chart, but the general trend starts too early in these players' careers to be ignored or attributed to aging effects.
To me, that looks like defenses got better starting around '90. We'd probably need more data, but that's my first impression.

[atljonesbro]

If you think that 80s 90s and teams would dominate teams today you are either:

1. An old fella who doesnt wanna let go of his child hood and prop his era up by downing todays

2. A young kid who's trying to attempt to sound smart by saying old is better than new.

3. A young kid trying to gain credibility from older posters by saying that.

80s 90s would NOT dominate current in the least. You have to be stupid to think say. Neither would dominate either.

[arifgokcen]

In reality who knows. I've watched maybe 40 games from 80's and 90's end to end in my lifetime (on youtube). I've watched NBA heavily every year from 1997 onwards.

My opinion is similar to that of the OP. They didn't play great (or even good by today's standards) defense in that era. The difference is that they occasionally got into more arguments, or fights, or hard fouls and those weren't made into a big deal (i.e ejections). This is what was 'tougher' about that era.

In general though everyone played a much higher pace, more fun/team oriented style. At the same time, nowadays generally players don't get the same sort of free layups they allowed back then. Usually, they get hacked or put on the line.

Agreed.Defense was poor but hard fouls arguments et. was different back then


If you think that 80s 90s and teams would dominate teams today you are either:

1. An old fella who doesnt wanna let go of his child hood and prop his era up by downing todays

2. A young kid who's trying to attempt to sound smart by saying old is better than new.

3. A young kid trying to gain credibility from older posters by saying that.

80s 90s would NOT dominate current in the least. You have to be stupid to think say. Neither would dominate either.

+111111111111111111



I'm sorry, but those late 80's champs would murk the current NBA champs. I honestly believe the '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, and '88 Pistons would have their way with the '10 Lakers, '11 Mavs, or '12 Heat. I think it could even end up being borderline embarrassing.

Those teams as good as they were back then werent nearly as athletic as today's contenders and now we see teams constructed like old teams doesnt and cant contend in todays league just look at lakers.

A team like OKC would mop the floor with them.

[KG215]

Those teams as good as they were back then werent nearly as athletic as today's contenders and now we see teams constructed like old teams doesnt and cant contend in todays league just look at lakers.

A team like OKC would mop the floor with them.
Ummmm.....yeah, maybe not the Celtics, but you're cray if you don't think the Bad Boy Pistons or Showtime Lakers weren't as athletic as some teams today.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

The reason why teams of the 80s would really kill a lot of the teams today is because of the depth of the tam back then.

Strip McHale/Walton/Maxwell off the Celtics team because they are playing in Toronto and Vancouver/Memphis. Strip Worthy/Scott/Thompson off the Lakers because they are playing for the Thunder/Heat/Magic. Strip Dumars/Laimbeer/Rodman off the Pistons because they are playing for the Wolves/Bobcats.

The major reason why the 80s team would win against the teams of today is because teams in the 80s had multiple all-stars and 6th men as all-stars. Think about that. The Heat and Thunder are considered stacked when they have 2+ all-stars on their team. (And I don't mean "all-star" as in he was once an all-star... I mean he was an all-star that year they were actually playing.)

[CavaliersFTW]

Defensive rating is tied to offensive rating. Those same statistics could just as easily be used to conclude that the 80's and 90's offenses were better than the offenses of today.

I don't agree with either conclusion per say, but it is what it is.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :applause: :applause: :applause:

and with that said /thread people!

http://cdn.niketalk.com/c/cc/ccbdfd06_tumblr_lyd8kgAjMn1qma1obo1_250.gif

[brain drain]

Ummmm.....yeah, maybe not the Celtics, but you're cray if you don't think the Bad Boy Pistons or Showtime Lakers weren't as athletic as some teams today.
No matter what it was, the trend was already downward around '90, even just looking at those same players drafted in the mid / late 80s. Which coincides with the league trend at the time: between 1980 and 1986, the league average FG% was around 49% (and that was't just Larry Bird an a few select marksmen, that was the whole league, superstars, stars, scrubs). Then, between 86 and 94 it decreased to 46%. Between 94 and 99 it went down further to 43.7%.

So, tell me: if there are such big decreases in such a relatively short time, and you can see the same trend inside players' careers, what is more probable:
- a) those players suddenly forgot how to score
- b) defenses improved

[brain drain]

The reason why teams of the 80s would really kill a lot of the teams today is because of the depth of the tam back then.

Strip McHale/Walton/Maxwell off the Celtics team because they are playing in Toronto and Vancouver/Memphis. Strip Worthy/Scott/Thompson off the Lakers because they are playing for the Thunder/Heat/Magic. Strip Dumars/Laimbeer/Rodman off the Pistons because they are playing for the Wolves/Bobcats.

The major reason why the 80s team would win against the teams of today is because teams in the 80s had multiple all-stars and 6th men as all-stars. Think about that. The Heat and Thunder are considered stacked when they have 2+ all-stars on their team. (And I don't mean "all-star" as in he was once an all-star... I mean he was an all-star that year they were actually playing.)

Nah, they had a few superteams, just like we have now. League expansion most probably is equalized by influx of world wide talent (just think of the league without Dirk, Manu, Tony Parker, Ricky Rubio, Pekovic, the Gasols, Nash, Varejao, Noah etc. - they're not all superstars, but removing them would also mean talent dilution).


Also, the talent dilution theory (TM) doesn't fit well with the diagram i posted. Generally, the fg% of the players i selected went down over time (with the exception of Stockton & Malone who reached a new plateu in the mid 90's, probably because the league didn't have a defensive answer to their pick'n'roll). If talent dilution had taken place, the fg% of the undiluted players I selected should've at least stayed the same level (or gone up, preying on the weaker talent entering the league). But that didn't happen. How do you explain that?

[97 bulls]

No matter what it was, the trend was already downward around '90, even just looking at those same players drafted in the mid / late 80s. Which coincides with the league trend at the time: between 1980 and 1986, the league average FG% was around 49% (and that was't just Larry Bird an a few select marksmen, that was the whole league, superstars, stars, scrubs). Then, between 86 and 94 it decreased to 46%. Between 94 and 99 it went down further to 43.7%.

So, tell me: if there are such big decreases in such a relatively short time, and you can see the same trend inside players' careers, what is more probable:
- a) those players suddenly forgot how to score
- b) defenses improved
The game has changed. Teams just dont run as much as they used to. I do feel theres a bigger emphasis on defense. But the game has changed. For some rrason, people cant grasp that. It doesnt make it better or worse. Its more of a preference.

You see the same thing in football. Calvin Johnson btoke the recieving record set by Jerry Rice. Doesnt mean hes better than Rice.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Nah, they had a few superteams, just like we have now. League expansion most probably is equalized by influx of world wide talent (just think of the league without Dirk, Manu, Tony Parker, Ricky Rubio, Pekovic, the Gasols, Nash, Varejao, Noah etc. - they're not all superstars, but removing them would also mean talent dilution).

Not really. The influx of international players has not equalized it. The depth on the team was much greater back then than it was today. The league needs contraction anyway. They should just go ahead and take out the LOLCats and the Pelicans. Or the Craptors. Doesn't matter. Be better for the league.

[brain drain]

The game has changed. Teams just dont run as much as they used to. I do feel theres a bigger emphasis on defense. But the game has changed. For some rrason, people cant grasp that. It doesnt make it better or worse. Its more of a preference.

You see the same thing in football. Calvin Johnson btoke the recieving record set by Jerry Rice. Doesnt mean hes better than Rice.

I wouldn't say "it just changed". Otherwise Run TMC, the Dirk/Nash/Finley-Mavs or the mid-2000s Phoenix Suns would've had more success. Especially the Suns had an extremely high talent level but still couldn't make it (unless you say that the change in league wide philosophy denied them the time necessary to mature to champion teams).

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Defenses definitely have gotten more sophisticated in the last 30 years. Nowadays teams have footage to go over within minutes/hours. There is nothing new under the sun for some players/teams. There is so much tape of it.

Back in the 80s... it just wasn't that way. Scouting and gameplanning was just beginning. And by the time data was collected, it could very well be obsolete if used in games.

Does that make the league worse in the 80s? No. Does it make it better? No. It just means they played in a smaller league, with a faster pace, and less advanced scouting. Today the league is more spread out, slower pace, and a lot more advanced scouting.

[KG215]

So, tell me: if there are such big decreases in such a relatively short time, and you can see the same trend inside players' careers, what is more probable:
- a) those players suddenly forgot how to score
- b) defenses improved
It's not just one or the other. Those trends also coincide with teams gradually becoming more and more dependent on the 3P line. Not saying that's the only reason FG% decreased, but league average FG% decreasing doesn't only mean defenses improved. It's a combination of things. I don't think defenses from a specific era have ever been significantly better or significantly worse than defenses from a different era. Philosophies, pace, play styles, rules, technology etc. change from era to era. But, in my opinion, the actual overall abilities and skills from one era have never been significantly better or significantly worse than the abilities and skills from another era.

I will say that I think defenses get more and more sophisticated every few years with improved scouting capabilities.

[brain drain]

Not really. The influx of international players has not equalized it. The depth on the team was much greater back then than it was today. The league needs contraction anyway. They should just go ahead and take out the LOLCats and the Pelicans. Or the Craptors. Doesn't matter. Be better for the league.

I'm not sure about that. First, there are 84 foreign-born players in the NBA now. Compare that to 85 when there were probably 5 or 10.

Second, if talent dilution was the reason for the decrease in scoring, why don't the good players have godly fg% nowadays? Why does a guy like Kevin Durant only have one and a half seasons (the last and the current one) with a fg% above 49% when that was the average during the first half of the 80s? Is Durant just an average scrub compared to those godly scorers in the 80s?

[brain drain]

It's not just one or the other. Those trends also coincide with teams gradually becoming more and more dependent on the 3P line. Not saying that's the ony reason FG% decreased, but league average FG% decreasing doesn't only mean defenses improved. It's a combination of things. I don't think defenses from a specific era have ever been significantly better or significantly worse than defenses from a different era. Philosophies, pace, play styles, rules, technology etc. change from era to era. But, in my opinion, the actual overall abilities and skills from one era have never been significantly better or significantly worse than the abilities and skills from another era.

I will say that I think defenses get more and more sophisticated and every few years with improved scouting capabilities.

That's why I tried to focus on individual players.
Take a look at Barkley: In his first 8 seasons (until he was 28) he never had a fg% below 54.5.
Then he had one season with 52% fg%. And after that, he would never again have more than 50% fg%. Do you really think that was only because of 3 pointers?

[Deuce Bigalow]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :applause: :applause: :applause:

and with that said /thread people!

http://cdn.niketalk.com/c/cc/ccbdfd06_tumblr_lyd8kgAjMn1qma1obo1_250.gif
Maybe they were "better" because the defense was worse. And it was.

[KG215]

That's why I tried to focus on individual players.
Take a look at Barkley: In his first 8 seasons (until he was 28) he never had a fg% below 54.5.
Then he had one season with 52% fg%. And after that, he would never again have more than 50% fg%. Do you really think that was only because of 3 pointers?
I never said it was only because of the 3P line. But, on top of getting older I'm pretty sure Barkley started shooting more threes per season as he aged. I'd have to look it up, though.

[Cali Syndicate]

I'm not sure about that. First, there are 84 foreign-born players in the NBA now. Compare that to 85 when there were probably 5 or 10.

Second, if talent dilution was the reason for the decrease in scoring, why don't the good players have godly fg% nowadays? Why does a guy like Kevin Durant only have one and a half seasons (the last and the current one) with a fg% above 49% when that was the average during the first half of the 80s? Is Durant just an average scrub compared to those godly scorers in the 80s?

Durant plays like a guard. 80s or 90s there were only a select few number of guards who were the main scorers on their teams and hovered above 50% from the field.

[ProfessorMurder]

Defenses definitely have gotten more sophisticated in the last 30 years. Nowadays teams have footage to go over within minutes/hours. There is nothing new under the sun for some players/teams. There is so much tape of it.

Back in the 80s... it just wasn't that way. Scouting and gameplanning was just beginning. And by the time data was collected, it could very well be obsolete if used in games.

Have you never heard of video cameras before? You're acting like they had to develop film and set up a projector to watch footage in 1988.

That's ignorant as f*ck.

[brain drain]

I never said it was only because of the 3P line. But, on top of getting older I'm pretty sure Barkley started shooting more threes per season as he aged. I'd have to look it up, though.
Yeah, he shot a bit more. But still, going from almost 59% fg% with 2 3pt fga in 88 (at the age of 24) to 49.5% with 2.7 3pt fga at the age of 30 isn't only due to 3 pointers. And I wouldn't say that he was done when the decline affects the whole league too and he was able to play another six seasons. This was basically in the middle of his career.

[bdreason]

Look, I'm not from the 80's. I was born in '80 and raised on Jordan, not Magic and Bird. I did get to see the end of the Bird/Magic/Kareem era, but I was really young.


Now, if you look at those late 80's rosters, especially the Celtics and Lakers squads, and contrast them with the last few champs, it really isn't a difficult argument to make. Those late 80's franchises, on paper, were simply superior. That's without taking into consideration that those late 80's teams were probably the best passing teams in the history of the game as well. The ISO ball and pressure man defense teams like the Heat play today would get picked apart.

[brain drain]

Durant plays like a guard. 80s or 90s there were only a select few number of guards who were the main scorers on their teams and hovered above 50% from the field.
Not so sure about that. I'm not going into main scorers right now, but how many guards nowadays manage field goal percentages above 50%? Extremely few.
Back in the day, it was different.
Let's look at the 81-82 season.
- Mike Glenn (he managed almost 59% fg% one season!): http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/glennmi01.html
- Bill McKinney: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mckinbi01.html
- T.R. Dunn: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/dunntr01.html
- Ron Brewer: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/brewero01.html
- Andrew Toney: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/toneyan01.html
- Mo Cheeks (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cheekma01.html)

And lots of others which I didn't bother finding. All shooting above 50%. Those were probably all unstoppable defensive monsters on a mission who make todays players look weak in comparison...

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Have you never heard of video cameras before? You're acting like they had to develop film and set up a projector to watch footage in 1988.

That's ignorant as f*ck.

So I see you are agreeing with me. Video Recoders/Camera did not become "popular/prevalent" until the mid to late 80s. And then there wasn't as many "live" games. There wasn't as many broadcast channels. There wasn't all the outlets today such as youtube/etc.

Someone sounds ignorant. It isn't me. Footage in the 80s was much harder to come by than it is today. Hell, you can get footage on your phone and through twitter/facebook on stuff than you could back then.

Sure you might record 3 hours of footage but to get it all the way across the US to your employer? Or what about overseas? The internet was around back then but it wasn't accessable like it is today.

So yeah, ignorance is not from me.

[poido123]

Those teams in the 80s and early to mid 90s had some things that few teams today have...ball movement, legit bigmen and basic bball fundamentals.

Dwight Howard wouldn't sniff top 5 C in that era, today's game is different, it's more iso oriented, the 86 Celtics would murder the 12 Heat because of three things, a big FC, high b ball IQ and BALL MOVEMENT.

Good post.

OP is agenda driven, he wants to make people believe that what Jordan did wasn't that great, and the era Kobe is playing in is the toughest ever :facepalm:

[brain drain]

Here's another good one:

Magic Johnson, FG%.
79-80 --> 84-85 (he's 25 at that time) never below 53%, last two seasons of that run at 56%.

85-86 & 86-87 (27 at the time) at 52%.

After that, only one season at or above 50%.

What's the explanation for that?

[brain drain]

Byron Scott:
1983-->1988 3 seasons out of 5 with an fg% above 50%
1989-->1997 all below 50%

[brain drain]

James Worthy:
82 --> 89-90 (age 28): all above 53%
90/91 --> 93/94: all below 50%

[ProfessorMurder]

So I see you are agreeing with me. Video Recoders/Camera did not become "popular/prevalent" until the mid to late 80s. And then there wasn't as many "live" games. There wasn't as many broadcast channels. There wasn't all the outlets today such as youtube/etc.

Someone sounds ignorant. It isn't me. Footage in the 80s was much harder to come by than it is today. Hell, you can get footage on your phone and through twitter/facebook on stuff than you could back then.

Sure you might record 3 hours of footage but to get it all the way across the US to your employer? Or what about overseas? The internet was around back then but it wasn't accessable like it is today.

So yeah, ignorance is not from me.

Game tape was not hard to get for players or news outlets. And why are you implying that you need to send NBA gametape overseas so a guy can breakdown footage?

The players, teams, and coaches had easy access to tons of footage. A lot of coaches and front office people started by cutting footage. A lot of games were recorded on tape rather than film too, which made copying and distributing throughout the organization easier. There were less people analyzing tape, but that was the culture, not technology. There have been scouting reports since sports existed.

[brain drain]

Rolando Blackman:
81 --> 86 (age 26): 4 out of 5 seasons above 50% fg%
86/87 --> 94: never again above 50%

[brain drain]

Mark Aguirre:
81 --> 86: 3 out of 5 seasons above 50% fg%
86/87 --> 94: never again above 50%

[poido123]

Mark Aguirre:
81 --> 86: 3 out of 5 seasons above 50% fg%
86/87 --> 94: never again above 50%

Thanks for copying and pasting someone else's info. Good job, good effort :lol

[brain drain]

Dunno, seems like a talent dilution fairy swept through the NBA betwee 85 and 90 and suddenly diluted the scoring ability of players like Magic, Worthy, Aguirre etc.

WHAT DOES ISH SAY? Did aliens kidnap the offensive abilities?

Did NBA expansion hurt their fragile egos and imair their shot making ability?

[brain drain]

Thanks for copying and pasting someone else's info. Good job, good effort :lol
I'm just trying to dig up the facts. Otherwise people will be arguing solely on the basis of youtube clips or 30 year old memories.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

It would be ignorant to say that defense is not better today. What is defense anyway other than preparation and correct strategy? After a certain amount of time anything that a player can do is documented. We live in an age of basically where everything has been done. everyone knows what to expect. On top of that teams are more athletic.

Therefore Defense is better today.


OTOH Players back then, esp one of the celtics lakers pistons, had a higher general bball IQ and on top of that like someone said their benches were stacked. Vinny Johnson would be a premier scorer 22 ppg in todays game. The teams then knew how to play like a team, had a more gritty mentality, and knew how to win most of all.


In conclusion, defense is indeed better today due to increased amount of information and athelticism. At the same, those teams from back then were stacked with the best and toughest players who knew the game in and out. Those teams in todays game would definitely be a force in todays game and the favorite any year you put them in.

[brain drain]

and on top of that like someone said their benches were stacked. Vinny Johnson would be a premier scorer 22 ppg in todays game.

I seriously doubt that.

Even in 82-83, when Kelly Tripucka was the main scorer of the pistons and Joe Dumars wasn't drafted yet and Laimbeer was only scoring 13.6 ppg, Vinnie Jones never was more than a 3rd string scorer averaging 15.8 ppg. And that was his highest scoring season.

The guy HAD his time and opportunities, and it was during the highest scoring period of NBA history (the Pistons averaged 112.7 ppg), and Vinnie was a 15.8 ppg scorer in his best season.

No reason to think he would score more nowadays.

[brain drain]

Basically, I'd put him somewhere between a poor man's Jason Terry and a rich man's JJ Barea as far as modern day streaky scoring is concerned.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

There have been scouting reports since sports existed.

I said advanced scouting reports. And the access to that and the ease to which the information is accessed has changed in terms of the 80s to today.

It's the same aspect in the News today. There was news in the 80s as well. But the speed at which news is accessed is greater today. The amount of footage is greater today. Scouting was used in the 80s. But it is far greater today than it ever was back then.

To say that it is on par with today's access is ignorant.

[lilgodfather1]

I think in this entire thread I saw the words pace mentioned once or twice. That's the difference in defense, and offense. The offenses ran more, which brings up offensive stats, and lowers the defensive. Everyone knows a fastbreak jam is the most high percentage shot in history, so yes FG% was higher too.

Defenses are better now a days, but it's not to do with some silly stat.

[brain drain]

I said advanced scouting reports. And the access to that and the ease to which the information is accessed has changed in terms of the 80s to today.

It's the same aspect in the News today. There was news in the 80s as well. But the speed at which news is accessed is greater today. The amount of footage is greater today. Scouting was used in the 80s. But it is far greater today than it ever was back then.

To say that it is on par with today's access is ignorant.

The technical possibilities might be a reason, but it doesn't quite fit with the time table imo. Scoring efficiency decreased from 1985/86 onwards and reached its first little plateau (at 46%) after that in 93/94. That was before the internet hat any effect. Then it went further downwards until it reacht 43.7% in 98/99. THAT might have been due to the internet, but I'm not quite sure because that was still in the early days of the WWW.

[brain drain]

I think in this entire thread I saw the words pace mentioned once or twice. That's the difference in defense, and offense. The offenses ran more, which brings up offensive stats, and lowers the defensive. Everyone knows a fastbreak jam is the most high percentage shot in history, so yes FG% was higher too.

Defenses are better now a days, but it's not to do with some silly stat.

But pace wasn't the only thing at play here.


50-51: 83.6 FGA/game. FG%: 35.7%
60-61: 109.4 FGA/game. FG%: 41.5%
70-71: 98.0 FGA/game. FG%: 44.9%
80-81: 88.4 FGA/game. FG%: 48.6%
90-91: 87.2 FGA/game. FG%: 47.4%
00-01: 80.6 FGA/game. FG%: 44.3%
10-11: 81.2 FGA/Game. FG%: 45.9%

The correlation is more complex than higher FGA --> higher FG%

[lilgodfather1]

But pace wasn't the only thing at play here.


50-51: 83.6 FGA/game. FG%: 35.7%
60-61: 109.4 FGA/game. FG%: 41.5%
70-71: 98.0 FGA/game. FG%: 44.9%
80-81: 88.4 FGA/game. FG%: 48.6%
90-91: 87.2 FGA/game. FG%: 47.4%
00-01: 80.6 FGA/game. FG%: 44.3%
10-11: 81.2 FGA/Game. FG%: 45.9%

The correlation is more complex than higher FGA --> higher FG%
Pace has a lot to do with that. Look at the 80-81 they averaged 7 more shots per game, likely mostly fast break opportunities. A 2-1 or 1-0 fast break opportunity is a more efficient shot than a 5-5 shot. Now that's not the only reason obviously, talent has a lot to do with it quite obviously. From the 50's to the 90's the talent improved drastically. From the 90's to now it isn't nearly as pronounced.

[Round Mound]

OK, in order find out whether the change in FG% was more due to defenses or talent dilution / worse players / shooters, I got some data on some players who were drafted in the mid / late eighties. I only tried to chose players with a decent longevity over 1990, so that declining athleticism wouldn't be too much of an issue.
So here it is: FG% of some players drafted in the mid / late 80s:

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4530/fgpct.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/fgpct.png/)

We probably need to ignore the last years of the chart, but the general trend starts too early in these players' careers to be ignored or attributed to aging effects.
To me, that looks like defenses got better starting around '90. We'd probably need more data, but that's my first impression.

Sir Charles at Top in FG% and The Master of the 2-Point FG% Prior to Shaq

6`4 3/4 ft and Dominating the Paint and Mid Range as a PF! Simply :bowdown:

[Round Mound]

Here's another good one:

Magic Johnson, FG%.
79-80 --> 84-85 (he's 25 at that time) never below 53%, last two seasons of that run at 56%.

85-86 & 86-87 (27 at the time) at 52%.

After that, only one season at or above 50%.

What's the explanation for that?

As Magic Aged He Lost Speed and Not Having Prime Kareem from 87 Onwards to Recieve More Double Teaming and Leave Others and Magic Himself for Open Shoots or Result Passes are the Reasons Why Magic`s FG% Lowered. :confusedshrug:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Sir Charles at Top in FG% and The Master of the 2-Point FG% Prior to Shaq

6`4 3/4 ft and Dominating the Paint and Mid Range as a PF! Simply :bowdown:
Barkley's a legit 6'6"

http://www.sportzbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/chuck1.jpg
http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/charles-barkley1.jpg

[Round Mound]

That's why I tried to focus on individual players.
Take a look at Barkley: In his first 8 seasons (until he was 28) he never had a fg% below 54.5.
Then he had one season with 52% fg%. And after that, he would never again have more than 50% fg%. Do you really think that was only because of 3 pointers?

When Charles Left The Sixers He Began Shooting More Threes on the West in Phoneix. The East Side Was Always More Defensive and Had Less Of A Run and Gun Style.

He Increased His 3-Point Attempts when Going to the Suns and Rockets.

84-85: 0.1
85-86: 0.9
86-87: 1.5
87-88: 2.0
88-89: 2.1
89-90: 1.2
90-91: 2.3
91-92: 1.8
92-93: 2.9
93-94: 2.7
94-95: 3.2
95-96: 2.5
96-97: 3.9 *Highest
97-98: 1.2
98-99: 0.6
99-00: 1.3

Though the Last 4 Years He Wasn`t a The Focal Point Scorer but a Role Player.

[Round Mound]

Barkley's a legit 6'6"

http://www.sportzbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/chuck1.jpg
http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/charles-barkley1.jpg

:no:

Thats What You Would Like and Wan`t Which is Different From Reality :confusedshrug:

He is 6`4 3/4 ft or 1.95 mt *Same as MJ and Bryant.

Go Look at the Videos of Games and See Him Stand Next to Guys that Where Legit 6`6 fters or 1.98 mt like Thunder Dan, Chris Mullin, Mark Aguirre, Dennis Rodman etc

http://2daysports.com/img/articles/images/barkley-calls-out-jordan.jpg

http://cdn2.elitedaily.com/elite/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/elite-daily-Michael-Jordan-Charles-Barkley.jpg

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/Class%20of%201986/86-27%20Dennis%20Rodman/dennisrodmancharlesbarkley.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/nba/teamsites-nbateams/release/suns/sites/suns/files/imagecache/suns_standard/manning_barkley_230.jpg

http://radicalruss.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Charles-Barkley-Grant-Hill-USA-Basketball.jpg

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/93-03%20Penny/1995-96%20Penny%20Hardaway/Skybox-Texaco-usa-team.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/290/456/rockets96cos-1_display_image.jpg?1278615833

[CavaliersFTW]

Barkley's a legit 6'6"

http://www.sportzbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/chuck1.jpg
http://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/charles-barkley1.jpg
those cop height charts aren't guaranteed to be accurate at all. You can go on for the rest of your life believing that chart was gospel truth or you could just try listening to Charles himself and the suspicions of others who have met him that called him out on not being 6-6 (Case in point: Chick Hearn calls him out for being "not even 6-5" and Barkley respons "I'm almost 6-5, I'm actually about 6-4 and 3/4's" http://youtu.be/JDz2yGoK_xk?t=1m1s ), as well as sources like the 1992 Olympic training camp that measured him at 6-4 and 5/8ths w/o shoes on. Put 2 and 2 together and it is not unreasonable to believe that the height chart in that pic is completely bogus, and that Barkley is indeed a little bit under 6-5

[MiseryCityTexas]

I'm sorry, but those late 80's champs would murk the current NBA champs. I honestly believe the '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, and '88 Pistons would have their way with the '10 Lakers, '11 Mavs, or '12 Heat. I think it could even end up being borderline embarrassing.


I think both cedric maxwel and kevin mchale can score on dirk inside the paint with ease.

[Money 23]

More like team offenses were better. From ball movement, to fundamentals like shooting, setting picks, true pass first PGs, more efficient scoring inside out with LEGIT big men in the paint.

Everyone knows the late 80s and 90s had the same defensive techniques of say Thibs Celtics and Bulls, but with more physical play.

We're going to act like Riley's Knicks, Heat, Bad Boy Pistons and Van Gundy's Knicks weren't some of the best defensive teams of all-time?

They had the schemes they do now, with thugs and scrappy defenders that were allowed to actually TOUCH people.

[Roundball_Rock]

Individual teams were deeper in the 80's due to their being less teams--but the talent pool overall is deeper now than in the 80's since the NBA is now a global game. How many foreign players were there in 1986?

[Poetry]

How many foreign players were there in 1986?

Foreign players were being drafted, but there was a general misconception that they couldn't hang in the NBA, so many of them either never played, had short careers or were never able to thrive in a league that didn't trust them.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What make more sense that magically coaches forgot how to teach offensive fundamentals and players suddenly lacked offensive talent or rule changes in place made it easier for everyone to score?

:facepalm

Being a hack doesn't make you a great defender it makes you a foul prone goon.

[Money 23]

Defenses with legit defenders, and hacks, and goons is a powerful thing to face.

Thus the Bad Boy Pistons, Riley Knick / Heat being such great defensive teams. Hell, even the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Celtics got physical at times, obviously to a lesser extent though.

Being able to hand check, direct perimeter players from the hip, no soft touch calls, the ability to play games with offensive players psychologically being confident to take the ball to the rim if you have enforcers, thugs and goons protecting the rim ready to knock you on your ass.

It takes more heart to overcome such circumstances and defenses. Hell, Kobe's talked about it a dozen times over the years.

Wishing the league would go back to the more physical rules. Weeds out the fake superstars, the weak from the strong, and develops actual rivalries.

[KG215]

What make more sense that magically coaches forgot how to teach offensive fundamentals and players suddenly lacked offensive talent or rule changes in place made it easier for everyone to score?

:facepalm

Being a hack doesn't make you a great defender it makes you a foul prone goon.
:facepalm

What makes more sense that world class athletes and the best basketball players in the world just all of a sudden learned and figured out how to play defense 50+ years into the NBA's existence? Or that different eras, pace, and other factors doesn't necessarily mean an era that allowed more PPG and higher league-wide FG% was worse defensively than every team from a different era with better league wide defensive numbers

[Deuce Bigalow]

Defenses with legit defenders, and hacks, and goons is a powerful thing to face.

Thus the Bad Boy Pistons, Riley Knick / Heat being such great defensive teams. Hell, even the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Celtics got physical at times, obviously to a lesser extent though.

Being able to hand check, direct perimeter players from the hip, no soft touch calls, the ability to play games with offensive players psychologically being confident to take the ball to the rim if you have enforcers, thugs and goons protecting the rim ready to knock you on your ass.

It takes more heart to overcome such circumstances and defenses. Hell, Kobe's talked about it a dozen times over the years.

Wishing the league would go back to the more physical rules. Weeds out the fake superstars, the weak from the strong, and develops actual rivalries.
And there you go off with these nostalgic opinions. You act like you can get away with everything lol. Jordan was getting touch fouls like everybody else.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:facepalm

What makes more sense that world class athletes and the best basketball players in the world just all of a sudden learned and figured out how to play defense 50+ years into the NBA's existence.

The enforcement of rules change ever year. It didn't require an influx of offensive talent for the league average offensive rating to go from 102.9 to 106.1 from 2004 to 2005. :facepalm

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Defenses with legit defenders, and hacks, and goons is a powerful thing to face.

Thus the Bad Boy Pistons, Riley Knick / Heat being such great defensive teams. Hell, even the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Celtics got physical at times, obviously to a lesser extent though.

Being able to hand check, direct perimeter players from the hip, no soft touch calls, the ability to play games with offensive players psychologically being confident to take the ball to the rim if you have enforcers, thugs and goons protecting the rim ready to knock you on your ass.

It takes more heart to overcome such circumstances and defenses. Hell, Kobe's talked about it a dozen times over the years.

Wishing the league would go back to the more physical rules. Weeds out the fake superstars, the weak from the strong, and develops actual rivalries.

The Bad Boy Pistons were never even the top defensive team in the league during any year of their weaksauce era. :facepalm

[Money 23]

And there you go off with these nostalgic opinions. You act like you can get away with everything lol. Jordan was getting touch fouls like everybody else.
No he wasn't, at the rate MJ drove and got contact even with the amount of calls he got, is miniscule in comparison to superstar calls today.

Thus the reason why EVERYONE flops for calls, instead of playing for buckets. See LeBron flopping. See Wade: Y tu Joey Crawford? Or Kobe yelling "heyyyyy" at the slightest bit of contact.

MJ didn't flop like that or act. Superstars weren't gifted free throws as they are now. What leagues are you watching? When euroleagues and competition in FIBA and Olympic competition are commentating on the once "soft" euroleagues have become more physical than the NBA?

You know there is problems. The NBA is all about being a product and not a sport now. ESPN highlights, upped statistics creates casual fans and boosts attention to the league through "fantasy sports" ... NFL is doing the same thing with their soft streamlined rules.

This isn't nostalgia. You couldn't get away with "anything" but it isn't coincidence what was considered a good hard foul then is reacted to with shock and awe in today's softer league and called a "flagrant foul"

If I'm nostalgic, you're a contemporary blissful moron.

[KG215]

The Bad Boy Pistons were never even the top defensive team in the league during any year of their weaksauce era. :facepalm

80's >>> 00's

[KOBE143]

The "bad boy" Pistons were known as the premiere defensive team of its era. Lets take a look at what they held their opponents to.

Opponents stats
87-88 Pistons: 104.1 PPG/46.7 FG%
88-89 Pistons: 100.8 PPG/44.7 FG%
89-90 Pistons: 98.3 PPG/44.7 FG%

The Pistons in 88-89 ended up winning the championship, their defense was good enough to be ranked 3rd in the league. They were some "bad boys" on the defensive end locking down opponents to 100 points.

Lets compare that to the Mike Antoni Los Angeles Lakers

Beware. Reading below this sentence may be harmful to some posters with 80s/90s nostalgia.

Opponents stats
12-13 Lakers: 100.3 PPG/44.6 FG%

This current defense in this era is good enough for 19th best.
:applause:

exposed!!

[eliteballer]

MJ didn't flop like that or act. Superstars weren't gifted free throws as they are now.

Jordan wasn't gifted calls? EVERYONE used to call out the league on that.:roll:

[Deuce Bigalow]

No he wasn't, at the rate MJ drove and got contact even with the amount of calls he got, is miniscule in comparison to superstar calls today.

This isn't nostalgia. You couldn't get away with "anything" but it isn't coincidence what was considered a good hard foul then is reacted to with shock and awe in today's softer league and called a "flagrant foul"

If I'm nostalgic, you're a contemporary blissful moron.
Refs are clearly more softer. Hard fouls are flagrants. That is blatantly obvious. Howard got ejected for a hard foul just a few days ago and any arguments are techs. But that doesn't have anything to do with defense. Defense is a team working together trying to stop an opponent from scoring. Not how hard you can foul. You can still foul today. And this guy just said that MJ doesn't get superstar calls like today's players. Someone is wrong here....

[KG215]

The enforcement of rules change ever year. It didn't require an influx of offensive talent for the league average offensive rating to go from 102.9 to 106.1 from 2004 to 2005. :facepalm
Whatever you say boss. You're never wrong. :cheers:

[Money 23]

Jordan wasn't gifted calls? EVERYONE used to call out the league on that.:roll:
MJ attacked the rim with reckless abandon, though.

Damn near every star players gets soft touch calls aking to MJ now, with even LESS physical of defense on average. That's the point.

How can you not deny this? MJ wasn't shouting "HEYYYYYY" after someone breathed on him while shooting.

He didn't flop and act like a pathetic euro player.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

"The legacy of the NBA illegal defense rules. Ten years ago, the NBA radically changed its rules governing illegal defense. There is a brief history of some of the rule changes here. (http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/337437-zone-defense-in-the-nba-is-it-good-for-the-game) (Note the link is a bit out of date, and doesn't include the more recent changes to the hand check rules, which have also affected the way the game is played.) For those of you that don't remember much about the NBA of the 1980s and 1990s, the NBA illegal defense rules made help-side defense extremely difficult to accomplish. Any player guarding a defender on the weak side could not be in the "college lane" for more than three seconds, meaning they couldn't really protect the basket until the offensive player had committed to driving to the hoop. This rule had a profound influence on the NBA game of the 1990s. It essentially encouraged a lot of one on one or two on two isolation plays, with as many as three guys basically just standing around on the weak side. "


http://www.burntorangenation.com/2011/7/12/2267645/basketball-evolving-in-different-ecosystems-just-why-are-the-offenses

[Deuce Bigalow]

Percentage of points that came from the freethrows line
'80s: 20.3
'90s: 19.8
'00s: 19.5

[Money 23]

Percentage of points that came from the freethrows line
'80s: 20.3
'90s: 19.8
'00s: 19.5
That takes into account ALL players.

We're talking about superstar calls.

You didn't watch the 2006 NBA Finals? You're going to sit there with a straight face and play like the calls made in the NBA from the 2006 season forward represent the physicality of the game from the late 80s - 2004?

:coleman:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

1979 league average offensive rating: 103.8

1981-82

[Deuce Bigalow]

That takes into account ALL players.

We're talking about superstar calls.

You didn't watch the 2006 NBA Finals? You're going to sit there with a straight face and play like the calls made in the NBA from the 2006 season forward represent the physicality of the game from the late 80s - 2004?

:coleman:
Then Wade in the 2011 Finals: 8.2 FTA per game

:confusedshrug:

[Money 23]

2011 Finals: 8.2 FTA per game

:confusedshrug:
You didn't really answer my question, Deuce.

[Deuce Bigalow]

You didn't really answer my question, Deuce.
2006 was one year though. 07-present isn't the same as the 06 Finals. The NBA isn't giving calls to superstars like 06 Wade now are they? If they did I'm sure we would be seeing threads about it like it was June 06 all over again, even though I wasnt on ISH in 06 but I can imagine.

[Micku]

I wanted to make a thread about this. Not exactly about the overrated defense, but about how the Pistons and Bulls basically changed the way NBA play the game and probably destroyed the 80s offense. There were a couple of articles that said more teams started to play like the Pistons and slow down the pace. The Bulls also had slow pace with the Pistons. The Pistons was actually the slowest pace team when they won the title. I'll probably still make a thread about it, but since you made a thread about the defense, I'll wait for a bit.


To your main topic:

High pacing, lack of 3pt shots, and fast breaks went a long way on the offense back then when the whole league was basically doing that.

Not say that the defense didn't evolved, because it did. But the way they played the offense is completely different of what they do now. There were more team passing and they take more interior shots than now. But the 80s was not the most physical era, that was the 70s. The ruling of limiting hand checking made it easier for the perimeter players of the 80s.

But the defense of the 80s was different. They didn't really guard the long ball mid range shot. They only guard the players who could actually make it.

But were the Pistons and Bulls were the first one to slow pace down? No. And they weren't the only good defensive teams of the 80s. The 76ers had good ones, Bucks, Jazz, and the Celtics. The Pistons tho were the only team that played at slow pace, played some good help defense, and foul the crap out of you and they won despite the lack of talent they had in comparison to the Lakers and Celtics. They were more of a offensive team in the early-mid 80s. That started to change after 86. Chuck Daily and Isiah Thomas thought they needed to be more aggressive, so they adopted a slower pace, more physical, and defensive team approach. Then they became the Bad Boys Pistons, which revolutionize the whole league.

So, I do think the defense evolved. The defense became more complex. But, the offense got worst in comparison to back then. So, you can argue either or. It was a different era, so it's hard to compare because of the different philosophy. The game is very different in 1998 as well, and that was only 15 years ago. Defense was different back then as well. Rules changing.