MJ & Kobe vs Defenses that allow less than 100 points per 100 possessions (<100 DRtg)

[Deuce Bigalow]

Michael Jordan vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'93 ECF vs New York: 32.2 ppg | 6.2 rpg | 7.0 apg | .400 fg% | .400 3p%
'97 ECF vs Miami: 30.2 ppg | 8.0 rpg | 2.6 apg .386 fg% | .118 3p%

Kobe Bryant vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'99 WCSF vs San Antonio: 21.3 ppg | 6.5 rpg | 3.5 apg | .447 fg% | .333 3p%
'00 WCSF vs Phoenix: 21.0 ppg | 3.8 rpg | 3.4 apg | .452 fg% | .154 3p%
'01 WCSF vs Sacramento: 35.0 ppg | 9.0 rpg | 4.3 apg | .473 fg% | .200 3p%
'01 WCF vs San Antonio: 33.3 ppg | 7.0 rpg | 7.0 apg | .514 fg% | .357 3p%
'01 Finals vs Philadelphia: 24.6 ppg | 7.8 rpg | 5.8 apg | .415 fg% | .333 3p%
'02 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.2 ppg | 5.4 rpg | 4.8 apg | .455 fg% | .231 3p%
'02 Finals vs New Jersey: 26.8 ppg | 5.8 rpg | 5.3 apg | .514 fg% | .545 3p%
'03 WCSF vs San Antonio: 32.3 ppg | 5.0 rpg | 3.7 apg | .434 fg% | .441 3p%
'04 WCQF vs Houston: 24.4 ppg | 5.6 rpg | 6.2 apg | .386 fg% | .211 3p%
'04 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.3 ppg | 6.3 rpg | 5.8 apg | .462 fg% | .320 3p%
'04 WCF vs Minnesota: 24.3 ppg | 4.0 rpg | 5.5 apg | .414 fg% | .267 3p%
'04 Finals vs Detroit: 22.6 ppg | 2.8 rpg | 4.4 apg | .381 fg% | .174 3p%
'08 Finals vs Boston: 25.7 ppg | 4.7 rpg | 5.0 apg | .405 fg% | .321 3p%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sSl E
http://www.basketball-reference.com/

[Rysio]

everyone knows jordan is overrated no need for this thread.

[gengiskhan]

everyone knows jordan is overrated no need for this thread.

10 scoring titles
6 NBA rings
6 FMVPs
1 DPOY
1 ROTY
50%FG for Career
30.12 all time scoring leader

now go suck on it SCUMM :coleman:

[juju151111]

everyone knows jordan is overrated no need for this thread.
Yea Mj isn't a god. He just better then everyone else that played in the nba.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

10 scoring titles
6 NBA rings
6 FMVPs
1 DPOY
1 ROTY
50%FG for Career
30.12 all time scoring leader

now go suck on it SCUMM :coleman:

:oldlol: Without a doubt Jordan's ROY trophy is the most celebrated in internet message board history.

[TheMan]

MJ > Kobe

[AlphaWolf24]

10 scoring titles
6 NBA rings
6 FMVPs
1 DPOY
1 ROTY
50%FG for Career
30.12 all time scoring leader

now go suck on it SCUMM :coleman:


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljb5cxKqS11qixleeo1_500.gif


yup...rustled.

[G-Funk]

Yea Mj isn't a god. He just better then everyone else that played in the 90's.
Fixed

[daily]

If you torture numbers long enough they'll tell you anything. This thread is the waterboarding of stats

[OldSchoolBBall]

Kobe Bryant vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg

'08 Finals vs Boston: 25.7 ppg | 4.7 rpg | 5.0 apg | .405 fg% | .321 3p%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sSl E
http://www.basketball-reference.com/

Take out all the series '04 and prior where he had Shaq drawing defenders and that's what you're left with. OP also ignores the fact that Jordan was 34 during that second series vs. Miami, and his entire team shot like garbage (unlike Kobe's '08 Finals, where his team shot significantly better than he did).

OP is mad insecure. :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

SMH. Yet another groupie making a MJ/Kobe defense thread, with the typical ignorant "Kobe faces better defenses!!" rhetoric. Do these guys take a single thread off? :oldlol:

[Mr. Jabbar]

Michael Jordan vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'93 ECF vs New York: 32.2 ppg | 6.2 rpg | 7.0 apg | .400 fg% | .400 3p%
'97 ECF vs Miami: 30.2 ppg | 8.0 rpg | 2.6 apg .386 fg% | .118 3p%

Kobe Bryant vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'99 WCF vs San Antonio: 21.3 ppg | 6.5 rpg | 3.5 apg | .447 fg% | .333 3p%
'00 WCSF vs Phoenix: 21.0 ppg | 3.8 rpg | 3.4 apg | .452 fg% | .154 3p%
'01 WCSF vs Sacramento: 35.0 ppg | 9.0 rpg | 4.3 apg | .473 fg% | .200 3p%
'01 WCF vs San Antonio: 33.3 ppg | 7.0 rpg | 7.0 apg | .514 fg% | .357 3p%
'01 Finals vs Philadelphia: 24.6 ppg | 7.8 rpg | 5.8 apg | .415 fg% | .333 3p%
'02 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.2 ppg | 5.4 rpg | 4.8 apg | .455 fg% | .231 3p%
'02 Finals vs New Jersey: 26.8 ppg | 5.8 rpg | 5.3 apg | .514 fg% | .545 3p%
'03 WCSF vs San Antonio: 32.3 ppg | 5.0 rpg | 3.7 apg | .434 fg% | .441 3p%
'04 WCQF vs Houston: 24.4 ppg | 5.6 rpg | 6.2 apg | .386 fg% | .211 3p%
'04 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.3 ppg | 6.3 rpg | 5.8 apg | .462 fg% | .320 3p%
'04 WCF vs Minnesota: 24.3 ppg | 4.0 rpg | 5.5 apg | .414 fg% | .267 3p%
'04 Finals vs Detroit: 22.6 ppg | 2.8 rpg | 4.4 apg | .381 fg% | .174 3p%
'08 Finals vs Boston: 25.7 ppg | 4.7 rpg | 5.0 apg | .405 fg% | .321 3p%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sSl E
http://www.basketball-reference.com/

ETHER

[TheMan]

Damn, MJ hasn't played ball in a decade and there's tons of threads about him, not a day passes where there isn't a MJ thread in the first page in the NBA forum.

Tells me that MJ was GOAT:bowdown: and people can't stop talking about him and that the Kobe kids are insecure as fvck:oldlol:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/sportatorium/michael%20jordan.jpg

[KG215]

The Kobe stans have gotten more and more insecure lately.

[Mr. Jabbar]

The Kobe stans have gotten more and more insecure lately.

as kobe plays better and better. makes sense...:facepalm

[KG215]

as kobe plays better and better. makes sense...:facepalm
Sorry, just a small typo.

Kobe >>>>>>>> Jordan

:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Cali Syndicate]

Take out all the series '04 and prior where he had Shaq drawing defenders and that's what you're left with. OP also ignores the fact that Jordan was 34 during that second series vs. Miami, and his entire team shot like garbage (unlike Kobe's '08 Finals, where his team shot significantly better than he did).

OP is mad insecure. :oldlol:

:blah

No one has time for context fool!

[Ne 1]

Take out all the series '04 and prior where he had Shaq drawing defenders and that's what you're left with. :

No. Kobe's production was legit, the one benefit he had from playing with Shaq aside from winning was that he wasn't the primary focus of the defense, but this is the most important part, and anyone who watched those Laker teams knows this....

Teams were not playing off of Kobe to double Shaq, the double teams came from the other positions more often than not. Kobe was NOT just getting spoon fed open shots, if anything, he directly created for Shaq more with his penetration. Kobe's points didn't come easily, and he provided more than just scoring.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Take out all the series '04 and prior where he had Shaq drawing defenders and that's what you're left with. OP also ignores the fact that Jordan was 34 during that second series vs. Miami, and his entire team shot like garbage (unlike Kobe's '08 Finals, where his team shot significantly better than he did).

OP is mad insecure. :oldlol:
Even if you do that, it's still a higher FG% than Jordan :oldlol:
And who cares if Jordan was 34? He was in his 12th season and did he even approach 40k total minutes? :oldlol:
Kobe in '99 was 20 years old, I didn't remove that.

Also his team shot better than him in the '97 series vs Miami.

http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png

Pippen, Harper, Longley, Dele, Beuchler, and Brown shot a higher FG% than Jordan in that series. :roll:
Jordan shot .387%
Rest of team shot .403%, and every player that took a 3 shot a higher 3pt% than Jordan.

[TheMan]

6-24

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Lebron vs Boston 2012

33.6 ppg 11.0 rpg 3.9 apg 52.7% fg

GOAT domination of defensive team with drtg < 100

:bowdown:

Lebron = goat

OP logic

[Deuce Bigalow]

6-24
5-19

[STATUTORY]

10 scoring titles
6 NBA rings
6 FMVPs
1 DPOY
1 ROTY
50%FG for Career
30.12 all time scoring leader

now go suck on it SCUMM :coleman:
:rolleyes:

Was MJ voted Prom King too?

what does a bunch of popularity awards have to do with basketball?

[TheMan]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4101/4920970629_7fb8758dbc_z.jpg

[DuMa]

1 MVP :lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Lebron vs Boston 2012

33.6 ppg 11.0 rpg 3.9 apg 52.7% fg

GOAT domination of defensive team with drtg < 100

:bowdown:

Lebron = goat

OP logic
This doesn't mean MJ isn't GOAT. That isn't my logic.

BTW here are the rest

22.0 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 6.8 apg, 5.8 tpg, .356 fg%, .200 3p% in '07 Finals vs San Antonio
26.7 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 7.6 apg, 5.3 tpg, .355 fg%, .231 3p% in '08 ECSF vs Boston

[eliteballer]

More rings than KG and LeBron put together>>>an award voted on by sports reporters

[Deuce Bigalow]

1 MVP :lol
What's so funny?
Shaq, Hakeem, Barkley, KG, Oscar also have 1 MVP. That's some pretty good company.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

This doesn't mean MJ isn't GOAT. That isn't my logic.

BTW here are the rest

22.0 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 6.8 apg, 5.8 tpg, .356 fg%, .200 3p% in '07 Finals vs San Antonio
26.7 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 7.6 apg, 5.3 tpg, .355 fg%, .231 3p% in '08 ECSF vs Boston
Why make this thread then? if you're not trying to say kobe > MJ.

Btw out of curiosity is there a list of team drtg for this year?

[TheMan]

More rings than KG and LeBron put together>>>an award voted on by sports reporters
Did LeBron retire? Why am I the last to know?:facepalm

[Cali Syndicate]

Why make this thread then? if you're not trying to say kobe > MJ.

Btw out of curiosity is there a list of team drtg for this year?

because everyone hates Kobe and thinks MJ is God.

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4101/4920970629_7fb8758dbc_z.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6825/game5vlakersearn15thtit.jpg

http://i1.hoopchina.com.cn/user/267/3117267/12768411947cb05.jpg

[Deuce Bigalow]

because everyone hates Kobe and thinks MJ is God.
And when he faces defenses that are on the level that Kobe faced, he shoots .400% or below.

[TheMan]

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6825/game5vlakersearn15thtit.jpg

http://i1.hoopchina.com.cn/user/267/3117267/12768411947cb05.jpg
http://lakers.topbuzz.com/gallery/d/270322-3/Pau+Gasol+embraces+the+NBA+Championship+trophy.jpg

[Deuce Bigalow]

Why make this thread then? if you're not trying to say kobe > MJ.

Btw out of curiosity is there a list of team drtg for this year?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2013.html

Pacers and the Grizz are the only teams with less than 100 DRtg.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2013.html

Pacers and the Grizz are the only teams with less than 100 DRtg.
Thanks.

Thunder leading the league in ft/fga by a huge margin :lol

[Deuce Bigalow]

Thanks.

Thunder leading the league in ft/fga by a huge margin :lol
Damn :lol No surprise.

[TheMan]

because everyone hates Kobe and thinks MJ is God.
Naw, we don't hate Kobe, we hate the overrating of Kobe by his stans...Kobe is a great player and top 10 GOAT but he's not as good or better than Jordan.

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's not a completely invalid topic. It is something worth discussing when comparing Jordan and Kobe and the different eras they played in. And I've stated many times that Jordan was a flat out better player than Kobe.

But on the other side, it depends on how much you read into these numbers. There are a lot of factors. I do believe one was the game slowing down and shifting focus to defense more, which was already happening at the end of Jordan's Bulls career, and well before to some degree with Detroit and NY, though the transition hadn't fully been made yet. But the other end of that is that some of this came at the expense of quality offenses with more of a focus on isos, less post play, more 3s, less emphasis on mid-range play or easy transition opportunities. All of those are as big of a factor as better defenses were. And there was definitely more rim protection on average during Jordan's era, just like the defensive schemes have been more advanced in Kobe's era.

Point is, it's not as simple as the numbers. Some of those Spurs, Pistons and Celtic teams stack up well against any defense Jordan faced. And others were undeniably great defensive teams such as the '01 Sixers, and even a team without much size such as the 2000 Suns were an excellent defensive team after Skiles took over.

But then there are teams like the Kings. Those Kings teams were better defensively than they were given credit for. I always thought the perception of European players, Vlade's flopping and the Kings reputation as a fast-paced offensive team caused people to think they were worse than they really were. But there's no question that Jordan faced a number of defenses that were better than Sacramento. This is apparent just from watching the games. Hell, the '92 Knicks aren't listed and can anyone watch them and conclude Sacramento was better defensively? Granted, the Knicks numbers are down that year because it took time to adjust to Riley's schemes, but that's another factor not shown in their season defensive rating. And that's why you have to look a lot deeper.


No. Kobe's production was legit, the one benefit he had from playing with Shaq aside from winning was that he wasn't the primary focus of the defense, but this is the most important part, and anyone who watched those Laker teams knows this....

Teams were not playing off of Kobe to double Shaq, the double teams came from the other positions more often than not. Kobe was NOT just getting spoon fed open shots, if anything, he directly created for Shaq more with his penetration. Kobe's points didn't come easily, and he provided more than just scoring.


All true.


Even if you do that, it's still a higher FG% than Jordan :oldlol:
And who cares if Jordan was 34? He was in his 12th season and did he even approach 40k total minutes? :oldlol:
Kobe in '99 was 20 years old, I didn't remove that.

34 is still 34, though. It's old for the NBA and Jordan was not in his prime. Not that Kobe was either for a lot of those series.


Michael Jordan vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'93 ECF vs New York: 32.2 ppg | 6.2 rpg | 7.0 apg | .400 fg% | .400 3p%
'97 ECF vs Miami: 30.2 ppg | 8.0 rpg | 2.6 apg .386 fg% | .118 3p%

Kobe Bryant vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'99 WCF vs San Antonio: 21.3 ppg | 6.5 rpg | 3.5 apg | .447 fg% | .333 3p%
'00 WCSF vs Phoenix: 21.0 ppg | 3.8 rpg | 3.4 apg | .452 fg% | .154 3p%
'01 WCSF vs Sacramento: 35.0 ppg | 9.0 rpg | 4.3 apg | .473 fg% | .200 3p%
'01 WCF vs San Antonio: 33.3 ppg | 7.0 rpg | 7.0 apg | .514 fg% | .357 3p%
'01 Finals vs Philadelphia: 24.6 ppg | 7.8 rpg | 5.8 apg | .415 fg% | .333 3p%
'02 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.2 ppg | 5.4 rpg | 4.8 apg | .455 fg% | .231 3p%
'02 Finals vs New Jersey: 26.8 ppg | 5.8 rpg | 5.3 apg | .514 fg% | .545 3p%
'03 WCSF vs San Antonio: 32.3 ppg | 5.0 rpg | 3.7 apg | .434 fg% | .441 3p%
'04 WCQF vs Houston: 24.4 ppg | 5.6 rpg | 6.2 apg | .386 fg% | .211 3p%
'04 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.3 ppg | 6.3 rpg | 5.8 apg | .462 fg% | .320 3p%
'04 WCF vs Minnesota: 24.3 ppg | 4.0 rpg | 5.5 apg | .414 fg% | .267 3p%
'04 Finals vs Detroit: 22.6 ppg | 2.8 rpg | 4.4 apg | .381 fg% | .174 3p%
'08 Finals vs Boston: 25.7 ppg | 4.7 rpg | 5.0 apg | .405 fg% | .321 3p%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sSl E
http://www.basketball-reference.com/

[Smoke117]

Numbers don't tell the whole story. Jordan was doubled and tripled on almost every single possession vs the Knicks in 93. In the end it failed because it just allowed Pippen to go off on them.

[qrich]

because everyone hates Kobe and thinks MJ is God.

No, they just hate stans like the OP who try to shove Kobe down everyone's throat and anyone who dares criticize him is automatically an ignorant hater. When, the reality of it is, most of these stans are the insecure haters themselves.

[rmt]

Michael Jordan vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'93 ECF vs New York: 32.2 ppg | 6.2 rpg | 7.0 apg | .400 fg% | .400 3p%
'97 ECF vs Miami: 30.2 ppg | 8.0 rpg | 2.6 apg .386 fg% | .118 3p%

Kobe Bryant vs Defenses with better than 100 DRtg
'99 WCF vs San Antonio: 21.3 ppg | 6.5 rpg | 3.5 apg | .447 fg% | .333 3p%
'00 WCSF vs Phoenix: 21.0 ppg | 3.8 rpg | 3.4 apg | .452 fg% | .154 3p%
'01 WCSF vs Sacramento: 35.0 ppg | 9.0 rpg | 4.3 apg | .473 fg% | .200 3p%
'01 WCF vs San Antonio: 33.3 ppg | 7.0 rpg | 7.0 apg | .514 fg% | .357 3p%
'01 Finals vs Philadelphia: 24.6 ppg | 7.8 rpg | 5.8 apg | .415 fg% | .333 3p%
'02 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.2 ppg | 5.4 rpg | 4.8 apg | .455 fg% | .231 3p%
'02 Finals vs New Jersey: 26.8 ppg | 5.8 rpg | 5.3 apg | .514 fg% | .545 3p%
'03 WCSF vs San Antonio: 32.3 ppg | 5.0 rpg | 3.7 apg | .434 fg% | .441 3p%
'04 WCQF vs Houston: 24.4 ppg | 5.6 rpg | 6.2 apg | .386 fg% | .211 3p%
'04 WCSF vs San Antonio: 26.3 ppg | 6.3 rpg | 5.8 apg | .462 fg% | .320 3p%
'04 WCF vs Minnesota: 24.3 ppg | 4.0 rpg | 5.5 apg | .414 fg% | .267 3p%
'04 Finals vs Detroit: 22.6 ppg | 2.8 rpg | 4.4 apg | .381 fg% | .174 3p%
'08 Finals vs Boston: 25.7 ppg | 4.7 rpg | 5.0 apg | .405 fg% | .321 3p%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sSl E
http://www.basketball-reference.com/

Pity MJ didn't have Shaq drawing double teams.

[DatAsh]

More than anything I'm just amazed at Jordan's longevity on the defensive end. He led his 03' Wizards to a better defensive rating than he and Pippen combined led the Bulls to in 91'.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Why are people still comparing MJ to Kobe? Its like comparing Kobe to Jordan Crawford lol, not even on the same level. Seriously everyone knows Kobe is just a failed replica of MJ, they may look similar but the quality aint even comparable.
:facepalm

[Deuce Bigalow]

Why are people still comparing MJ to Kobe? Its like comparing Kobe to Jordan Crawford lol, not even on the same level. Seriously everyone knows Kobe is just a failed replica of MJ, they may look similar but the quality aint even comparable.
:facepalm
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/mp/rLplGvCvwMxl.jpg

http://nyc.barstoolsports.com/files/2012/07/Screen-shot-2012-07-18-at-9.55.52-AM-480x297.png

[DonDadda59]

First time I'm seeing this bullshit since the OP linked it to me in another thread. According to the flawed stat that is the basis of his ridiculous argument, the early-mid 70s was by far the greatest defensive era in NBA history. Odd since I've been led to believe that was a 'weak era'. :confusedshrug:

Just look at the '73-'74 season alone:

1. Chicago Bulls- 93.6
2. Milwaukee Bucks- 93.6
3. Detroit Pistons- 93.8
4. Capital Bullets- 94.2
5. New York Knicks- 94.7
6. Boston Celtics- 95.1
7. Los Angeles Lakers- 96.6
8. Golden State Warriors- 98.4
9. Atlanta Hawks- 99
10. Philadelphia 76ers- 99

So is it safe to assume that Bob McAdoo, Pistol Pete, and Kareem would average 40-45 PPG today and Kobe wouldn't be able to put up 15 PPG on 35% shooting in '73-'74? DRTG says YES.

Well done OP, I now see the light :applause:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Dondadda :oldlol:

Might as well post 50's numbers too to prove your point :lol

[DonDadda59]

Dondadda :oldlol:

Might as well post 50's numbers too to prove your point :lol

Hey, if the DRTGs are lower than 100 that means it was a great defensive era right?

Don't make me do this to you. :(

[Deuce Bigalow]

Hey, if the DRTGs are lower than 100 that means it was a great defensive era right?

Don't make me do this to you. :(
The league doesn't average close to a 99 or lower DRTG in any season during the modern era.

[DonDadda59]

The league doesn't average close to a 99 or lower DRTG in any season during the modern era.

Your point being? :confusedshrug:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Your point being? :confusedshrug:
Only a handful of teams had a below 100 drtg, with many seasons of not having any team with a below 100 drtg since 1979-80. So what you said about an era having of a below 100 drtg means great defense doesn't make sense because league averages are not near that number.

[DonDadda59]

Only a handful of teams had a below 100 drtg, with many seasons of not having any team with a below 100 drtg since 1979-80. So what you said about an era having of a below 100 drtg means great defense doesn't make sense because league averages are not near that number.

So you're saying that DRTG isn't a reliable measure of how great a defensive team is and doesn't take into account many, many factors? Hmmm, fascinating.

Hey, does DRTG take into account defensive rules such as handchecking and defensive 3 second violations?

[Deuce Bigalow]

So you're saying that DRTG isn't a reliable measure of how great a defensive team is and doesn't take into account many, many factors? Hmmm, fascinating.

Hey, does DRTG take into account defensive rules such as handchecking and defensive 3 second violations?
Whhhhhat? Where did you get this from? Holy shit dude :lol
Anyways..speaking about the hand checking, '98-2004 had the lowest DRtg, TS%, eFG%, and PPS since the '80 season (modern era). Then since then the numbers have gone up so there is a clear indication of something. The numbers from 05-present are at the 80s-mid 90s numbers now. DRTG is not the only stat- TS%, eFG%, and PPS are closely associated with DRTG numbers.

[fpliii]

So you're saying that DRTG isn't a reliable measure of how great a defensive team is and doesn't take into account many, many factors? Hmmm, fascinating.

Hey, does DRTG take into account defensive rules such as handchecking and defensive 3 second violations?

I'm not trying to force my stat on you guys, but look at their respective opposition in the conference finals/NBA Finals:

Jordan:

1989 DET - 104.7 DRtg (-1.2 z-score)
1990 DET - 103.5 (-1.7)
1991 DET - 104.6 (-1.2) / LAL 105.0 (-1.0)
1992 CLE - 108.2 (0.0) / POR 104.2 (-1.6)
1993 NYK - 99.7 (-2.9) / PHO 106.7 (-0.4)
1996 ORL - 106.9 (-0.2) / SEA 102.1 (-1.8)
1997 MIA - 100.6 (-1.7) / UTA 104.0 (-0.7)
1998 IND - 101.6 (-0.9) / UTA 105.4 (0.1)

Kobe:

1998 UTA - 105.4 DRtg (0.1 z-score)
2000 POR - 100.8 (-1.0) / IND 103.6 (-0.1)
2001 SAS - 98.0 (-1.7) / PHI 98.9 (-1.4)
2002 SAC - 101.1 (-1.2) / NJN 99.5 (-1.8)
2004 MIN - 99.7 (-0.8) / DET 95.4 (-2.0), their DRtg improved drastically with Sheed
2008 SAS - 101.8 (-1.8) / BOS 98.9 (-2.7)
2009 DEN - 106.8 (-0.4) / ORL 101.9 (-1.9)
2010 PHO - 110.2 (0.8) / BOS 103.8 (-1.2)

the numbers in parentheses are how the teams compare to the league average that season (again, in # of standard deviations from the mean).

[Deuce Bigalow]

NBA League Averages

80's (1979-80 to 1988-89)
D/ORtg: 106.9
TS%: .538
eFG%: .491
PPS: 1.230
FTA/FGA: .328

90's (1989-90 to 1998-99)
D/ORtg: 107.0
TS%: .534
eFG%: .488
PPS: 1.219
FTA/FGA: .310

00's (1999-00 to 2008-09)
D/ORtg: 105.3
TS%: .529
eFG%: .484
PPS: 1.202
FTA/FGA: .311

1997-98 to 2003-04
D/ORtg: 103.7
TS%: .519
eFG%: .474
PPS: 1.180
FTA/FGA: .309

2004-05 to 2011-12
D/ORtg: 106.8
TS%: .538
eFG%: .495
PPS: 1.223
FTA/FGA: .310

As you can see DRtg is correlated with all the other measures of efficiency - TS%, eFG%, & PPS. And you can see that the handchecking rule made an impact on DRtg.

[fpliii]

NBA League Averages

80's (1979-80 to 1988-89)
D/ORtg: 106.9
TS%: .538
eFG%: .491
PPS: 1.230
FTA/FGA: .328

90's (1989-90 to 1998-99)
D/ORtg: 107.0
TS%: .534
eFG%: .488
PPS: 1.219
FTA/FGA: .310

00's (1999-00 to 2008-09)
D/ORtg: 105.3
TS%: .529
eFG%: .484
PPS: 1.202
FTA/FGA: .311

1997-98 to 2003-04
D/ORtg: 103.7
TS%: .519
eFG%: .474
PPS: 1.180
FTA/FGA: .309

2004-05 to 2011-12
D/ORtg: 106.8
TS%: .538
eFG%: .495
PPS: 1.223
FTA/FGA: .310

As you can see DRtg is correlated with all the other measures of efficiency - TS%, eFG%, & PPS. And you can see that the handchecking rule made an impact on DRtg.

:cheers:

Which season did they start allowing zone defenses (I think it was 01-02)? Can you split before and after (as in 01-02 to the present)?

[Deuce Bigalow]

:cheers:

Which season did they start allowing zone defenses (I think it was 01-02)? Can you split before and after (as in 01-02 to the present)?
2001-02 to 2011-12
D/ORtg: 106.2
TS%: .534
eFG%: .491
PPS: 1.213
FTA/FGA: .307

[fpliii]

2001-02 to 2011-12
D/ORtg: 106.2
TS%: .534
eFG%: .491
PPS: 1.213
FTA/FGA: .307

Good stuff, thanks.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Good stuff, thanks.
Oh forgot to do the before. I'll add that later...
1979-80 to 2000-01.

[Glide2keva]

And all of these so called advanced stats mean about as much as PER which is absolutely nothing.

Watch some games.

[Nevaeh]

I'm not trying to force my stat on you guys, but look at their respective opposition in the conference finals/NBA Finals:

Jordan:

1989 DET - 104.7 DRtg (-1.2 z-score)
1990 DET - 103.5 (-1.7)
1991 DET - 104.6 (-1.2) / LAL 105.0 (-1.0)
1992 CLE - 108.2 (0.0) / POR 104.2 (-1.6)
1993 NYK - 99.7 (-2.9) / PHO 106.7 (-0.4)
1996 ORL - 106.9 (-0.2) / SEA 102.1 (-1.8)
1997 MIA - 100.6 (-1.7) / UTA 104.0 (-0.7)
1998 IND - 101.6 (-0.9) / UTA 105.4 (0.1)

Kobe:

1998 UTA - 105.4 DRtg (0.1 z-score)
2000 POR - 100.8 (-1.0) / IND 103.6 (-0.1)
2001 SAS - 98.0 (-1.7) / PHI 98.9 (-1.4)
2002 SAC - 101.1 (-1.2) / NJN 99.5 (-1.8)
2004 MIN - 99.7 (-0.8) / DET 95.4 (-2.0), their DRtg improved drastically with Sheed
2008 SAS - 101.8 (-1.8) / BOS 98.9 (-2.7)
2009 DEN - 106.8 (-0.4) / ORL 101.9 (-1.9)
2010 PHO - 110.2 (0.8) / BOS 103.8 (-1.2)

the numbers in parentheses are how the teams compare to the league average that season (again, in # of standard deviations from the mean).

And Kobe wasn't even the defensive focal point against any of the bolded teams listed, Shaq was. Stop comparing a sidekick to another Player who was the main "go to guy".

(No offense to you, fplii, because you bring knowledge, but this will always be the biggest difference between MJ and KB.

[guy]

NBA League Averages

80's (1979-80 to 1988-89)
D/ORtg: 106.9
TS%: .538
eFG%: .491
PPS: 1.230
FTA/FGA: .328

90's (1989-90 to 1998-99)
D/ORtg: 107.0
TS%: .534
eFG%: .488
PPS: 1.219
FTA/FGA: .310

00's (1999-00 to 2008-09)
D/ORtg: 105.3
TS%: .529
eFG%: .484
PPS: 1.202
FTA/FGA: .311

1997-98 to 2003-04
D/ORtg: 103.7
TS%: .519
eFG%: .474
PPS: 1.180
FTA/FGA: .309

2004-05 to 2011-12
D/ORtg: 106.8
TS%: .538
eFG%: .495
PPS: 1.223
FTA/FGA: .310

As you can see DRtg is correlated with all the other measures of efficiency - TS%, eFG%, & PPS. And you can see that the handchecking rule made an impact on DRtg.

So they scored a whopping 1.6-1.7 more points per 100 possessions in the 80s and 90s then they did in the 00s.

Good lord, would Jordan have even been able to survive in that league?

[Calabis]

Whhhhhat? Where did you get this from? Holy shit dude :lol
Anyways..speaking about the hand checking, '98-2004 had the lowest DRtg, TS%, eFG%, and PPS since the '80 season (modern era). Then since then the numbers have gone up so there is a clear indication of something. The numbers from 05-present are at the 80s-mid 90s numbers now. DRTG is not the only stat- TS%, eFG%, and PPS are closely associated with DRTG numbers.

How is it that the lowest DRating 98-04 are also when the league slowed down and teams had less possessions?

http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/possesions-per-game-table.png

If the teams that play at the fastest pace are also scoring the most effectively, then perhaps we can expect more teams to adopt a faster style of play. Conversely, if teams that play at a slower pace are more effective, then we can assume that the Phoenix Suns are an anomaly whose success comes from a collection of exceptional personnel rather than their fast paced style, and that basketball will continue to trend towards a slower pace. To measure this, we will look at how a team’s Offensive Efficiency (number of points scored per 100 possessions) relates to their Pace Factor (number of possessions used per game):

Category Pace Factor Offensive Efficiency
League 94.6 103.4
15 Fastest 96.5 104.1
15 Slowest 92.6 102.7
10 Fastest 97.4 104.4
10 Slowest 91.9 103.1
5 Fastest 99.0 106.2
5 Slowest 91.3 102.7

So what does this data tell us? The average offensive efficiency in the NBA this season is 103.4. The simplest measurement would be to simply divide up the 15 fastest teams and compare them to the 15 slowest teams in terms of average offensive efficiency. So far this season, the 15 fastest teams average an offensive efficiency of 104.1. The 15 slowest average an offensive efficiency of 102.7. Meaning: on the whole, the faster teams have been the more effective ones. This difference becomes even clearer when we break the league into three groups: the 10 fastest teams, the 10 slowest, and the 10 in the middle. The 10 fastest score at a rate of 104.4; the 10 middle teams score 103.1; and the 10 slowest score 102.8. When one measures the top 5 fastest versus the bottom 5, this difference becomes even more astounding. The 5 fastest score 106.2 points per 100 possessions; the 5 slowest score 102.7. This is a difference of 3.5 points per 100 possessions, an enormous gap! And this is despite the fact that two of the more effective offenses, Dallas’ and Detroit’s, are among the five slowest in the league.

This gap is not a one year anomaly either. Faster offenses were slightly more efficient than the slower ones in 2004-05 (by only a slight margin: 0.03 points per 100 possessions). In 2005-06, this gap increased to 0.80. This year, the gap is up to 1.4. This means that, rather than shrinking, the benefits to be gained from a faster paced offense are actually increasing.

Another way to examine the problem is to try to look at what kind of tradeoffs a team can expect to reap based on the pace at which it plays. By creating a linear trendline, we can chart the relation of Pace Factor to Offensive Efficiency (albeit at the cost of removing all other factors). So far this season, the average NBA team uses 95.6 possessions per game and scores 103.4 points per 100 possessions. But a team that plays a faster pace can expect to score more than this. All other factors being equal, a team that uses 98 possessions per game can expect to score 104.7 points per 100 possessions. A team that uses 101 possessions sees their expected Offensive Efficiency jump to 105.5. Conversely, a team that uses only 92 possessions per game, all factors being equal, can only expect to score 102.6 points per 100 possessions.



But let me guess pace only matters when it comes to Offense and helps inflate Jordans numbers, but pace can not effect Defense and help decrease points in a game that has slowed down, with teams having less opportunities to score? SMH

[tpols]

^Yea but can't it be explained as..

Better defenses-->harder to get a good shot-->more shot clock used trying to get a good shot-->slower pace.

If a team wants to slow their own offense to a crawl to focus on getting back and set on defense, it will force any fast paced team into a tougher time getting easy buckets and good shots.. Which means they will spend more time trying to find ways to score.. Lowering their pace.

It's common sense that high possessions means more easy buckets and early shot clock opportunities.. Which means ineffective defenses. Offenses didn't get worse from the 90s to the 00s.Defenses just became more and more a team philosophy starting in the early 90s . Like a football league going from a fast paced passing league to a slow running one focused on field position and wearing the opponent out.

[Deuce Bigalow]

You make some good points, but you are using the post hand checking era.

Let's take a look at the ORtg when the league had the same amount of possessions per game for both teams.

Year Possesions ORtg
1995: 182.4 108.3
2000: 182.6 104.1

That is the only year the possessions for both teams were close before 05.

I'll add another one that is within 1.2 possessions of both teams.

1996: 180.1 107.6
2001: 178.9 103.0

[guy]

There's literally a difference of less then 2 in DRTG between the 80s/90s and the 00s/10s. Debating over any change in defense this might indicate is completely stupid cause its not significant at all. The fact that its almost always Kobe fans that make such a big deal about this goes to show how desperate they are to push this agenda of him being closer to Jordan. For whatever reason, we never see this brought up in any other topic :confusedshrug:

[Calabis]

You make some good points, but you are using the post hand checking era.

Let's take a look at the ORtg when the league had the same amount of possessions per game for both teams.

Year Possesions ORtg
1995: 182.4 108.3
2000: 182.6 104.1

That is the only year the possessions for both teams were close before 05.

I'll add another one that is within 1.2 possessions of both teams.

1996: 180.1 107.6
2001: 178.9 103.0

You have to take into account the type of game that was played...today is a perimeter based game, more three's and long twos, tgends to equal more wasted possessions, less free throws. This doesn't have to do with EFG%, because todays guys shoot the ball just as good, but it has to do with one era set on getting the ball to the interior and higher % mid range-shots/more FTA compared to a era that hoist the three ball a ton, not drawing fouls

From older post:

The league is scoring more than 200 points per game (200.01 to be precise) for the first time since the 1994-95 season. But that's more about pace than offensive efficiency. At 95.2 possessions per team per 48 minutes, this is the fastest pace the league has played at in the last 10 years. Efficiency is actually down from last season as the league is scoring 104.2 points per 100 possessions, down from 105.4 in 2008-09.

Along with the dip in 3-point percentage, the mid-range game continues to fade. The percentage of mid-range points (points not scored at the line, in the paint or beyond the arc) is down to just 20.6 percent. Points in the paint are higher than they've been since the league started tracking them in the 2000-01 season. Those baskets account for 41.7 percent of all points this season, up from 40.1 percent a year ago.(So much for this zone myth of keeping perimeter guys out of the lanes)

Scoring from the mid-range area isn't a trend that good offensive teams have. Chicago scores 26.9 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 27th offensively. Detroit scores 26.6 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 26th offensively. Dallas (25.2 percent, 10th) and Portland (24.9 percent, seventh) go against the grain, thanks to the shooting of Dirk Nowitzki and LaMarcus Aldridge.

Article from 2004: We'll begin with playing slower, which teams have become a little too good at during the David Stern era. In '84-85, the average NBA team used 104.8 possessions in a 48-minute game. By last year, the league had come to a screeching halt, using just 92.0 possessions per game. NBA teams have nearly 13 chances a game fewer than they did two decades ago. In other words, the biggest reason for the 17-point decrease in scoring isn't due to bad shooting, bad passing, changes in officiating or even the oft-cited increase in high-school aged kids entering the league. The main reason that offense has declined so much is because teams have stopped running. The change in pace alone accounts for 76.2 percent of the decline in scoring since '84-85. If the league reverted to the same pace it played at two decades ago, teams would average about 106.7 points a game.

While a slower pace is the main culprit in lower scores, that doesn't let offenses off the hook. Regardless of the speed with which the game is played, teams have become less efficient on the offensive end. In fact, even after we adjust for the fewer number of possessions teams use, there's still a 4.1 points-per-game difference that results from teams getting less out of each trip down the floor. This is noteworthy since the increased use of the 3-pointer should have produced the opposite effect.

1984-85 2003-04 Change
Points per game 110.8 93.4 -17.4
Possessions/game 104.8 92.0 -12.8
Points/possession 1.05 1.01 -.04
Field-goal pct. 49.1 43.9 -5.2
Free-throw pct. 76.4 75.2 -1.2
3-point pct. 28.1 34.7 +6.6
Off. Rebound pct. 32.9 28.7 -4.2
FTA/FGA .330 .303 -.207
Turnovers/possession .169 .154 -.015

Offenses are actually quite a bit better than those of the past when it comes to holding onto the ball. Teams turned the ball over on 16.9 percent of their possessions two decades ago, but did so just 15.4 percent of the time in '03-04. Since teams score about 1.2 points on each possession without a turnover, the difference adds about 1.9 points per game to offenses. The cause of the turnover decline is no mystery -- with teams running less, they have fewer chances for open-court miscues.

But those gains are exactly offset by a decline in offensive rebounding. In '84-85, offenses grabbed the board on 32.9 percent of missed shots, but by '03-04 that had declined to 28.7 percent. That difference has cost offenses 2.0 points per game, and it probably results from 3-point shooters being spaced too far away from the basket to have a prayer of getting an offensive board.

However, that still leaves the lion's share of the responsibility in decreased offensive efficiency at the doorstep of a common complaint: Declining shooting. Since '84-85, field-goal percentages have sunk roughly in proportion to Billy Squier's albums sales, from 49.1 percent to 43.9 percent last season. Sharp minds in the audience will quickly note that the 3-pointer is a much more prevalent part of modern offenses (teams try more than five times as many as they did two decades ago), so we should expect field-goal percentages to be lower in return for the greater payoff. Yet even allowing for the rise of the 3-pointer, shooting is still in the dumpster. Teams averaged 0.99 points for each field-goal attempt in 1984-85, but just 0.94 last season. That five-hundreths of a percentage point difference is enough to subtract 2.9 points a game from offenses.

That goes to underscore that the 3-pointer has, on balance, not had much of an effect. On the one hand, players shoot the long bomb much more accurately than twenty years ago -- improving from 28.1 percent to 34.7 percent -- which has added 1.9 points per game to scoring.

But there's a hidden cost to all of those 3s. Because they're bombing away instead of going to the rim, teams are getting to the line much less often. Teams took 0.33 free-throws per field-goal attempt back then, but only 0.30 last season, a change that cost teams about 1.7 points a game -- giving back nearly all of the difference from the increase in 3-point accuracy.

Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.

[Calabis]

There's literally a difference of less then 2 in DRTG between the 80s/90s and the 00s/10s. Debating over any change in defense this might indicate is completely stupid cause its not significant at all. The fact that its almost always Kobe fans that make such a big deal about this goes to show how desperate they are to push this agenda of him being closer to Jordan. For whatever reason, we never see this brought up in any other topic :confusedshrug:

Jon Barry, Bruce Bowen, Allen Houston, Jalen Rose, Reggie Miller, Grant Hill,....are all guys who guarded both guys, they all have the same answer....MJ is the hardest player they ever had to guard

But somehow Kobe can succeed in this era and Jordan can't :confusedshrug:

[guy]

Jon Barry, Bruce Bowen, Allen Houston, Jalen Rose, Reggie Miller, Grant Hill,....are all guys who guarded both guys, they all have the same answer....MJ is the hardest player they ever had to guard

But somehow Kobe can succeed in this era and Jordan can't :confusedshrug:

I didn't know they all said that. And the funny thing most of those players only played Jordan after his 1st retirement and didn't even see him in his 20s, and also played Kobe at his peak.



Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.

And the Bulls' pace from 85-98 is 94.3 and the Lakers pace from 00-13 is 92.5. Not much of a difference at all. A less then 2 difference in both DRTG and pace, and you're probably talking about less then a 1 point difference in Jordan's career average if he played in this era so its completely stupid that people assume they would be around Kobe's instead.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Jon Barry, Bruce Bowen, Allen Houston, Jalen Rose, Reggie Miller, Grant Hill,....are all guys who guarded both guys, they all have the same answer....MJ is the hardest player they ever had to guard

But somehow Kobe can succeed in this era and Jordan can't :confusedshrug:
Where did I say he couldn't succeed in this era?

[fpliii]

And Kobe wasn't even the defensive focal point against any of the bolded teams listed, Shaq was. Stop comparing a sidekick to another Player who was the main "go to guy".

(No offense to you, fplii, because you bring knowledge, but this will always be the biggest difference between MJ and KB.

Oh, I'm not looking to compare the two of them, just the defenses the two of them faced (since it's one of my interests; see the thread I created referencing the 03-04 Pistons). I like both guys, no interest in delving deep into the comparison (and Shaq is my favorite player all-time, fwiw).

[juju151111]

You have to take into account the type of game that was played...today is a perimeter based game, more three's and long twos, tgends to equal more wasted possessions, less free throws. This doesn't have to do with EFG%, because todays guys shoot the ball just as good, but it has to do with one era set on getting the ball to the interior and higher % mid range-shots/more FTA compared to a era that hoist the three ball a ton, not drawing fouls

From older post:

The league is scoring more than 200 points per game (200.01 to be precise) for the first time since the 1994-95 season. But that's more about pace than offensive efficiency. At 95.2 possessions per team per 48 minutes, this is the fastest pace the league has played at in the last 10 years. Efficiency is actually down from last season as the league is scoring 104.2 points per 100 possessions, down from 105.4 in 2008-09.

Along with the dip in 3-point percentage, the mid-range game continues to fade. The percentage of mid-range points (points not scored at the line, in the paint or beyond the arc) is down to just 20.6 percent. Points in the paint are higher than they've been since the league started tracking them in the 2000-01 season. Those baskets account for 41.7 percent of all points this season, up from 40.1 percent a year ago.(So much for this zone myth of keeping perimeter guys out of the lanes)

Scoring from the mid-range area isn't a trend that good offensive teams have. Chicago scores 26.9 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 27th offensively. Detroit scores 26.6 percent of its points from mid-range and ranks 26th offensively. Dallas (25.2 percent, 10th) and Portland (24.9 percent, seventh) go against the grain, thanks to the shooting of Dirk Nowitzki and LaMarcus Aldridge.

Article from 2004: We'll begin with playing slower, which teams have become a little too good at during the David Stern era. In '84-85, the average NBA team used 104.8 possessions in a 48-minute game. By last year, the league had come to a screeching halt, using just 92.0 possessions per game. NBA teams have nearly 13 chances a game fewer than they did two decades ago. In other words, the biggest reason for the 17-point decrease in scoring isn't due to bad shooting, bad passing, changes in officiating or even the oft-cited increase in high-school aged kids entering the league. The main reason that offense has declined so much is because teams have stopped running. The change in pace alone accounts for 76.2 percent of the decline in scoring since '84-85. If the league reverted to the same pace it played at two decades ago, teams would average about 106.7 points a game.

While a slower pace is the main culprit in lower scores, that doesn't let offenses off the hook. Regardless of the speed with which the game is played, teams have become less efficient on the offensive end. In fact, even after we adjust for the fewer number of possessions teams use, there's still a 4.1 points-per-game difference that results from teams getting less out of each trip down the floor. This is noteworthy since the increased use of the 3-pointer should have produced the opposite effect.

1984-85 2003-04 Change
Points per game 110.8 93.4 -17.4
Possessions/game 104.8 92.0 -12.8
Points/possession 1.05 1.01 -.04
Field-goal pct. 49.1 43.9 -5.2
Free-throw pct. 76.4 75.2 -1.2
3-point pct. 28.1 34.7 +6.6
Off. Rebound pct. 32.9 28.7 -4.2
FTA/FGA .330 .303 -.207
Turnovers/possession .169 .154 -.015

Offenses are actually quite a bit better than those of the past when it comes to holding onto the ball. Teams turned the ball over on 16.9 percent of their possessions two decades ago, but did so just 15.4 percent of the time in '03-04. Since teams score about 1.2 points on each possession without a turnover, the difference adds about 1.9 points per game to offenses. The cause of the turnover decline is no mystery -- with teams running less, they have fewer chances for open-court miscues.

But those gains are exactly offset by a decline in offensive rebounding. In '84-85, offenses grabbed the board on 32.9 percent of missed shots, but by '03-04 that had declined to 28.7 percent. That difference has cost offenses 2.0 points per game, and it probably results from 3-point shooters being spaced too far away from the basket to have a prayer of getting an offensive board.

However, that still leaves the lion's share of the responsibility in decreased offensive efficiency at the doorstep of a common complaint: Declining shooting. Since '84-85, field-goal percentages have sunk roughly in proportion to Billy Squier's albums sales, from 49.1 percent to 43.9 percent last season. Sharp minds in the audience will quickly note that the 3-pointer is a much more prevalent part of modern offenses (teams try more than five times as many as they did two decades ago), so we should expect field-goal percentages to be lower in return for the greater payoff. Yet even allowing for the rise of the 3-pointer, shooting is still in the dumpster. Teams averaged 0.99 points for each field-goal attempt in 1984-85, but just 0.94 last season. That five-hundreths of a percentage point difference is enough to subtract 2.9 points a game from offenses.

That goes to underscore that the 3-pointer has, on balance, not had much of an effect. On the one hand, players shoot the long bomb much more accurately than twenty years ago -- improving from 28.1 percent to 34.7 percent -- which has added 1.9 points per game to scoring.

But there's a hidden cost to all of those 3s. Because they're bombing away instead of going to the rim, teams are getting to the line much less often. Teams took 0.33 free-throws per field-goal attempt back then, but only 0.30 last season, a change that cost teams about 1.7 points a game -- giving back nearly all of the difference from the increase in 3-point accuracy.

Our study tells us two things about the state of scoring. First, pace is a much bigger factor than the decline in offensive efficiency. Second, the main cause of the dip in efficiency is the sharp drop in 2-point field-goal percentage.
Exactly because when u don't run defense has time to set up.