Reasons Why Difficulty of Scoring (League-Wide Ortg) is Relatively Constant Over Time

[3ball]

.
A defense that guards all two-pointers and is allowed to camp in the lane will produce an environment in which it is equally as hard to score as an environment where the defense must guard 3-pointers, can't camp in the lane, but uses additional strategy/scrambling schemes to compensate.

So when people say today's defenses are "better", what they really mean is that today's defenses have to do more things, such as guard the 3-point line while abiding by defensive 3 seconds, which are things accomplished by using extra strategy.... But the extra strategy only maintains the same level of effectiveness as before when the strategy wasn't needed because they COULD camp in the lane and didn't have guard the 3-point line. *

So defenses in previous eras weren't missing out on some modern tactic that could have helped them - for example, previous eras didn't need the strong-side flood because that tactic was only invented to cover extra ground created by 3-point shooting and to maintain rotational capability in the face of the new defensive 3 seconds paint restriction.. The invention of scrambling schemes like the strong side flood demonstrate that defenses are fluid and adjust over time to playing style and regulatory changes in the game by doing whatever is necessary and possible to get stops - the top defenses generally don't miss anything that they could be doing.

The fluid nature of defenses is the reason behind the long-term stability in league-wide offensive rating (Ortg) - the stat measuring how hard it is to score... Ortg in the last 10 years has been at the same levels as it was in the 80's, showing that the difficulty of scoring has remained relatively stable over time.
.

[ralph_i_el]

:facepalm those gifs :facepalm Obviously the D is going to be packing the lane when all off ball offensive players are standing under the basket. Illegal D rules wouldn't even come into play in those situations.

We get it dude:
-Rules benefit perimeter players today, but perimeter players aren't as good
-There are no good bigs today
-Teams play worse D today
-Every aspect of basketball was better in the 90's
:facepalm If today's basketball sucks so much why would you watch it?



being real, you CAN occupy the paint more today than you could in the past. The 3 second rule means nothing. You have to step a foot out of the paint every 3 seconds which is seriously nothing. Illegal D meant you could camp guys who couldn't shoot out behind the 3 point line and you couldn't just leave them like today :facepalm Don Nelson used to camp his center 30ft from the basket on O just so the other team would have to keep the big defending him away from the paint. The 3 second rule is just to prevent sitting your center in the paint the entire offensive possession if the other team has 1 big who can't shoot.


Without 3 second rule the only difference is you'd have to play 5 shooters instead of 4 (like we have currently) at all times to run a decent offense.

[dubeta]

Dude MJ played in a weak era just admit it and move on :hammerhead:

[3ball]

Dude MJ played in a weak era just admit it and move on :hammerhead:
He played in an era that didn't use today's scheming to combat floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds... because there WAS no floor-spacing or defensive 3 seconds!!!!!!

Today's scheming wasn't needed because as you can see above, being able to camp in the paint indefinitely actually defends 2-pointers better than NOT being able to camp in the paint, and having to use extra scheming to compensate.

[ralph_i_el]

He played in an era that didn't use today's scheming to combat floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds... because there WAS no floor-spacing or defensive 3 seconds!!!!!!

Today's scheming wasn't needed because as you can see above, being able to camp in the paint indefinitely actually defends 2-pointers better than NOT being able to camp in the paint, and having to use extra scheming to compensate.

you couldn't camp the paint indefinitely if the offensive players moved away from the paint. 2 gifs won't change this. You can be in the paint more often today than in the past. Today it's up to the D when and for how long they want to stay around the paint. In the past the rules regarding where the defense could play were dependent on the offense.

If all the offensive players are in/near the paint (as per your gifs) OBVIOUSLY the entire D will be in the paint too. WHERE THE **** ELSE WOULD THEY STAND? Today if you wanted to drop 5 guys in the paint you could do it AT ANY TIME. They just all need to tap a foot out of the paint every 3 seconds. When you see a team put in a mediocre shooting lineup, you see the D clustered around the paint, every defender ready to commit to the paint. That's why outside shooting is so important today. Nothing is forcing the D to stay out on shooters except for the fact that those shooters are going to drop a 3 on them if they don't.

[dubeta]

3ball goes to Euroleague lengths to defend MJ, just :rolleyes: :facepalm

[ImKobe]

OP wants us to think this is how they scored every point

[navy]

OP wants us to think this is how they scored every point
It's quite hilarious really. :oldlol:

[3ball]

OP wants us to think this is how they scored every point
Those GIF's are just examples to show what the paint looked like in previous eras for those who weren't already aware that players were allowed to occupy the paint indefinitely in previous eras because there was no defensive 3 seconds.

Previous eras didn't use today's advanced scheming to combat floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds... because there WAS no floor-spacing or defensive 3 seconds!!!!!!

Being able to camp in the paint indefinitely actually defends 2-pointers better than NOT being able to camp in the paint, and having to use extra scheming to compensate.

[Lebron23]

Op is probably Bruceblitz.

[bdreason]

As defensive strategies adjust/improve, the league continues to create new rules to make scoring the ball easier.

[3ball]

As defensive strategies adjust/improve, the league continues to create new rules to make scoring the ball easier.
Indeed - NBA defenses are fluid things that adjust to changing playing style and regulatory environments - I just posted over the original OP with this:

League-wide offensive rating has remained relatively stable over the years showing that it is just as hard to score in one era as it is in another... This is because historically, defenses have had various built-in advantages that helped a defense play well, and even when these things were taken away, defenses still remained effective by compensating through the use of more strategy.

For example, in previous eras, the 3-point shot wasn't used so defenses didn't have to deal with floor-spacing.. Additionally, defenders were allowed to camp in the paint indefinitely... However, when defenses had to start guarding the 3-pointer, and when the NBA instituted the defensive 3 seconds rule so defenses couldn't camp in the paint anymore, new strategies such as the strong-side flood were invented so defenders could cover the extra ground.

In the end, the stripping of various built-in defensive advantages was effectively offset by a higher level of strategy so defensive effectiveness could be maintained... And it was maintained - camping in the paint is just as effective at guarding two-pointers as NOT being allowed to camp in the paint and using additional strategy to compensate... Steady Ortg over the eras reflects this.

Contrary to popular belief, good defenses don't miss out on implementing anything that would help them better defend the offenses they face (i.e. previous eras only needed the strong-side flood when they weren't permitted to camp in the paint anymore).. Empirical evidence has shown defenses to be fluid things that adjust to changing playing-style and regulatory environments over time.. This fluid nature of NBA defenses has been the driver for a steady league-wide Ortg over time.

[Dr.J4ever]

Those GIF's are just examples to show what the paint looked like in previous eras for those who weren't already aware that players were allowed to occupy the paint indefinitely in previous eras because there was no defensive 3 seconds.

Previous eras didn't use today's advanced scheming to combat floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds... because there WAS no floor-spacing or defensive 3 seconds!!!!!!

Being able to camp in the paint indefinitely actually defends 2-pointers better than NOT being able to camp in the paint, and having to use extra scheming to compensate.

WTH are you talking about? Didn't you understand what Ralph was telling you?

In previous eras you COULDN'T stay in the lane at ALL unless you were guarding a man. Period. You COULDN'T guard an area of the court or stay in the shaded lane for even 2 seconds unless you were guarding a man. This would be an illegal zone defense and result in a warning, and then a free throw with possession. You could, however, double team a player with the ball or guard a man or APPEAR to be guarding a man.

While the illegal zone defense has evolved over the NBA years, and I don't want to speak about the 60s or 70s, the 80s rules were very clear on this. During Erving's heyday in Philly, once Coach Billy C. saw that the other team was playing an illegal zone defense, he would expose it by instructing the 76er players to spread the court, and defenders were OBLIGATED to follow even inferior shooters. This would NOT be possible today. Defenders are no longer obligated to follow shooters out in the perimeter.

Billy C. would do this to isolate Erving and let him go one on one. Now, once Erving makes his move to the lane, a 2nd defender can rush in to help out, but in today's NBA, isos are easier to defend. This was the intent of the rule, after all.

As Ralph pointed out, if all the offensive players are straddling the shaded area like in your GIF, then of course defenders would be around that area too. The 80s rules applied in the 90s as well. The 2002 defensive 3 second rule allowed zones to be played anywhere in the court. This means you DON'T HAVE TO BE GUARDING ANYONE, AND JUST GUARDING AN AREA OF THE COURT WAS NOW ALLOWED. The only restriction is you couldn't stay in the lane for more than 3 seconds UNLESS you are within arm's length of a player.

I hope this clears it up for you.:cheers:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

If you're gonna make a thread like this, at least understand said rules you're debating :oldlol:

[3ball]

In previous eras you COULDN'T stay in the lane at ALL unless you were guarding a man Period. You COULDN'T guard an area of the court or stay in the shaded lane for even 2 seconds unless you were guarding a man.

You could, however, double team a player with the ball or guard a man or APPEAR to be guarding a man.

So how is that different from defensive 3 seconds?.. You can play a 2-second zone in the paint today, and you could play a 2-second zone in the paint in previous eras.

Not only that, but in previous eras, the "APPEAR to be guarding" language allows refs to give players a lot of latitude... It was standard for defenders to stay in the lane as long as they wanted, as long as they "appeared to be guarding" someone.





Defenders are no longer obligated to follow shooters out in the perimeter.

Once again, what's the difference with today's game?.. You can't stand in the paint if your man is at the 3-point line in today's game either.

And once again, due to the "appear to be guarding" language in the old rulebook, there was a lot of legal latitude back then for allowing anyone in the paint for as long as they wanted, as long as they "appeared to be guarding" someone - that's standard man-to-man.

That is a lot better than today, where you can only be in there for 3 seconds before you have to tippy-toe out of there.

Also, maybe most importantly, you have to remember that players only took 5 three-pointers per game in 1988... compared to 22 per game today... So players back then weren't at the three-point line to begin with - everyone was in the paint and mid-range areas (the two-point areas), which made it very easy for defenders to crowd the paint and legally stay there, because their man was invariably around there as well.





As Ralph pointed out, if all the offensive players are straddling the shaded area like in your GIF, then of course defenders would be around that area too.

See, again, that's why I posted the GIF's for you - they were for people that didn't know how the games looked back then and how the absence of defensive 3 seconds caused the paints to be perpetually packed..

Since the 3-point shot wasn't used, all the offensive players routinely straddled the shaded area - all two-pointers means most shots are taken either in the paint or mid-range area, so naturally, that is where all offensive players would be, and the defenders as well.

This natural congregation of players coupled with the LACK of defensive 3 seconds fostered a very congested environment that is a stark contrast to today's floor-spacing (3-point shooting) and resulting wide open paint.





The only restriction is you couldn't stay in the lane for more than 3 seconds UNLESS you are within arm's length of a player.

Once again, this is not as good as being able stay in the paint as long as you want as long as you "appear to be guarding" someone.
.

[BoutPractice]

I agree with the broader point, though. The game has a built in equilibrium and fairness to it. Specific rules may evolve but so far no changes post-shot clock have disrupted this balance.

[Dr.J4ever]

So how is that different from defensive 3 seconds?.. You can play a 2-second zone in the paint today, and you could play a 2-second zone in the paint in previous eras.

Not only that, but in previous eras, the "APPEAR to be guarding" language allows refs to give players a lot of latitude... It was standard for defenders to stay in the lane as long as they wanted, as long as they "appeared to be guarding" someone.


Once again, what's the difference with today's game?.. You can't stand in the paint if your man is at the 3-point line in today's game either.

And once again, due to the "appear to be guarding" language in the old rulebook, there was a lot of legal latitude back then for allowing anyone in the paint for as long as they wanted, as long as they "appeared to be guarding" someone - that's standard man-to-man.

That is a lot better than today, where you can only be in there for 3 seconds before you have to tippy-toe out of there.

Also, maybe most importantly, you have to remember that players only took 5 three-pointers per game in 1988... compared to 22 per game today... So players back then weren't at the three-point line to begin with - everyone was in the paint and mid-range areas (the two-point areas), which made it very easy for defenders to crowd the paint and legally stay there, because their man was invariably around there as well.


See, again, that's why I posted the GIF's for you - they were for people that didn't know how the games looked back then and how the absence of defensive 3 seconds caused the paints to be perpetually packed..

Since the 3-point shot wasn't used, all the offensive players routinely straddled the shaded area - all two-pointers means most shots are taken either in the paint or mid-range area, so naturally, that is where all offensive players would be, and the defenders as well.

This natural congregation of players coupled with the LACK of defensive 3 seconds fostered a very congested environment that is a stark contrast to today's floor-spacing (3-point shooting) and resulting wide open paint.


Once again, this is not as good as being able stay in the paint as long as you want as long as you "appear to be guarding" someone.
.

No, it wasn't "standard" to stay in the lane as long as you want back then. I just told you offensive teams would expose it many times in a game.

Also, it is the same today, you can STAY IN THE LANE AS LONG AS YOU WANT AS LONG AS YOU'RE WITHIN ARMS LENGTH OF A PLAYER THE DEFENSIVE 3 SECONDS WILL NOT APPLY TO YOU.

The advantage for defenders today is they CAN STAY IN THE LANE WITHOUT GUARDING ANY DEFENDER FOR UP TO 3 SECONDS. This would mean they are, in effect, playing a zone defense. In the past, YOU COULD NOT DO THAT. You had to be within arms length at all times or fool the refs by appearing to be guarding someone.

Clearer ?

[3ball]

No, it wasn't "standard" to stay in the lane as long as you want back then. I just told you offensive teams would expose it many times in a game.

It was standard.. completely standard... Defenders camping in the paint were either:

1) within arms-length of their man - which they were a very high proportion of the time because offensive players were only taking shots in the paint and mid-range.. the stats prove this - previous eras simply didn't take three-pointers, so the two-point areas were more congested.

2) not within armslength of an offensive player but appearing to be guarding someone - this rule gives the previous era defender far more latitude then today's rule because while the defender can't be in the paint while their man man is out beyond the 3-point line (just like today's rule), the defender CAN be in the paint indefinitely while their man is further than armslength, as long as it is clear the defender appears to be guarding them.



The advantage for defenders today is they CAN STAY IN THE LANE WITHOUT GUARDING ANY DEFENDER FOR UP TO 3 SECONDS. This would mean they are, in effect, playing a zone defense.
3 seconds is nothing and it's the same amount of time it takes for refs notice and call illegal defense.. Like I said, both eras can play a zone in the paint for a couple seconds before the refs call something.

The only difference is that in previous eras, defenders didn't have to be within armslength of their man to stay in the paint indefinitely if it was clear they were guarding that player.

This is the most important part of the rule - you shouldn't be dismissing it... It happened all the time - it's why Ewing could camp right under the basket while Olajuwon took a long two-pointer.. In today's game, Ewing would have to be out there on Olajuwon.

It gives refs the power to LEGALLY allow a defender to camp in the lane regardless of their proximity to the offensive player, which is a huge advantage over today's game.

[Element]

Since you've been banned from RealGM, I'll just leave some quotes for you OP


To me, the biggest change is that, although it's easier today to blow by your defender, by no handchecking or with the help of a high pick, it's almost impossible to get a straight line drive to the basket anymore. Defenders are too smart nowadays with this new approach of help/spacing defense rather than a more physical, individual defense. Of course, pick and roll defense and the horizontal concept is more at premium today.

What bothers me is that teams seems much more focused in get offensive fouls than challenging shots in the paint. Perhaps we are getting to the point where the NBA should start to consider get the restricted zone bigger, to discourage a bit the "taking the charge" approach.



I think Popovich, Thibodeau, and Rick Carlisle have been the best practitioners of the modern defense but it's hard to talk about defense when it's hardly highlighted. It's much harder to find "Top 10 defensive plays by...." than "Top 10 dunks by". I would be interested in any sites that focus on the defensive side or video of defensive schemes.

I think that modern defenses (imo that started around 2004ish), have curtailed the wing volume scorer e.g. Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Harden where they cannot iso as much as was done in the past. The 2004 Pistons showed how to double a great iso-player and make him shoot contested shots without fouling or make him give up the ball. Rick Carlisle showed the strength of intermittently/strategically using a strong side zone to limit iso-creators.

People talk about PG defense does not matter but honestly, it's hard for any defender nowadays to be dominant. The rules favor offensive players almost as much as they do in football, an individual defender left alone above the 3pt line is likely to either get picked off in a screen/roll, shook out of his shoes, or pick up a hand-checking foul. The best help defenses are the ones that practice rotating over before the guy makes his move.

I hate blocking calls and the charge calls, it just promotes flopping on both sides of the ball. It also limits big men from playing big and going after blocks. Why try to block a shot at the rim when the ref's will favor the offensive player. Even with Hibbert and the verticality rule, I still see too many big men get called for fouls when offensive players run into them. Yao Ming had this happen to him all the time, to the point where he was always in foul trouble....

[Element]

(disclaimer: let's be real. you made this thread to prop up MJ) Nobody thinks prime MJ would suffer in today's league. He'd still be by far the best player in the league. Early MJ's numbers would decrease a bit due to pace, though. His efficiency would, too. However, Drop in numbers =/= drop in effectiveness. It's all relative. And it's not as simple as calculating his numbers down to today's pace. Why?

The faster pace of the 80s-early 90s not only allowed for more possessions in general, the gameplay itself made playing tough defense harder. If you're basically running up and down the court all game, there are going to be way more looks in semi-transition and transition available, simply because the game is sped up. Early-mid 00s had some of the lowest pace numbers in the modern era, and likewise, efficiency numbers as well as final scores often looked ugly and games were an eyesore to watch.

I see 2nd threepeat MJ being a bit less effective, though. Spamming post-up Isos on the wings was a staple of his game. Clearing out a side and letting him go to work 1v1 simply wouldn't be possible today, at least not at that volume.

[ralph_i_el]

(disclaimer: let's be real. you made this thread to prop up MJ) Nobody thinks prime MJ would suffer in today's league. He'd still be by far the best player in the league. Early MJ's numbers would decrease a bit due to pace, though. His efficiency would, too. However, Drop in numbers =/= drop in effectiveness. It's all relative. And it's not as simple as calculating his numbers down to today's pace. Why?

The faster pace of the 80s-early 90s not only allowed for more possessions in general, the gameplay itself made playing tough defense harder. If you're basically running up and down the court all game, there are going to be way more looks in semi-transition and transition available, simply because the game is sped up. Early-mid 00s had some of the lowest pace numbers in the modern era, and likewise, efficiency numbers as well as final scores often looked ugly and games were an eyesore to watch.

I see 2nd threepeat MJ being a bit less effective, though. Spamming post-up Isos on the wings was a staple of his game. Clearing out a side and letting him go to work 1v1 simply wouldn't be possible today, at least not at that volume.

^This. MJ in today's league is probably the best player. I don't think he's incomparable to Lebron or Durant though

[Trollsmasher]

[3ball]

“All you have to do is look at the stats,” Bird says. “There’s better shooting back then, better defense now."
When Bird says defense is better now, he doesn't mean that is is harder to score now, because it isn't harder to score - league-wide Ortg is the same as it ever was.

Instead, Bird means that today's defenses HAVE TO DO MORE THINGS NOW, like cover more ground to guard three-pointers while abiding by defensive 3 seconds.

Extra strategy is used to do these new things so that defense can remain as effective as it was back when you COULD camp in the lane and DIDN'T have to guard 3's.

Consequently, league-wide Ortg stays about the same and it remains just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras, thanks to extra strategy that makes up for not being able to camp in the lane anymore and having to cover more ground to guard 3's.

Defenses always adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes, so it all evens out in the end and the stats reflect that.

So when coaches say defenses are "better" today, they only mean that defenses have to do more strategically to maintain the same level of defense that they used to have back when they could camp in the lane and only had to guard 2-pointers.
.

[DonDadda59]

(disclaimer: let's be real. you made this thread to prop up MJ) Nobody thinks prime MJ would suffer in today's league. He'd still be by far the best player in the league. Early MJ's numbers would decrease a bit due to pace, though. His efficiency would, too. However, Drop in numbers =/= drop in effectiveness. It's all relative. And it's not as simple as calculating his numbers down to today's pace. Why?

The Bulls were always bottom of the league in terms of pace. And guys who played in Jordan's era like Iverson and Kobe were getting 25-27 shots per game, averaging 33-35 PPG on teams that played low 90s paces after the rule changes of the summer of '05. What reason is there to believe that young Jordan would do worse than these inferior players?

Guys who were drafted in the mid 90s (Kobe, AI, Ray Allen, Steve Nash) all of a sudden had their career scoring high a decade after they were drafted... but the GOAT perimeter player's production would buck that trend and decrease?

That makes literally no sense whatsoever.


I see 2nd threepeat MJ being a bit less effective, though. Spamming post-up Isos on the wings was a staple of his game. Clearing out a side and letting him go to work 1v1 simply wouldn't be possible today, at least not at that volume.

Kobe won 2 championships (making it to 3 straight finals) playing the same way, the same position, in the same offensive system, under the same coach while being a worse/less capable player... but again somehow Jordan is going to be less effective?

Why?

[aau]

Guys who were drafted in the mid 90s (Kobe, AI, Ray Allen, Steve Nash)
all of a sudden had their career scoring high a decade after they were drafted

That makes literally no sense whatsoever.

iverson avg 33 before the rule changes . . tmac too

that was their career high at the time . . how they do that

they average another bucket with the changes and it's a big deal

[DonDadda59]

iverson avg 33 before the rule changes . . tmac too

that was their career high at the time . . how they do that

they average another bucket with the changes and it's a big deal

What are you rambling on about? Iverson's career scoring high came 10 years after he was drafted (along with Kobe, Ray Allen, Steve Nash, and a host of other perimeter guys) in the '05-'06 season, which followed the rule changes in the summer of '05 which eliminated handchecking. He was 30/31 years old that season and averaged 33 PPG taking 25 shots per game (Philly pace was 92.7). Kobe in that same season put up 35 PPG on 27 shots per game (LA pace was 90.9).

Jordan in his highest scoring season put up 37 PPG while taking 28 shots (CHI pace was 95.8).

But there's crackheads here who think Jordan's production would suffer despite guys who were drafted in and played in his era not having their best scoring seasons until AFTER the rule changes... Some dude above was claiming that there's no more iso and it's more of a team game now, yet here you have Kobe taking 27 shots per game while playing in a 91 pace team, Jordan took 28 on a 96 pace team... but yeah, the 'isolation era' ended with the rule changes :oldlol:

[aau]

What are you rambling on about?

Iverson's career scoring high came 10 years after he was drafted (along with Kobe, Ray Allen, Steve Nash, and a host of other perimeter guys) in the '05-'06 season, which followed the rule changes in the summer of '05 which eliminated handchecking. He was 30/31 years old that season and averaged 33 PPG taking 25 shots per game (Philly pace was 92.7). Kobe in that same season put up 35 PPG on 27 shots per game (LA pace was 90.9).

Jordan in his highest scoring season put up 37 PPG while taking 28 shots (CHI pace was 95.8).

But there's crackheads here who think Jordan's production would suffer despite guys who were drafted in and played in his era not having their best scoring seasons until AFTER the rule changes... Some dude above was claiming that there's no more iso and it's more of a team game now, yet here you have Kobe taking 27 shots per game while playing in a 91 pace team, Jordan took 28 on a 96 pace team... but yeah, the 'isolation era' ended with the rule changes :oldlol:


three lines hahaha good one

5 year sandwich

2004 tmac avg 28
2005 iverson 30
2006 kobe 35
2007 kobe 31
2008 lebron 30

tmac avg 32 in 2003 before the changes
from 2001 down 1985 only 4 players have avg 30 ppg
mj karl nique and bking . . . nuthin major is goin on bruh

bold is an outlier , , that didn't continue on for years
everyone adjusted and things reverted back the following year

iverson avg 31 in b2b seasons prior to rule changes
he avg 33 after the changes . . . why quibble over a bucket

mj avg 37 on 28 spg . . . kobe avg 35 on 27 spg
don't care for pace but 28 shots per game is 28 spg


don't know who said what

mike would get his whenever

[PHILA]

3ball (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/member.php?u=306689)
Do you by any chance have the Sixers plus/minus statistics from the 1988, 1991, and/or 1992 seasons? I PM'ed fpliii and he told me you have the Sixers media guides from 88-89, 89-90, and 91-92. Thanks.

[3ball]

Do you by any chance have the Sixers plus/minus statistics from the 1988, 1991, and/or 1992 seasons? I PM'ed fpliii and he told me you have the Sixers media guides from 88-89, 89-90, and 91-92. Thanks.
I have those guides.. I'll make a thread and post those stats... Let me know if there is anything else out of those guides that you want me to post.

[PHILA]

I have those guides.. I'll make a thread and post those stats... Let me know if there is anything else out of those guides that you want me to post.
Thanks again. I am primarily interested in the plus/minus numbers either for the entire NBA or just the Sixers roster.

[3ball]

“All you have to do is look at the stats,” Bird says. “There’s better shooting back then, better defense now."
When Bird says defense is better now, he doesn't mean that is is harder to score now, because it isn't harder to score - league-wide Ortg is the same as it ever was.

Instead, Bird means that today's defenses HAVE TO DO MORE THINGS NOW, like cover more ground to guard three-pointers while abiding by defensive 3 seconds.

Extra strategy is used to do these new things so that defense can remain as effective as it was back when you COULD camp in the lane and DIDN'T have to guard 3's.

Consequently, league-wide Ortg stays about the same and it remains just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras, thanks to extra strategy that makes up for not being able to camp in the lane anymore and having to cover more ground to guard 3's.

Defenses always adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes, so it all evens out in the end and the stats reflect that.. And defenses didn't only adjust to floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds, they adjusted to no hand-checking and having to be less physical as well.

So when coaches say defenses are "better" today, they only mean that defenses have to do more strategically to maintain the same level of defense that they used to have back when they could camp in the lane, be more physical and only had to guard 2-pointers.
.

[Dr.J4ever]

When Bird says defense is better now, he doesn't mean that is is harder to score now, because it isn't harder to score - league-wide Ortg is the same as it ever was.

Instead, Bird means that today's defenses HAVE TO DO MORE THINGS NOW, like cover more ground to guard three-pointers while abiding by defensive 3 seconds.

Extra strategy is used to do these new things so that defense can remain as effective as it was back when you COULD camp in the lane and DIDN'T have to guard 3's.

Consequently, league-wide Ortg stays about the same and it remains just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras, thanks to extra strategy that makes up for not being able to camp in the lane anymore and having to cover more ground to guard 3's.

Defenses always adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes, so it all evens out in the end and the stats reflect that.. Defenses didn't just adjust to floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds, they adjusted to no hand-checking and having to be less physical as well.

So when coaches say defenses are "better" today, they only mean that defenses have to do more strategically to maintain the same level of defense that they used to have back when they could camp in the lane, be more physical and only had to guard 2-pointers.

Are you able to get inside Bird's mind? Stop re-interpreting what he said. Don't forget he also said there were no centers back then who could play on the perimeter like KG. As I said on another thread, there were no centers back then(the 80s) who blitzed on pick and rolls.

They all agreed defenses are more complex, and offenses have responded in kind. Players are also much more athletic, they said.

BTW, this whole thread is based on the wrong premise anyway. You thought defenders today COULDN'T camp in the lane for more than 3 seconds which is completely false.

My question is: how can you make the proper conclusions and theories when your understanding of the rule is flawed?

[3ball]

When Bird says defense is better now, he doesn't mean that is is harder to score now, because it isn't harder to score - league-wide Ortg is the same as it ever was.

Instead, Bird means that today's defenses HAVE TO DO MORE THINGS NOW, like cover more ground to guard three-pointers while abiding by defensive 3 seconds.

Extra strategy is used to do these new things so that defense can remain as effective as it was back when you COULD camp in the lane and DIDN'T have to guard 3's.

Consequently, league-wide Ortg stays about the same and it remains just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras, thanks to extra strategy that makes up for not being able to camp in the lane anymore and having to cover more ground to guard 3's.

Defenses always adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes, so it all evens out in the end and the stats reflect that.. Defenses didn't just adjust to floor-spacing and defensive 3 seconds, they adjusted to no hand-checking and having to be less physical as well.

So when coaches say defenses are "better" today, they only mean that defenses have to do more strategically to maintain the same level of defense that they used to have back when they could camp in the lane, be more physical and only had to guard 2-pointers.


Are you able to get inside Bird's mind?

As I said on another thread, there were no centers back then(the 80s) who blitzed on pick and rolls.


Every single word in the first post that you quoted above is 100% accurate.

And the stats agree... League-wide Ortg and points-per-possession remains stable over time as defenses adjust to playing-style and regulatory changes.

Btw, there are no bigs in today's game as mobile as David Robinson, Olajuwon, or Shawn Kemp.... Guys like Kevin Willis, Horace Grant, Alonzo Mourning, Larry Nance - you just don't remember them or weren't aware of them to begin with.

Recency bias is a powerful drug.
.

[Dr.J4ever]

Again, you misunderstood the new rules to begin with when you started the thread, and other posters commented on this fact. So you start a thread without fully understanding the new rules, make conclusions based on a false premise, and now you want to maintain your premise by adjusting your explanations of the rules and assumptions.:facepalm

Offenses adjust over time when they adjust to new defensive rules that give defenders FLEXIBILITY THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE. I hate repeating what I already said, and I won't. If you won't or can't understand it, it is your own loss.

I didn't bring up Garnett, btw, it was the Bird who did. Check the article. Some of those centers you mentioned were great in interior basketball, but we won't know if they were quick enough to play on the perimeter consistently like they do today with the blitzing of pick and rolls, since it was not a featured defense of that era.

You say offenses adjust and this could be correct, but it also means they have to get better in certain skills like shooting to defeat the new rules and score consistently to open the lanes.

Because of the new rules, offenses and defenses are different from basketball in 90s or 80s. I read one writer call the differences "jarring". The style is different because of the rules. The game is even different than when Allen Iverson lead a rag tag defensive crew of 76ers to the 2001 Finals. The 76ers relied on Iverson isos and defense to go to the Finals. It wouldn't have been possible today.

I believe the game is better today and more entertaining, but I also understand people like you who like the physical style played on the perimeter that made it more difficult for small guards to drive into the lane, even if there was no zones back then.

However, it is undeniable, and it was the intent of the rules, that there are less isos and post up isos today than there ever were. FPLii posted an article from the league office about the discussions that were going on at the time.

Many opposed the new rules, including Pat Riley, who believed it would choke off drives and and make teams rely on jumpers. It would make the game boring, they said. The NBA disagreed, obviously, and teams have adjusted to the new realities, and voila, we have the Spurs who have used as much passing and team play displayed in the Finals in decades.

Even Miami had to "overhaul" their entire offense after their loss to the Mavs, who played a lot of zone, as per the article of Zach Lowe on Grantland in 2013.

So yes, in this sense you are right, teams do adjust, but they don't always use the same old methods to score as they did in the 90s or 80s. It just wouldn't be as efficient today.

Not saying Jordan would suddenly be a scrub, but even Jordan would have adjusted his game to soothe the new rules. Along with Lebron, he would still dominate, albeit with a tweak on his game.

[3ball]

Again, you misunderstood the new rules to begin with when you started the thread
You are the one that misunderstands the rules - I explained the rules to you and answered every one of your issues in the first post on the previous page..

You said yourself that players in previous eras were allowed to do whatever they wanted as long as they APPEARED to be guarding someone...

This allows them to camp in the paint as long as they want while being FURTHER than armslength from an offensive player, which is a big advantage over today's players that must be within armslength...

Also, the more important point was that only 5 threes were taken in 1988 compared to 22 per game today, so players weren't occupying the 3-point line anyway and were instead occupying the two-point areas (paint and mid-range), so this allowed defenders to be within armslength a very high proportion of the time anyway.

Finally, the stats prove what I'm saying - the stats prove that it isn't any harder to score nowadays - defenses adjust over time to playing style and regulatory changes... this is why league-wide offensive rating remains stable over time, the title of this thread.

[3ball]

You say offenses adjust and this could be correct, but it also means they have to get better in certain skills like shooting to defeat the new rules and score consistently to open the lanes.

See, this is where you don't realize that the spacing in today's game makes it so a much higher proportion of shots attempted are open shots, such as the three-pointers you mention.

This makes players better at hitting 3's, but worse at scoring ON defenders, because that isn't as necessary in today's game.

So wing players turn into 3-and-D players with no post game or unique individual scoring ability to score ON defenders, like players of previous eras could do - i.e. unique offensive players like Bob Mcadoo, Kareem, Bernard King, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, George Gervin, Bird or Magic.

Bigs don't have offenses run through them anymore where they catch the ball and create for others - instead, they just make open dunks off the dribble-creation and screen-roll action of the PG.

So while players have increased some skills, they have declined in other areas... like i said, it all evens out, which is why league-wide Ortg remains stable over time.

[DonDadda59]

Why do people continuously post bullshit and think they won't get called out on it? :facepalm


Again, you misunderstood the new rules to begin with when you started the thread, and other posters commented on this fact. So you start a thread without fully understanding the new rules, make conclusions based on a false premise, and now you want to maintain your premise by adjusting your explanations of the rules and assumptions.:facepalm

Offenses adjust over time when they adjust to new defensive rules that give defenders FLEXIBILITY THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE. I hate repeating what I already said, and I won't. If you won't or can't understand it, it is your own loss.

I didn't bring up Garnett, btw, it was the Bird who did. Check the article. Some of those centers you mentioned were great in interior basketball, but we won't know if they were quick enough to play on the perimeter consistently like they do today with the blitzing of pick and rolls, since it was not a featured defense of that era.

Name a team/combo today that ran more pick and rolls than Stockton/Malone in Utah.

And speaking of defensive versatility- Hakeem Olajuwon at the height of his powers was getting 3-4 blocks and 2-3 steals per game. He's the all time blocks leader and is #8 all time in steals (Karl Malone is 11th, Garnett is 18th). He's the only non guard/small forward in the top 10. And you can't name a player in the league today who is as defensively versatile as Dennis Rodman.


You say offenses adjust and this could be correct, but it also means they have to get better in certain skills like shooting to defeat the new rules and score consistently to open the lanes.

Because of the new rules, offenses and defenses are different from basketball in 90s or 80s. I read one writer call the differences "jarring". The style is different because of the rules. The game is even different than when Allen Iverson lead a rag tag defensive crew of 76ers to the 2001 Finals. The 76ers relied on Iverson isos and defense to go to the Finals. It wouldn't have been possible today.


Lebron James 2007.


I believe the game is better today and more entertaining, but I also understand people like you who like the physical style played on the perimeter that made it more difficult for small guards to drive into the lane, even if there was no zones back then.

False.


However, it is undeniable, and it was the intent of the rules, that there are less isos and post up isos today than there ever were. FPLii posted an article from the league office about the discussions that were going on at the time.

The league in the 90s, even when the pace was equal to or lower than today, averaged more assists per game than now. Kobe and Iverson were taking 25-27 FGA on teams that played 90-92 paces right after the rule changes. Guys like Durant and Carmelo are iso artists who take upwards of 22 shots per game.


Many opposed the new rules, including Pat Riley, who believed it would choke off drives and and make teams rely on jumpers. It would make the game boring, they said. The NBA disagreed, obviously, and teams have adjusted to the new realities, and voila, we have the Spurs who have used as much passing and team play displayed in the Finals in decades.

Obviously the NBA was right:

[INDENT]Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots

[Dr.J4ever]

Why do people continuously post bullshit and think they won't get called out on it? :facepalm



Name a team/combo today that ran more pick and rolls than Stockton/Malone in Utah.

And speaking of defensive versatility- Hakeem Olajuwon at the height of his powers was getting 3-4 blocks and 2-3 steals per game. He's the all time blocks leader and is #8 all time in steals (Karl Malone is 11th, Garnett is 18th). He's the only non guard/small forward in the top 10. And you can't name a player in the league today who is as defensively versatile as Dennis Rodman.



Lebron James 2007.



False.



The league in the 90s, even when the pace was equal to or lower than today, averaged more assists per game than now. Kobe and Iverson were taking 25-27 FGA on teams that played 90-92 paces right after the rule changes. Guys like Durant and Carmelo are iso artists who take upwards of 22 shots per game.



Obviously the NBA was right:


Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots — having more time to shoot — they tend to make more of them.

Stu Jackson: It doesn’t. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.

Straight from the Horse's mouth :applause:



The league average for 'zone' defensive plays in the NBA is around 3%, no team plays more than 10% of D sets in zone (and those who do are usually bottom of the barrel defenses). NBA teams have shot better against the 'zone' than man, which makes sense when you really think about it. How are amateur defensive schemes going to impede the best professionals on the planet?



Be specific... in what way would Jordan have to adjust his game?

Nope. The Stu Jackson interview for NBA.com in 2009 is an NBA marketing piece designed to kinda say, "see look at the game it's just fine despite what the critics said about how offense will be impeded in 2001 before it was instituted"... Besides I can't find the piece of FPLIII, once I get it, I will post it here. Hopefully, FPLIII sees this and posts it before me. I will answer your other points at another time since I am gonna be busy now.

Here's a piece from the NY times about the actual conversation and debate BEFORE the rule was started in 2002. Note the critics led by Riley who said scoring might go down to the 70s level(in points, not decades).

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/12/sports/pro-basketball-nba-s-illegal-defense-rule-will-most-likely-be-eliminated.html

This is important so we can see what the mentality was and conversation about the new rules, and then compare it to what Bird, Ainge and Scott are saying now.

Here's an excerpt:

The changes are meant to encourage more movement and passing, while discouraging teams from steering offenses toward isolation plays, in which a majority of a team's players stand idle on the weakside to draw defenders away from the ball. That trend has been a factor in the decrease in scoring over the past decade.

''I think it's a huge mistake,'' Miami Coach Pat Riley said last week. ''There's not going to be anybody able to drive. With these rules, you're going to be back in the 70's in scoring. You can't force pace.''

''It sounds very bold, and it is,'' acknowledged Jerry Colangelo, the Phoenix Suns owner and chairman of the committee that submitted the recommendation two weeks ago. ''But at this point, it's better than a tweak. The fact is, we don't have any fluidity in our game right now. There is less ball movement and less player movement than there's ever been.''

Most opponents of the rule changes agree with Colangelo that the game has become too stagnant and that the choreography of teamwork has all but disappeared from many arenas. But they don't feel such a dramatic change will suddenly turn the game into the free-flowing style that will raise television ratings and increase fan interest.

''It would change the sport,'' said Tomjanovich, one of the most vocal opponents of the zone defense. ''We should create a situation where great players get a chance to excel. Zones neutralize great athletic ability. People want to see guys who can soar to the basket.''

Calling the committee's proposed changes a ''knee-jerk reaction to complaints about the pace of the game,'' Riley added: ''Fans like to see Vince Carter play one on one outside. That stuff is going to be history. Isolation basketball has been part of the game ever since I've been in it.''

Other coaches like George Karl and Phil Jackson -- weary of the increased focus on defense and the plodding halfcourt sets that have led to the game's stagnation -- are fine with the changes.

''I'm totally O.K. with the zone,'' Jackson said. ''It's going to hurt Shaq, but it's still part of what the game has to be.''

Of more than two dozen players interviewed, an overwhelming number were against zone defenses.

''It will mess the game up,'' Portland point guard Damon Stoudamire said. ''I'm not a big advocate of zone defense. That's the reason why players leave college. You're going to put a box-and-one on Vince Carter? Fans are paying money to see these games. You can't just take away what has essentially made the N.B.A. what it is: one-on-one basketball.''

If the debate has polarized some in the coaching community, it has created a wedge between coaches and ownership.

Miami, Houston, the Knicks and San Antonio were among the dissenters two weeks ago when Colangelo took an unofficial tabulation. The opponents of the rule changes have privately accused Commissioner David Stern of making sure Colangelo appointed a committee that would be open to radical rule changes.

Beyond Colangelo, one of the league's senior owners who has had a longstanding relationship with Stern, others on the committee include Stu Jackson, the league's senior vice president for basketball operations, and Bob Lanier, special assistant to the commissioner. The former coaches Dick Motta and Jack Ramsay were also on the panel.

''You don't ask Lenny Wilkens, Pat Riley, Rudy Tomjanovich or Larry Brown to be on that committee?'' said one veteran coach, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ''Most of the people on that committee have worked for the league in some capacity. What they've done is pitted the coaches against the owners.''

Colangelo defended the committee and dismissed the notion that the changes were railroaded through.

''Many of the people in favor of these changes have been in the game over the last three decades,'' he said. ''We can relate to how everything has evolved. I understand their concerns, but the fact is, many of the coaches in the league are entrenched. One of my arguments is: Each franchise now averages about six assistants per team. Let's put them to work.''

That is one of the major concerns among opponents: that coaches will have more control of the game.

''People will be coming up with all kinds of crazy defenses,'' Tomjanovich said. ''I want what's best for the N.B.A. I'm not sure these rule changes are.''

He added: ''This shouldn't be us against them. But I would think we could come up with rules to encourage exploiting our assets instead of stifling them. I'm not one of these guys who think the players of today aren't what they used to be. There are guys now who do things we never dreamed about. I think we've been so desensitized by all the amazing plays that we forgot that that's what people come to see.''

Stern appointed Colangelo nearly two months ago to choose a committee to discuss possible changes. The committee watched old footage of N.B.A. games spliced in with new footage. One of the offensive sets was that of the Rockets, in which a player like Steve Francis was isolated on one side of the floor against his defender, while four other players emptied out on the other side of the floor.

''A typical Houston set is giving one guy the ball and sending everyone else away from him,'' Colangelo said. ''Hardly anyone else is even involved. It's not the lack of ball movement. People wonder whatever happened to the lost art of offensive rebounding. Players are no longer in position to rebound because of some of these sets.''

He added: ''Everyone knows we have a problem, but no one has come up with anything better. If this thing doesn't pass, then that's it. We're not going back again.''

Charlotte forward Jamal Mashburn said: ''I don't see how that's going to promote scoring. You look at teams like the Lakers and the Heat. Shaq and Alonzo will be in the lane. Imagine playing against David Robinson and Tim Duncan, standing there in the middle in a 3-2 zone.''

Tomjanovich said: ''I respect the passion and energy of everybody involved in this, no matter what's been said. These rules will change the game. Unfortunately, I think it will slow it down.''

[DonDadda59]

Nope. The Stu Jackson interview for NBA.com in 2009 is an NBA marketing piece designed to kinda say, "see look at the game it's just fine despite what the critics said about how offense will be impeded in 2001 before it was instituted"...

Right, and he was correct while the opponents of the rule changes who thought the NBA would turn into the NCAA with low scoring games and handcuffed stars were clearly dead wrong. He was just reiterating this by pointing out how much easier it had become for perimeter players to penetrate the paint on drives and get open shots. Perimeter scoring exploded immediately after hand checking was eliminated, it wasn't even a gradual process (look at the difference between scoring leaders in '04-'05 to '05-'06) and as I pointed out in another thread, shooting efficiency has been at an all time high and keeps climbing.

So the NBA wanted to make scoring easier and to handicap defenses and they got their wish. Simple as that.

[fpliii]

Dr.J4ever - Which article are you looking for?

[Lebronxrings]

This thread was beta as phuck.

[Dr.J4ever]

Right, and he was correct while the opponents of the rule changes who thought the NBA would turn into the NCAA with low scoring games and handcuffed stars were clearly dead wrong. He was just reiterating this by pointing out how much easier it had become for perimeter players to penetrate the paint on drives and get open shots. Perimeter scoring exploded immediately after hand checking was eliminated, it wasn't even a gradual process (look at the difference between scoring leaders in '04-'05 to '05-'06) and as I pointed out in another thread, shooting efficiency has been at an all time high and keeps climbing.

So the NBA wanted to make scoring easier and to handicap defenses and they got their wish. Simple as that.

The main intention of the rules was to penalize certain types of offenses like isos and iso post ups. That's clear from the NY Times article. FPLii posted an article(attention FPLiii) where S.Jackson himself mentioned this about the league having too many isos and boring offense where everyone just cleared out a side of the court.

By instituting rules that would discourage isos and it's brothers, they encourage teams like the Spurs and the like to emerge. Yes, they wanted to change the way teams run their offenses, and it was through the new rules that they were able to achieve this.

BTW, much of the defensive changes spoken about by Zach Lowe on "hybrid zones" have taken place over the last half dozen ears or so only, and teams like Lebron in 2007 Cavs were basically playing a style that was very similar to how teams played before 2002.

So the main point of contention among people who believe in the beauty of the modern game is that offenses and defenses today are more complex and different from the offense and defense that they use to run in the 90s. Maybe even you won't disagree with this.

No doubt it was rougher back then, with all that NYKnicks ugly ball, but offenses also attacked it very differently with tons of iso and not much passing.

Assists aren't always a good way of determining team ball. Iverson regularly was among leaders in APG, but no one would mistake him for being a team chemistry type of guard, and I'm a big 76er fan. Along with assists, you must watch the games and check for "hockey assist" or passes that lead to assist passes. Now that's a team ball statistic if anyone ever recorded it.

[DatAsh]

The main intention of the rules was to penalize certain types of offenses like isos and iso post ups. That's clear from the NY Times article. FPLii posted an article(attention FPLiii) where S.Jackson himself mentioned this about the league having too many isos and boring offense where everyone just cleared out a side of the court.

By instituting rules that would discourage isos and it's brothers, they encourage teams like the Spurs and the like to emerge. Yes, they wanted to change the way teams run their offenses, and it was through the new rules that they were able to achieve this.

BTW, much of the defensive changes spoken about by Zach Lowe on "hybrid zones" have taken place over the last half dozen ears or so only, and teams like Lebron in 2007 Cavs were basically playing a style that was very similar to how teams played before 2002.

So the main point of contention among people who believe in the beauty of the modern game is that offenses and defenses today are more complex and different from the offense and defense that they use to run in the 90s. Maybe even you won't disagree with this.

No doubt it was rougher back then, with all that NYKnicks ugly ball, but offenses also attacked it very differently with tons of iso and not much passing.

Assists aren't always a good way of determining team ball. Iverson regularly was among leaders in APG, but no one would mistake him for being a team chemistry type of guard, and I'm a big 76er fan. Along with assists, you must watch the games and check for "hockey assist" or passes that lead to assist passes. Now that's a team ball statistic if anyone ever recorded it.


Don't know if I agree with there being more iso's back then. Iso's were certainly more frequent in the early 2000's than they are now, but I still see more isolation today than I did in the 80s.

[3ball]

the league can almost change the sport by changing the rules.. players and teams always adjust though.

[3ball]

Don't know if I agree with there being more iso's back then. Iso's were certainly more frequent in the early 2000's than they are now, but I still see more isolation today than I did in the 80s.
the number of dribble penetration isos are close to the same as previous eras, I'm guessing...

But the mid-range iso where you give it to a Bernard King on the elbow and he faces up and goes to work, or the post iso - these isos are less frequent imo... infact, at times they seem almost completely gone from the game...

it's all screen-roll, drive and kick... Those are the offenses that are effective at taking advantage of the spacing, no-hand-check rules, and defensive 3 seconds to get open shots... and the increased viability of the drive-and-kick after the rule changes makes isos and post-ups not as worth it anymore.

[3ball]

The main intention of the rules was to penalize certain types of offenses like isos and iso post ups. That's clear from the NY Times article. FPLii posted an article(attention FPLiii) where S.Jackson himself mentioned this about the league having too many isos and boring offense where everyone just cleared out a side of the court.

By instituting rules that would discourage isos and it's brothers, they encourage teams like the Spurs and the like to emerge. Yes, they wanted to change the way teams run their offenses, and it was through the new rules that they were able to achieve this.

BTW, much of the defensive changes spoken about by Zach Lowe on "hybrid zones" have taken place over the last half dozen ears or so only, and teams like Lebron in 2007 Cavs were basically playing a style that was very similar to how teams played before 2002.

So the main point of contention among people who believe in the beauty of the modern game is that offenses and defenses today are more complex and different from the offense and defense that they use to run in the 90s. Maybe even you won't disagree with this.

No doubt it was rougher back then, with all that NYKnicks ugly ball, but offenses also attacked it very differently with tons of iso and not much passing.

I think we agree here - the new rules in 2005 to "open up the game", as the NBA put it, improved the viability of various scoring methods so they became more viable than 1-on-1 and isolation plays, thus "discouraging" (as you say) the iso ball.

You also say that the league made those rule changes so teams like the Spurs could emerge - I agree with this... By "opening up the game", teams have more room and freedom to operate, so the need to go 1-on-1 to score ON someone is reduced, since good passing will now find an open man a much higher proportion of the time.

So I think we agree - the league changed the rules and "opened up the game" so that 1-on-1 would no longer be one of the better scoring options - and consequently, teams like the Spurs emerged that were great passing teams.

Regarding the hybrid zones of recent years - maybe that is why offensive rating took a brief dip there in 2012 and 2013 as defenses got a little better at defending the floor-spacing.. there were officiating changes those years as well, like the swim through move wasn't a foul anymore.

[juju151111]

The main intention of the rules was to penalize certain types of offenses like isos and iso post ups. That's clear from the NY Times article. FPLii posted an article(attention FPLiii) where S.Jackson himself mentioned this about the league having too many isos and boring offense where everyone just cleared out a side of the court.

By instituting rules that would discourage isos and it's brothers, they encourage teams like the Spurs and the like to emerge. Yes, they wanted to change the way teams run their offenses, and it was through the new rules that they were able to achieve this.

BTW, much of the defensive changes spoken about by Zach Lowe on "hybrid zones" have taken place over the last half dozen ears or so only, and teams like Lebron in 2007 Cavs were basically playing a style that was very similar to how teams played before 2002.

So the main point of contention among people who believe in the beauty of the modern game is that offenses and defenses today are more complex and different from the offense and defense that they use to run in the 90s. Maybe even you won't disagree with this.

No doubt it was rougher back then, with all that NYKnicks ugly ball, but offenses also attacked it very differently with tons of iso and not much passing.

Assists aren't always a good way of determining team ball. Iverson regularly was among leaders in APG, but no one would mistake him for being a team chemistry type of guard, and I'm a big 76er fan. Along with assists, you must watch the games and check for "hockey assist" or passes that lead to assist passes. Now that's a team ball statistic if anyone ever recorded it.
The only reason Iverson and LJ made it to the finals is because the East is Weak. That shit had nothing to do with defense. Which is why they both got destroyed when they reached the finals. Also please explain to me how Mj would have to change up his game for today. The same Mj that played in various offenses and all different types of pace. Also he played in the Triangle. The offense that won the most modern championship to date since the merger. The 1992 Bulls averaged 27 asts. Yep that Iso:facepalm more thenthe 2014 spurs

[3ball]

Yes, they wanted to change the way teams run their offenses, and it was through the new rules that they were able to achieve this.

No doubt it was rougher back then, with all that NYKnicks ugly ball, but offenses also attacked it very differently with tons of iso and not much passing.

A defense that guards all two-pointers and is allowed to camp in the lane will produce an environment in which it is equally as hard to score as an environment where the defense must guard 3-pointers, can't camp in the lane, but uses additional strategy/scrambling schemes to compensate.

So when people say today's defenses are "better", what they really mean is that today's defenses have to do more things, such as guard the 3-point line while abiding by defensive 3 seconds, and therefore must create extra strategy to do these additional things.... But the extra strategy only maintains the same level of effectiveness as before when the strategy wasn't needed because they COULD camp in the lane and didn't have guard the 3-point line. *

So defenses in previous eras weren't missing out on some modern tactic that could have helped them - for example, previous eras didn't need the strong-side flood because that tactic was only invented to cover extra ground created by 3-point shooting and to maintain rotational capability in the face of the new defensive 3 seconds paint restriction.. The invention of scrambling schemes like the strong side flood demonstrate that defenses are fluid and adjust over time to playing style and regulatory changes in the game by doing whatever is necessary and possible to get stops - the top defenses generally don't miss anything that they could be doing.

The fluid nature of defenses is the reason behind the long-term stability in league-wide offensive rating (Ortg) - the stat measuring how hard it is to score... Ortg in the last 10 years has been at the same levels as it was in the 80's, showing that the difficulty of scoring has remained relatively stable over time.