Darly Morey Says New Defensive Strategies Result From Rule Changes

[3ball]

.
http://grantland.com/features/packing-paint-nba-defensive-strategy-forcing-coaches-rethink-their-offense/

“A lot of the defensive strategies you see now are a natural evolution from rule changes,” says Houston GM Daryl Morey, in reference to the league’s decision a decade ago to abandon illegal defense rules and essentially allow zone defenses.. “First the defense evolved by overloading the strong side, and now the offenses are evolving to beat that.”

"...he (Thibodeau) was the first coach to stretch the limits of the NBA’s new defensive three-second rule and flood the strong side with hybrid man/zone defenses."


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 3-pointers and abide by defensive 3 seconds, which requires extra strategy... But since the extra strategy was only invented as a "natural evolution of rule changes", this extra strategy only ensures that it remains just as hard to score under the new rules, as before the new rules - the extra strategy ensures that the environment under the new rules where the defense has to guard 3-pointers and stay out of the paint, is just as hard to score in as the old environment where the defense only had to guard 2-pointers and COULD camp in the paint.

Consider that previous eras couldn't have even used today's strong side flood tactic for example, because it is based on circumventing the defensive 3 seconds rule, which didn't exist before 2005... But imagine what would have happened if the strong-side flood hadn't been invented post-2005 rule changes... League-wide Offensive Rating (Ortg), or the stat that measures how difficult it is to score, would have shot way up, as offenses beat their new rule change advantages like a drum with no strategic adjustment/resistance.

But that didn't happen, because 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.. The fluid nature of defenses (and offenses) provides a natural equilibrium to the game that is demonstrated in the long-term stability of league-wide Ortg... Ortg in the last 10 years has been at the same levels as it was in the 80's, which provides quantitative proof that the difficulty of scoring has remained relatively stable over time as players, coaches, and teams continually adjust to the environment.
.

[buddha]

i'd rather talk about the blatantly illegal play known as the 'alley-oop'

[navy]

Why is it I have have already seen everything in this thread already posted?

By you.

Sheesh.

[wally_world]

Ortg in the last 10 years has been at the same levels as it was in the 80's, which provides quantitative proof that the difficulty of scoring has remained relatively stable over time as players, coaches, and teams continually adjust to the environment.

I agree. Scoring and defending has just been made different. Zone defense was basically implemented/legalised to prevent too many isolation plays, esp in the paint (post defensive 3 sec rules). But it also opened up easier dribble penetration and 3pt shooting because of the rotations caused by zone defense.

Point is, while you can say scoring in general has remained stable, you can't compare, for example, point guards of the 80s with point guards today and say the game was the same for them. Same with 3pt shooting. This generation's shooters might not be the greatest; it just wasn't as important and glorified in the past.

[ralph_i_el]

Hey post this thread again why don't you?

[juju151111]

Hey post this thread again why don't you?
Nobody is forcing you to post in this thread.

[ralph_i_el]

Nobody is forcing you to post in this thread.
Well this one has been around for 2 hours already so its probably stale :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

I agree. Scoring and defending has just been made different. Zone defense was basically implemented/legalised to prevent too many isolation plays, esp in the paint (post defensive 3 sec rules). But it also opened up easier dribble penetration and 3pt shooting because of the rotations caused by zone defense.

Point is, while you can say scoring in general has remained stable, you can't compare, for example, point guards of the 80s with point guards today and say the game was the same for them. Same with 3pt shooting. This generation's shooters might not be the greatest; it just wasn't as important and glorified in the past.
You cant say it's the same for PG's, but you can't say it's the same for bigs or wing players either.

Today's bigs are only finishers of plays after sufficient ball movement or after the PG dribble-creates for them.. Bigs in previous eras had the entire offense run through them - they created offense for everyone else from the post.. This is why Duncan still plays well... The offense doesn't run through him on the post anymore - nowadays, he just finishes plays.

SG's and SF's today do 3-and-D, so they use the spacing to take the highest efficiency shots (3-pointers, FT's and at-rim looks)... Wings of previous eras mastered a much wider variety of shots in the two-point areas, or everything in between the at-rim shots and 3-pointers that the modern wing player focuses on.

I always find it hard to believe that players in previous eras who had to take a higher proportion of tougher, lower efficiency shots (mid-range), wouldn't thrive using today's spacing like everyone else to take a larger proportion of easier, higher efficiency shots.

[wally_world]

You cant say it's the same for PG's, but you can't say it's the same for bigs or wing players either.

Today's bigs are only finishers of plays after sufficient ball movement or after the PG dribble-creates for them.. Bigs in previous eras had the entire offense run through them - they created offense for everyone else from the post.. This is why Duncan still plays well... The offense doesn't run through him on the post anymore - nowadays, he just finishes plays.

SG's and SF's today do 3-and-D, so they use the spacing to take the highest efficiency shots (3-pointers, FT's and at-rim looks)... Wings of previous eras mastered a much wider variety of shots in the two-point areas, or everything in between the at-rim shots and 3-pointers that the modern wing player focuses on.

I always find it hard to believe that players in previous eras who had to take a higher proportion of tougher, lower efficiency shots (mid-range), wouldn't thrive using today's spacing like everyone else to take a larger proportion of easier, higher efficiency shots.

Yeah i was just taking PGs as an example. I agree it's not the same for all positions.

Have to disagree on your last point tho. You described how the offenses have evolved from the 80s till today, but don't forget the defense has also evolved. I think scoring is more balanced in the modern era because of zone defense, roleplayers are becoming more important than ever on the offensive end, and superstars need to find a way to get them involved.

[chips93]

I agree. Scoring and defending has just been made different. Zone defense was basically implemented/legalised to prevent too many isolation plays, esp in the paint (post defensive 3 sec rules). But it also opened up easier dribble penetration and 3pt shooting because of the rotations caused by zone defense.

that has more to do with the new hand check rules than zone defense rules.


Point is, while you can say scoring in general has remained stable, you can't compare, for example, point guards of the 80s with point guards today and say the game was the same for them. Same with 3pt shooting. This generation's shooters might not be the greatest; it just wasn't as important and glorified in the past.

really? 3 point accuracy and volume have gone up steadily pretty much every year, so i dont know how you can say todays shooters arent better

[3ball]

3 point accuracy and volume have gone up steadily pretty much every year, so i dont know how you can say todays shooters arent better


Except that percentages from two-point range are lower today, on much lower volume - teams shot 48.78% from two-point range in 2014 on 61.5 two-point attempts per game, compared to 49.88% in 1985, on 86.0 attempts.

So even though today's players are better 3-point shooters, they are worse shooters overall.

[chips93]

Except that percentages from two-point range are lower today, on much lower volume - teams shot 48.78% from two-point range in 2014 on 61.5 two-point attempts per game, compared to 49.88% in 1985, on 86.0 attempts.

So even though today's players are better 3-point shooters, they are worse shooters overall.

thats a pretty tiny small decline

i guess it depends on your definition of a shooter. to me that implies jump shooting, not just general FG%

[3ball]

Percentages from two-point range are lower today, and on much lower volume - teams shot 48.78% from two-point range in 2014 on 61.5 two-point attempts per game, compared to 49.88% in 1985, on 86.0 attempts.

So even though today's players are better 3-point shooters, they are worse shooters overall.






thats a pretty tiny small decline

i guess it depends on your definition of a shooter. to me that implies jump shooting, not just general FG%


Look at the volume - 86.0 two-pointers attempted per game back then compared to 61.5 attempts today - obviously, there are a ton of jumpshots in there, more than today's game given the volume.

Keep in mind that two-pointers are still 3/4 of the shots taken today... since previous eras shot a better percentage and shot a lot more OF them, it means they were better shooters.

[chips93]

Look at the volume - 86.0 two-pointers attempted per game back then compared to 61.5 attempts today - obviously, there are a ton of jumpshots in there, more than today's game given the volume.

Keep in mind that two-pointers are still 3/4 of the shots taken today... since previous eras shot a better percentage and shot a lot more OF them, it means they were better shooters.

yeah thats a good point, i didnt consider that

[3ball]

yeah thats a good point, i didnt consider that


Also, the reason pace was faster in the "two-pointer" eras is because a decent shooter like Dirk Nowistski or Mark Aguirre can still hit mid-range shots with a defender draped all over, so offense doesn't need to be run to get those shots..

Otoh, as it turns out, you have to run offense to get off the 21.5 threes per game that it takes to keep the floor spread in today's game..

Unlike mid-range two-pointers, guys need to be open to hit 3's at a good clip so you have to run offense to get those looks, which slows the game down... You can't just come down and jack up a three-pointer like you can a mid-range shot.

[3ball]

Also, with the increased ability of teams to find an open shot under the new rules, the two-pointers that ARE scored in today's game are more straightforward (usually just finishing a play created by someone else's dribble drive), as opposed to the unique individuality that players such as Kareem, Bob McAdoo, Bernard King, Magic and Bird had developed due to the need to score ON their man more often.