Today's Players Shoot Worse on Two-Pointers - Could They Make It in Previous Eras?

[3ball]

Why do we only consider how well previous era players would fare in today's game and not the other way around?... Isn't a game that doesn't have the 3 point line a completely different game than basketball WITH the 3-point line, so doesn't it make sense to consider how today's players would fare playing this completely different brand of basketball (quite possibly a more pure, less arbitrary form of the game)?

And today's players ARE worse at shooting two-pointers, so there would be a big adjustment - in 2014, players shot 48.78% on two-pointers on only 61.0 attempts of volume... In 1985, players shot 49.88% on MUCH higher volume - 86.0 two-pointers per game.. The difference in two-point volume is made up by 3-point attempts (3.3 attempts in 1985.. 21.5 today)... This is not cherry-picking years - the numbers are like this every year.

So previous eras DID take a much wider volume and variety of two-pointers... Accordingly, it would be almost impossible for today's 3-and-D play-finisher to keep up in previous eras with players that had mastered a wide variety of two-pointers and had developed the unique scoring skill necessary to score ON their man as a standard - today's game simply doesn't require this of today's player, which is why they are worse from two.

It is simply a lack of understanding about basketball to think that previous era players would have a bigger adjustment learning to play with today's spacing and strategy that gets players higher efficiency shots, than the adjustment today's players would have in previous eras by being required to take their man every time and shoot lower-quality two pointers with no spacing.
.

[dubeta]

Considering Centers were 6'7 and skinny white dudes were guarding you I think players could adjust just fine


And does this stat include fast breaks??

The old eras had much much more fast breaks to pad fg%, does the 2 point fg's take that into account?

[riseagainst]

you also forgot about defense.

[L.Kizzle]

The art of the mid-range is gone. Bottom Line.

Why practice an 18 footer when you can just take a step back and shoot a three? Why practice an 18 footer when you can just drive to the hoop for a lay-up/floater?

[GrapeApe]

About 1/4 of the league would be nearly useless on the court without the 3 point line. It's just such a huge part of the modern game. However, those players crafted their game with that in mind.

[NumberSix]

The NBA didn't play defense in 1985

[3ball]

Considering Centers were 6'7 and skinny white dudes were guarding you I think players could adjust just fine


:yaohappy:.... my man..




And does this stat include fast breaks??

The old eras had much much more fast breaks to pad fg%, does the 2 point fg's take that into account?


It's beneficial to understand this about the game - A decent mid-range shooter like Mark Aguirre or Dirk Nowitski can maintain their efficiency on a mid-range shot even with a defender draped all over, so you don't have to run as much offense to get such a look.

But you can't do that with threes or the efficiency plummets, so shooting 21.5 threes a game means you have to run offense to maximize the openness of those looks, which slows the game down... It's just a fact of basketball in general - the further away you get from the basket, the more open you need to be to maintain efficiency... :confusedshrug:

Back in the day, guys just jacked it up the moment there was a shred of daylight, which is what any era would do if they didn't take threes, and so the pace was hectic.

Historically, as 3-point attempts has increased, pace has declined - it's not a perfect trend every year, but the overall trend over the years couldn't be more obvious... no 3-pointers induces a faster style.
.

[riseagainst]

Considering Centers were 6'7 and skinny white dudes were guarding you I think players could adjust just fine


And does this stat include fast breaks??

The old eras had much much more fast breaks to pad fg%, does the 2 point fg's take that into account?

wow.

[3ball]

you also forgot about defense.
i responded to dubeta above re this notion....

no three-pointers induces a faster style... Also, keep in mind - the stat that shows how hard it is to score, league-wide Ortg, has been the same the last 10 years as it was in the 80's, proving that it was just as hard to score in previous eras.

also, it always amazes me that people don't seem to be capable of noticing how much more contested shots were in previous eras than today's spacing era.

Today's spacing allows teams to move the ball and get open shots - that's how the Spurs won this year.. but all that is impossible without the three-pointers.

[kshutts1]

Only reason I'm responding to you 3ball, even with your troll traits, is that you seem to be highly intelligent. So I doubt you're a troll, and am assuming (hoping) you're just a smart dude that prefers the older style.

Today's brand of basketball is a smarter, more specialized version. Not necessarily better, but smarter.

The 3p is a weapon to be utilized properly. The long shot, whether 3 or 2, is dangerous and beneficial to the offense. Spacing is... are you really saying spacing is bad?... one of the hallmarks of a quality team.

Ray Allen, Kyle Korver, Kobe, George, Ryan Anderson, Lillard, Irving, Paul, Lawson, Ben Gordon, Mike Miller, Ibaka, Bosh, Dirk, etc, would all be NASTY from 12-18 feet if they wanted to be. But today's game offers little incentive for that shot to be taken.

Just as the greats of yesteryear would adapt and star, so too would the greats (or shooting greats, as we're discussing) of today.

[3ball]

Today's brand of basketball is a smarter, more specialized version. Not necessarily better, but smarter.
How is it smarter???... Just because the NBA decided to arbitrarily add a line 24 feet away that awards 3 points?... Of course new strategy comes out of that, but if the game removed the 3-point line, than we're back to a less arbitrary, pure form of the game that has it's OWN strategy that isn't any less "smart" just because there is no 3-point line.


Just as the greats of yesteryear would adapt and star, so too would the greats (or shooting greats, as we're discussing) of today.
At the end of the day, the following is both intuitive and deductive - the adjustment for previous era players that are accustomed to scoring ON a defender, to a brand of basketball that gets them more open shots, cannot be harder than the adjustment of today's players would have of going from open shots to more contested ones.
.

[kshutts1]

I'm never trolling..

At the end of the day, the following is both intuitive and deductive - the adjustment for previous era players that are accustomed to scoring ON a defender, to a brand of basketball that gets them more open shots, cannot be harder than the adjustment of today's players would have of going from open shots to more contested ones.
You put Steph Curry in the 60s, and I guarantee you he'd be open from 22 feet, much less 23'9. He'd make it rain. Then they'd guard him. Then.. SPACING.

[3ball]

Today's brand of basketball is a smarter, more specialized version. Not necessarily better, but smarter.
How is it smarter???... Just because the NBA decided to arbitrarily add a line 24 feet away that awards 3 points?... Of course new strategy comes out of that, but if the game removed the 3-point line, than we're back to a less arbitrary, pure form of the game that has it's OWN strategy that isn't any less "smart" just because there is no 3-point line.
.

[kshutts1]

How is it smarter???... Just because the NBA decided to arbitrarily add a line 24 feet away that awards 3 points?... Of course new strategy comes out of that, but if the game removed the 3-point line, than we're back to a less arbitrary, pure form of the game that has it's OWN strategy that isn't any less "smart" just because there is no 3-point line.


Why would he be open from 22 feet?... Defenses would leave him open?... I don't think so - he'd have to make the same contested shots that Jerry West made.

Could he do it like West?.... I doubt it... West was a better shooter and better athlete.

You might think West is not as good a shooter - but keep in mind that 3/4 of today's shots are still two-pointers, and West was better at all of those - and those are all Curry would be shooting.
.
With a lot of people on this site, that's an appropriate response. Not with me.

[kshutts1]

And the NBA today is smarter because of one basic idea.. why the *^%$ would I want to take a contested shot, every single time, and have defenders draped all over my center, when I could back it up to 22-25 feet (where players DID have the range) and draw out defenders OR make them pay?

They either did that, and your basic premise is BS, or they did not, and they were not that smart. It's one or the other.

[3ball]

You put Steph Curry in the 60s, and I guarantee you he'd be open from 22 feet, much less 23'9. He'd make it rain.
I'm starting to feel your understanding of the game is misguided.

You say Curry would hit from 22 feet and provide spacing... But he can't provide spacing by himself and this is pretty obvious, so I'm not sure if you were trolling in saying that Curry would be a one-man floor-spreading team.

Secondly, so you are advocating that Curry take a bunch of long two's???

There is no incentive to shoot from 22 feet or any long distance because there is no reward of the extra point - so players shot as close to the basket as possible...

Taking a material number of long two's back then is bad strategy just like it is today.

[oarabbus]

Phakkit OP is right. Today's players would be bush league in the 90s. In fact if the D League existed in the 90s, todays players wouldn't even be able to make it. They would be Division 3 college players in the 90s at best.

Today is weaker at PG, SG, SF, PF, AND C. Every damn position! And todays players can't shoot. AND they have it easier without handchecking! Damn, phakkit OP makes a good point about how basketball today sucks compared to the 90s. Why the fxck do we even watch :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

Phakkit OP is right. Today's players would be bush league in the 90s.


No need to get panties in a bunch about it.

All I'm saying is the adjustment for previous era players that are accustomed to scoring ON a defender, to a brand of basketball that gets them more open shots, cannot be harder than the adjustment today's players would have of going from open shots to more contested ones.

It's a perfectly logical conclusion that people should be aware of... it doesn't mean anyone would be bush league in the 90's... but it does mean guys in previous eras would be just fine today, that's all it means.
.

[kshutts1]

I'm starting to feel your understanding of the game is misguided.

You say Curry would hit from 22 feet and provide spacing... But he can't provide spacing by himself and this is pretty obvious, so I'm not sure if you were trolling in saying that Curry would be a one-man floor-spreading team.

Secondly, so you are advocating that Curry take a bunch of long two's???

There is no incentive to shoot from 22 feet or any long distance because there is no reward of the extra point - so players shot as close to the basket as possible...

Taking a material number of long two's back then is bad strategy just like it is today.
Yes, he should take a bunch of long 2s.

The incentive is spacing. Making the game easier for everyone else.

It is only a bad strategy now because there is a 3 point shot. If there is no 3 point shot, the basic premise of spacing still stands, and long shots are still valuable.

Try playing a pickup game with no 3p shot. Players can shoot from back there, but it only counts as 2 (or 1, depending on how you play). All else equal, the team with the better deep shooter will win.

[Trollsmasher]

defense

[3ball]

Yes, he should take a bunch of long 2s.

The incentive is spacing. Making the game easier for everyone else.

It is only a bad strategy now because there is a 3 point shot. If there is no 3 point shot, the basic premise of spacing still stands, and long shots are still valuable.

Try playing a pickup game with no 3p shot. Players can shoot from back there, but it only counts as 2 (or 1, depending on how you play). All else equal, the team with the better deep shooter will win.
This is just not true... :facepalm... like, i don't know what to say.

Defenses are not rushing out to protect against a 22-foot two-pointer if that makes it easier to score a 5 foot two-pointer.... DUCY??......

They would only do that IF the 22-footer is a three-pointer - then it makes sense to protect against the extra point, even if the cost is that it's now easier to score two-pointers closer to the hoop.

Honestly, the points you are making are purely illogical and wrong.. and it's fueled by your recency bias.

Also, no offense, but don't tell me about playing in a pickup game.. I dunk on guys very easily and played D1 for two schools.
.

[kshutts1]

This is just not true... :facepalm... like, i don't know what to say.

Defenses are not rushing out to protect against a 22-foot two-pointer if that makes it easier to score a 5 foot two-pointer.... DUCY??......

They would only do that IF the 22-footer is a three-pointer - then it makes sense to protect against the extra point, even if the cost is that it is now easier to score two-pointers closer to the hoop.

Honestly, the points you are purely illogical and wrong.. and it's fueled by your recency bias.

Also, no offense, but don't tell me about playing in a pickup game.. I dunk on guys very easily and played D1 for two schools... I'll tell you about playing a pickup game.
Was not telling about pickup, but rather suggesting you try out this little "experiment".
If Curry or Durant or Kerr or Miller or Allen or any other good to great shooter is WIDE OPEN from 3, what is their percentage? I don't know it, but I'd guess 65-75%. Once they made a couple, yes, they would be guarded out there.

And going to your bolded statement.. what incentive, then, did defenses have in guarding anything outside of the paint? Why not just pack all 5 guys in the paint and let other teams try to beat them with a shot?

[kshutts1]

Defenses are not rushing out to protect against a 22-foot two-pointer if that makes it easier to score a 5 foot two-pointer.... DUCY??
.
And to further expound upon this...
In your extensive time playing pickup, have you ever guarded someone that just started pulling from 25+ feet?

First time it happens, you laugh... but then it goes in. Shrug your shoulders.. lucky shot.

Second shot.. wtf?. It goes in. OK, gotta guard him.

Third time.. there likely is no third time. Cuz now you move out to check him, and he blows by you cuz you're playing him so tight, or pumps you off your feet then does a give and go.

No matter what you think is "outrageous" or a "bad shot" or "too deep"... it happens, dude. And it opens up the game for the rest of the offense.

[kshutts1]

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

Tell him what he's won Bob!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... :banana:

That's EXACTLY what teams did in previous eras.
I'm confused. Did everyone take open shots? Or did defenses pack the paint?

Because if everyone packed the paint, I'd lead the league in scoring, raining 12 foot jumpers on every team, every night.

[3ball]

I'm confused. Did everyone take open shots? Or did defenses pack the paint?
Go back and watch an old game if you don't know - they packed the paint, because that is where teams tried to take all their shots... which is why the shots were all contested.


Because if everyone packed the paint, I'd lead the league in scoring, raining 12 foot jumpers on every team, every night.
A 12 foot jumper would be IN the paint from straight-away, and just outside the paint from anywhere else... So that's just another exaggeration that is based on your mental addiction to recency bias.

[3ball]

No matter what you think is "outrageous" or a "bad shot" or "too deep"... it happens, dude. And it opens up the game for the rest of the offense.
Defenses will never rush out to protect against a 22-foot two-pointer if that makes it easier to score a 5 foot two-pointer... if you can't understand this, you should stop watching basketball - you are wasting your time.. you need to go back to school.

Teams would only defend aggressively against long jumpers IF an extra point was awarded for it - then it makes sense to protect against the extra point, even if the cost is to make it easier to score two-pointers closer to the hoop.

This is like 2+2=4.
.

[ralph_i_el]

If you actually want to go back to before the 3 point line....idk what to say to you. You sound like my senile old grandpa watching a warriors game.

[3ball]

If you actually want to go back to before the 3 point line....idk what to say to you. You sound like my senile old grandpa watching a warriors game.
You guys all misinterpret my posts as something else.

The point of my posts are to say that we need to be more logical in comparing players over different eras.

It's obvious to anyone not blind that today's game is about open shots (that's how the Spurs won the championship), while players in previous eras had to take more contested shots.

So the adjustment for previous era players that were accustomed to scoring ON a defender, to today's brand of basketball that gets them more open shots, cannot be harder than the adjustment today's players would have of going from open shots to more contested ones.

Now where did I say I wanted to go back to before the 3-point line???... that is you misinterpreting my posts - all i'm saying is the bolded above.

[iamgine]

And today's players ARE worse at shooting two-pointers, so there would be a big adjustment - in 2014, players shot 48.78% on two-pointers on only 61.0 attempts of volume... In 1985, players shot 49.88% on MUCH higher volume - 86.0 two-pointers per game.. The difference in two-point volume is made up by 3-point attempts (3.3 attempts in 1985.. 21.5 today)... This is not cherry-picking years - the numbers are like this every year.

Do those include lay ups, dunks or anything other than a mid range shot?

[oarabbus]

No need to get panties in a bunch about it.

All I'm saying is the adjustment for previous era players that are accustomed to scoring ON a defender, to a brand of basketball that gets them more open shots, cannot be harder than the adjustment today's players would have of going from open shots to more contested ones.

It's a perfectly logical conclusion that people should be aware of... it doesn't mean anyone would be bush league in the 90's... but it does mean guys in previous eras would be just fine today, that's all it means.
.


You consistently make these thinly-veiled agenda driven threads propping up the 90s even though the talent pool and analysis of the game has increased.



Brent Barry e-mailed. He was wondering why these days so few NBA players average 20 or more points per game.

There's just nine in the whole league, at the moment, he pointed out. As recently as 2007-2008 there were 27.

Three times as many!

Remember, those are the most exciting players to watch. The human highlight reels, the putting-butts-in-seats guys, the players a million kids on a million blacktops dream of becoming.

And two-thirds of them have essentially gone missing. As if stolen.

Gone with them are a bundle of special memories, including almost all the 50-point nights.

If aliens had lured them to another planet to start a highly rated hoops league there, we'd have a massive story worthy of Hollywood.

But they have disappeared in some other way that's tougher to notice. Slipped out the back door. And ... crickets. Our scorers have gone, our scorers have gone and ... barely a whisper.

What is going on?

Barry had some theories:
Playing-time cutbacks?
Lots of injured stars this season?
Teams playing at a slower pace?

This was serious. I fetched a legal pad and scribbled down those theories, and added some of my own:
Scoring down in general?
Top players shooting less by choice in the name of efficiency? (The highest salaries that used to go just to the highest points-per-game guys now tilt to those with the best scoring efficiency.)
More stars saving early-season energy for the playoffs?
Coaches giving more big minutes to elite defenders, which would both keep more shooters on the bench and make opposing scorers less effective?
Better team defense? The effective kind of rotating/switching defense that was an outlier for the Celtics in 2008 is now commonplace, which could make scorers less effective while also making those would-be big scorers more tired from running around so much?
Scoring

Scoring is down, a little. A typical NBA team so far this season has scored about 98 points per game. That number was 99.9 in 2007-08, and a whopping 109.9 in 1986-87. It's part of the story, but it's not the whole thing.

Minutes

Just about a year ago exactly I did some rough-and-ready research and found that teams whose top players play a ton of minutes don't win NBA titles. Not anymore. They used to. But not in recent years.

The best theory I heard to explain that came from David Thorpe, who laid the blame it on that hustling, switching team defense. Once upon a time, lots of teams preferred an "isolation" offense, which meant one player dribbling alone against one defender, while as many as eight guys caught breathers. On many NBA plays these days, nobody stands around. It's common to see 10 guys flying all over the court. This is not your daddy's NBA. It's great for fans and team play, but it's much tougher for players: A minute of play, the theory goes, is now much more work than it used to be, and one result is that more rest is required.

I went into this season expecting that more smart teams would limit their top players' minutes, Popovich-style, not because they are weak in the mind nor because they are not in good-enough shape. But because it works.

Basketball-Reference was built to answer these kinds of questions, and what I found was that while some top teams may be managing minutes, plenty are not. I dug in, using the top 10 players in minutes played as a test. In the first 36 games of the 2007-08 season, the 10 players with the most minutes played logged a combined 14,281 minutes. This season, that list includes Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Stephen Curry and Damian Lillard, and the total minutes they have played is down to 13,793. So maybe that's having some effect.

And while there are plenty of heavy-minute players this season, some of those on limited diets of playing time, because of injury or strategy, are players who might have scored more in a different season. Brook Lopez, Tim Duncan, Jamal Crawford, Kevin Martin, Kevin Garnett and Derrick Rose are among those who'd threaten the 20-per-game with a typical alpha-scorer's playing time.

But it's not some massive historical trend that big names are sitting more. I checked 1985-86, too, back when Dominique Wilkins and Larry Bird were scoring at will, and in that season the top 10 combined to play even fewer minutes than today's big names.

Joe Johnson is something of a poster child here: He was scoring 21.7 points per game five years ago playing the second-most minutes in the league. This year he's playing less and scoring just 17.1 points per game. In other words, Johnson is one of the players Barry was e-mailing about, one of the players who has been affected by ... whatever is happening.

Did they rob us of this transcendent scorer by sitting him? Not exactly.

His minutes are down, but his scoring is down even more -- even with his old minutes, he'd only score 18.5 points per game at this season's scoring rate. That's the trend: There are plenty of gifted scorers playing the kinds of minutes that used to get you 20 points per game. Those players just aren't scoring as much now.

Something else is up.

Pace

Maybe the game has slowed down? It would explain a lot. Simply keeping the ball longer before shooting would explain now the same number of minutes played would result in fewer possessions, fewer shots and, importantly ... fewer points.

It's so perfect!

But it's not happening. The average pace has bounced around this season but is just a tad slower than five years ago, at 91.7 compared to 92.4.

Shot selection

OK, so teams are playing at the same speed, and the high-minute players are playing about as many minutes as ever.

Maybe they're just shooting less? Maybe stat geekery has inspired some kind of revolution in thinking, and suddenly all those inefficient gunners are thinking twice about jacking up bad shots?

Despite the lack of total points, top players do have slightly better field goal percentage (46.7 compared to 45.7 percent) this year compared to five years ago.

Again using the the players who lead the league in minutes this season as a sample group of the kinds of players who are candidates to average 20 or more points per game, we find ... this theory strikes out too. The truth is, they're shooting more often.

This year those top players are taking a shot every 2:19 of play, compared to every 2:24 five years ago. (In 1985-1986 they shot every 2:10, which is a lot of shooting.)

I had been abusing the numbers of Basketball-Reference for some time, but they simply would not give up the answers I was looking for.

Time for another perspective.



As soon as I explained the issue to Thorpe, he declared "I know exactly what's going on."



The defense.

Thorpe explains it best in the video, but the gist is this: In recent years more and more NBA coaches have signed up for the defensive philosophy, popularized by Tom Thibodeau since 2007-08, of "flooding ball-side box."

This is not the same as double-teaming, but it has some similarities. When the ball is on one side of the court, watch for this: Very often an extra defender sneaks over to join the action, bringing a crowd of defenders closer to the ball. It's something that became legal when the NBA began allowing zone defenses in 2001, but it took until 2008 for coaches to really figure out how to take best advantage.

That's when the big-time gunners started to disappear.

[oarabbus]

Flooding the side of the court with the ball makes everything tougher for that star scorer, starting when he makes the catch and assesses options. Driving lanes are tighter or closed off entirely. More defenders have more ability to get hands in faces. It's difficult to reach favored spots on the court, and to operate once there. These are the times that try virtuoso's souls.

And when there's an extra defender on one side of the court, the good play is pretty obvious: pass to the other side, where your team has the numbers advantage.

If Thorpe is right, that this team defensive technique is to blame for our new shortage of big scorers, there are various ways you might expect the data to have his back. For instance, secondary scorers -- those guys catching the ball on the sparsely defended weak side -- ought to be scoring more, while top players could expect to see an uptick in assists.

That's all happening. Stars putting up big numbers are incredibly hard to find this season compared to five years ago, but overall team scoring is down only about two points per game -- the non-star scorers must be picking up a little slack.

And as for assists, in 1985-86, the 10 players who played the longest minutes in the season's first 36 games combined for 1,308 assists. Five years ago, that number was 1,482. This year it's all the way up to 1,768.

Not getting to the line

There's one other part of this story. A big part. And it's this: Free throws are more rare than ever. There are 22.3 per game on average this season, which is the lowest level in NBA history. And it's not a one-year aberration. The second lowest year ever was last year. Every season since 2008-09 is in the top 10 all-time for fewest free throws.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Top players are simply not getting to the line.

Those high-minute players combined to shoot more than 2,400 free throws in the first 36 games of both 1985-86 and 2007-08. This season, they stepped to the line just 1,757 times.

In a way, this is one mystery solved. Pace mildly slower. Minutes slightly lower. Scoring generally down a bit. Free throws are down hugely compared to all of history and 10 percent over the last five years. New defenses can explain some or all of that, and it's more clear than ever why so few players are averaging 20 points per game.

But this mystery comes with a sequel: Why so few free throws?

One theory is that the NBA has reduced some of the referee trickery available to big scorers, for instance, by discouraging the "rip-through" move which led to cheap free throws for top scorers. Refereeing oversight has evolved, too, with the league looking over referees' shoulders more than ever in the name of a consistently called game. Perhaps "star calls" are on the wane generally.

Another possible explanation, however, is that Thorpe's defensive theory explains this too: with extra defenders around, perhaps players simply aren't attacking the rim, where big numbers of fouls are drawn, as often as they used to.

If so, that could be a major factor -- the major factor, even -- in explaining why top players aren't scoring like they used to.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/53534/where-have-all-the-gunners-gone



There's plenty of more literature out there from Sloan, blogs like this, statements from coaches, etc describing how today has the most complex, sophisticated defensive schemes in the history of the game. But instead you continue to imply that today's game is weaker at EVERY position, it's a joke.

[3ball]

Do those include lay ups, dunks or anything other than a mid range shot?
It's all two-point shot attempts... not broken down by type of two-pointer... but the volume is so much greater that it is going to be more of everything.

It is common knowledge that today's spacing era is about open shots - we all know this... It's been figured out that the optimal shot allocation is at-rim looks, FT's and three-pointers - teams like the Spurs move the ball to get the open looks and achieve this overall allocation.

That's what puzzles me... Even a cursory glance at a game from previous eras shows a stark contrast.. Players took contested shots as a standard - that was the expectation on every play and it looks night-and-day different to today's spacing era and open shots.

Yet the prevailing assumption seems to be that players from previous eras would have a harder time adjusting to today's spacing and open shots, than today's players would have adjusting to less open shots and having to take your man/score ON defenders much more often.

[oarabbus]

It's all two-point shot attempts... not broken down by type of two-pointer... but the volume is so much greater that it is going to be more of everything.

It is common knowledge that today's spacing era is about open shots - we all know this... It's been figured out that the optimal shot allocation is at-rim looks, FT's and three-pointers - teams like the Spurs move the ball to get the open looks and achieve this overall allocation.

That's what puzzles me... Even a cursory glance at a game from previous eras shows a stark contrast.. Players took contested shots as a standard - that was the expectation on every play and it looks night-and-day different to today's spacing era and open shots.

Yet the prevailing assumption seems to be that players from previous eras would have a harder time adjusting to today's spacing and open shots, than today's players would have adjusting to less open shots and having to take your man/score ON defenders much more often.


Because today's defensive schemes are much, much more advanced than in the 90s. Read the excessively long article for details.

[3ball]

Because today's defensive schemes are much, much more advanced than in the 90s. Read the excessively long article for details.
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.
.

[oarabbus]

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



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.
.


So why do you think 90s players would easily adapt to strong side flooding or whatnot? You could just as easily say 90s players would struggle to score with today's defensive schemes.

[iamgine]

It's all two-point shot attempts... not broken down by type of two-pointer... but the volume is so much greater that it is going to be more of everything.

It is common knowledge that today's spacing era is about open shots - we all know this... It's been figured out that the optimal shot allocation is at-rim looks, FT's and three-pointers - teams like the Spurs move the ball to get the open looks and achieve this overall allocation.

That's what puzzles me... Even a cursory glance at a game from previous eras shows a stark contrast.. Players took contested shots as a standard - that was the expectation on every play and it looks night-and-day different to today's spacing era and open shots.

Yet the prevailing assumption seems to be that players from previous eras would have a harder time adjusting to today's spacing and open shots, than today's players would have adjusting to less open shots and having to take your man/score ON defenders much more often.
If it includes dunks and layups, why would the % drop when going from 61 to 86 attempts?

[oarabbus]

If it includes dunks and layups, why would the % drop when going from 61 to 86 attempts?


Clearly it's a weak era for dunking and layups bro.

[3ball]

If it includes dunks and layups, why would the % drop when going from 61 to 86 attempts?
The percentage on two-pointers went UP despite the higher volume, not down.

[3ball]

So why do you think 90s players would easily adapt to strong side flooding or whatnot?
Because the strong-side flood didn't make it harder to score, it only MAINTAINED the same level of defensive effectiveness as before defensive 3 seconds rule existed (the strong-side flood was invented to combat defensive 3 seconds).

You'd be amazed - if today's game were to remove the 3-point line and go back to the old rules, you would see the pace pick back up and the game would look exactly as it did in the 80's and before, only with longer shorts and more tattoes.

Extra strategy like the strong-side flood only 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.

[kshutts1]

I would like to play you in a game, 3ball.

I may be misunderstanding something, but...

You give me wide open 20 footers, literally no D. And I'll give you one on one in the post. See who wins.

A knock-down shooter drags ONE defender out. I'm not saying all of them. So now Wilt is still being single covered, and anyone driving into the lane still has one person to deal with.

I'm not saying close out on a shooter to leave someone UNGUARDED in the post. I'm saying to take ONE defender from a highly congested, as it were, defensive area to close out on a shooter that has proven to be effective.

As an offensive player, I would rather take a wide open 18-22 foot jumper than a contested 15 foot jumper, or a highly contested 10 footer.

Edit: And when I'm playing regularly, my team wins more often than not, for what it's worth.

[steve]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/53534/where-have-all-the-gunners-gone



There's plenty of more literature out there from Sloan, blogs like this, statements from coaches, etc describing how today has the most complex, sophisticated defensive schemes in the history of the game. But instead you continue to imply that today's game is weaker at EVERY position, it's a joke.

Here's something interesting as food for thought: there were more 20+ ppg scorers 30 years ago (27 to 18) about the same 20 years ago and less 10 years ago but one thing that I think isn't necessarily touched upon is that there are more double digit scorers now than there's ever been. There were 128 last season, 119 ten years ago, 106 twenty years ago, and 110 thirty years ago. League might be losing the big time gunners but they're certainly in variation of scoring and someone could make the claim that it's to teams being generally smarter.

[3ball]

Here's something interesting as food for thought: there were more 20+ ppg scorers 30 years ago (27 to 18) about the same 20 years ago and less 10 years ago but one thing that I think isn't necessarily touched upon is that there are more double digit scorers now than there's ever been. There were 128 last season, 119 ten years ago, 106 twenty years ago, and 110 thirty years ago. League might be losing the big time gunners but they're certainly in variation of scoring and someone could make the claim that it's to teams being generally smarter.
The reason you don't have as many 20+ppg scorers today is because the spacing makes ball movement more effective at getting open shots, which reduces the need to take your man, so less players are developed today that can take their man.

In previous eras, the lack of spacing reduced the effectiveness of ball movement, which increased the need to take your man.. So naturally, there were a ton of great 1-on-1 players and great scorers... You would know this if you had seen the games back then.

Instead, in today's game, more and more wing players are 3-and-D play-finishers... Meanwhile, bigs only need to finish plays after screen-roll action and move their feet on defense - they don't have the entire offense run through them like previous eras.

Honestly, most people and media today know nothing about basketball and how it works, so I wouldn't put too much faith in what you read.. the best way is to watch and play the game, and then figure it out for yourself.. the stats make better sense that way too.

[Micku]

The reason you don't have as many 20+ppg scorers today is because the spacing makes ball movement more effective at getting open shots, which reduces the need to take your man, so less players are developed today that can take their man.


From the games that I watched, the seem to hold the less for the iso. So, taking on their man was a little different back in the 80s and early 90s. They never hold the ball as much as Carmelo, LBJ or whatever to take on their man. They make a quick move and then attempt to score. The superstars back then seem to work within the offense and the pace of the team better than some now.

They appeared to passed the ball a lot more back then and they always took the first good shot available. But it would be nice to actual get a stat for passing per possession back then. The spacing itself wasn't good because they didn't utilize the 3 and clog the paint as you said. And no more bigs to be the main focal point of the offense as well.

Anyway, players could shoot the midrange if they played back then. There will be more fast breaks, which would increase their two pointer %. And sometimes the defense would allow them an open shot unless you were a sharp shooter.

[oarabbus]

Here's something interesting as food for thought: there were more 20+ ppg scorers 30 years ago (27 to 18) about the same 20 years ago and less 10 years ago but one thing that I think isn't necessarily touched upon is that there are more double digit scorers now than there's ever been. There were 128 last season, 119 ten years ago, 106 twenty years ago, and 110 thirty years ago. League might be losing the big time gunners but they're certainly in variation of scoring and someone could make the claim that it's to teams being generally smarter.

:applause: good stuff. Very interesting.

[rhowen4]

I love the pacers so yeah I think they could. I'm relying on the fact there is a larger talent pool out there, and because the focus has gone to the three point shot.

[3ball]

Why are there less 20ppg scorers in today's game????

Isn't this a dumb question??

Don't we already know that players don't go 1-on-1 anymore nearly as much as they used to???

Don't we know that open shots are the goal in today's game - hence the play-finishing-3-and-D wings... and hence the bigs that no longer have offense run through them anymore and only have to finish plays off screen-roll action and move their feet on D???

Yes... We do know these things... and therefore don't need to ask dumb questions like why there aren't as many skilled scorers in today's game... The answer stares us in the face everyday when we see a team swing the ball around for an open THREEEEEEEEEE!!!!