Are people blind?

[3ball]

Today's game is based on open shots... How is it current basketball fans can't acknowledge this?

That's how the Spurs won this year, is it not?... Today's spacing allows teams to move the ball to get open shots.

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

And how is shooting a higher proportion of open shots not going to be an easy adjustment for players in previous eras, when they had the skill necessary to take contested shots as a standard?


:biggums:
.

[SexSymbol]

Any game in professional leagues are based on the psychology level of the team, imho.

Willingness to sacrifice for each other transfers to playing good defense and not being selfish, AND being selfish at right moments.

[Dr Seuss]

way to simplify it.

how does a team get open shots, ball movement. so you can just as easily say games are based and won through ball movement. my point being that good, smart basketball is what wins game and will continue to do so.

Individual superstardom will get you W's but its going to be hard to base a team strictly around that

[3ball]

Individual superstardom will get you W's but its going to be hard to base a team strictly around that


The superstardom style of play you allude to, where you are taking your man and scoring ON defender(s) as a standard, is harder than today's open shots obtained through ball movement.

So the adjustment for players in previous eras 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 contested ones.
.

[ralph_i_el]

Yeah lets get rid of the 3 point line and force defenders to play man D.

Basketball would be soooooo much better.


:applause: :bowdown: :applause: :bowdown:

Love it

[3ball]

Yeah lets get rid of the 3 point line and force defenders to play man D.

Basketball would be soooooo much better.


:applause: :bowdown: :applause: :bowdown:

Love it
You guys misinterpret my posts as something else.. :no:

The point of my posts are 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 for players in previous eras that were accustomed to scoring ON a defender, the adjustment 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... :confusedshrug:

[ralph_i_el]

You guys misinterpret my posts as something else.. :no:

The point of my posts are 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 for players in previous eras that were accustomed to scoring ON a defender, the adjustment 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.. :confusedshrug:

Basketball is about open shots.

It's just a little harder to win going 1-on-1 in todays game, and that's ok. I think most people who really enjoy basketball enjoy team basketball.

You are correct though. Lots of guys are only in the league today to shoot 3's and bust their ass on D. Those guys have existed as long as the 3 point line has existed. You are right though, we look for those guys and value prospects who have those traits. Guys like that would be less valuable before the 3 point line, and less valuable before they removed illegal D.

It's just like how lumbering, post-up bigs are less valued today. Marginal-level guys who's major skill is post-up scoring are not making it in the league today, like a guy who could only shoot open shots would have had trouble in different basketball-climates. The balance of effectiveness changes over the years as rule changes go into effect and coaches build off the coaching theory of their predecessors.

[Element]

You do realize that getting open shots like the Spurs do is an artform in itself right? Your point is moot. Superstars still attract as much coverage on their field goal attempts as superstars from yesteryear, if not more. Role players still get disrespected and shoot a ton of open shots.

Plus, people have been saying "the mid-range is a lost art" since the early 00s when tough, contested shots in congestion were at their most common because of the level of defense at the time.


You're acting as if every made basket back in the days was a contested 17-footer. The Spurs won with open shots and ball movement without a single great shot creator. However, they had 3 slashing threats in TP/Manu/Leonard, enough post skill on offense for it to be an effective part of their gameplan in Duncan and Diaw and a willing mid-range shooter in Parker. And of course a bevy of what else, three point shooting.

You know other teams that won with a lot of ball movement? Open shots and shit? Showtime Lakers. 11 Mavs who won with Dirk powering their incredible display of shooting the basketball...Walton's Blazers won a title the ball-movement, open-shot happy way...Russell's Celtics tried to get up as many clean looks as the 48 min timer allowed..and they won 11 titles. In essence, you need to stop with this agenda stuff.

You're clearly a knowledgable poster and I think you do have a firm grasp of how NBA basketball works. But you try to tilt what you see so that it fits your perception of the old times and especially MJ's era (lol expansion) being better

[oarabbus]

Today's game is based on open shots... How is it current basketball fans can't acknowledge this?


:biggums:
.



You are correct. I haven't seen a contested shot since '99.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Why do you continue making the same topics over and over? We get it. Today's game sucks. Anything else you have to offer?

[fpliii]

Today's game is based on open shots... How is it current basketball fans can't acknowledge this?

That's how the Spurs won this year, is it not?... Today's spacing allows teams to move the ball to get open shots.

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

And how is shooting a higher proportion of open shots not going to be an easy adjustment for players in previous eras, when they had the skill necessary to take contested shots as a standard?


:biggums:
.
This year, the Spurs actually shot better on contested jumpers than open ones in the Finals. :eek: From stats.nba.com:

contested: 111/204 (.544); uncontested: 80/158 (.509)

[Warfan]

This year, the Spurs actually shot better on contested jumpers than open ones in the Finals. :eek: From stats.nba.com:

contested: 111/204 (.544); uncontested: 80/158 (.509)

Nah you're lying. I haven't seen anyone make a contested jumper since 1999

[oarabbus]

This year, the Spurs actually shot better on contested jumpers than open ones in the Finals. :eek: From stats.nba.com:

contested: 111/204 (.544); uncontested: 80/158 (.509)


:no: Today's players can't make contested jumpers. And every single position is devoid of talent compared to the 90s. Don't you know ANYTHING fpliii?

[navy]

This year, the Spurs actually shot better on contested jumpers than open ones in the Finals. :eek: From stats.nba.com:

contested: 111/204 (.544); uncontested: 80/158 (.509)
lol :oldlol:

[jlip]

But you try to tilt what you see so that it fits your perception of the old times and especially MJ's era (lol expansion) being better

That's his sole purpose for being on ISH.

[G.O.A.T]

Are people blind?

Some...

http://www.motownmuseum.org/wp-content/themes/motown/images/sounds_stevie_1.jpg

[Budadiiii]

Individual superstardom will get you W's but its going to be hard to base a team strictly around that
Yet somehow the Thunder continue to be a top 2/3 team in the league year after year with only Westbrook and Durant's individual talent and drive.

:bowdown:

[3ball]

This year, the Spurs actually shot better on contested jumpers than open ones in the Finals. :eek: From stats.nba.com:

contested: 111/204 (.544); uncontested: 80/158 (.509)
This from the guy that says a 30% decline in dunk frequency from 1998 to 2001 is likely noise in the data.... are you serious dude???

stfu dude and do me a favor bro... don't respond in my threads anymore... seriously..

you will say anything to support your agenda, no matter how ridiculous, which i wouldn't mind if you really understood the game and could manage a troll with genius, which you can't do because the understanding isn't there.. instead, only rudimentary, shallow understanding of the game... go have a drink with skip bayless, even though he's a bron hater, because otherwise, you guys think the same.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Today's game is based on putting the orange ball through the circular piece of metal

[DatAsh]

This from the guy that says a 30% decline in dunk frequency from 1998 to 2001 is likely noise in the data.... are you serious dude???

stfu dude and do me a favor bro... don't respond in my threads anymore... seriously..

you will say anything to support your agenda, no matter how ridiculous, which i wouldn't mind if you really understood the game and could manage a troll with genius, which you can't do because the understanding isn't there.. instead, only rudimentary, shallow understanding of the game... go have a drink with skip bayless, even though he's a bron hater, because otherwise, you guys think the same.


He was just posting data. I don't really see any agenda in that :confusedshrug:

[russwest0]

way to simplify it.

how does a team get open shots, ball movement. so you can just as easily say games are based and won through ball movement. my point being that good, smart basketball is what wins game and will continue to do so.

Individual superstardom will get you W's but its going to be hard to base a team strictly around that

OKc THUNDER NEGRO

[Prometheus]

You do realize that getting open shots like the Spurs do is an artform in itself right? Your point is moot. Superstars still attract as much coverage on their field goal attempts as superstars from yesteryear, if not more. Role players still get disrespected and shoot a ton of open shots.

Plus, people have been saying "the mid-range is a lost art" since the early 00s when tough, contested shots in congestion were at their most common because of the level of defense at the time.


You're acting as if every made basket back in the days was a contested 17-footer. The Spurs won with open shots and ball movement without a single great shot creator. However, they had 3 slashing threats in TP/Manu/Leonard, enough post skill on offense for it to be an effective part of their gameplan in Duncan and Diaw and a willing mid-range shooter in Parker. And of course a bevy of what else, three point shooting.

You know other teams that won with a lot of ball movement? Open shots and shit? Showtime Lakers. 11 Mavs who won with Dirk powering their incredible display of shooting the basketball...Walton's Blazers won a title the ball-movement, open-shot happy way...Russell's Celtics tried to get up as many clean looks as the 48 min timer allowed..and they won 11 titles. In essence, you need to stop with this agenda stuff.

You're clearly a knowledgable poster and I think you do have a firm grasp of how NBA basketball works. But you try to tilt what you see so that it fits your perception of the old times and especially MJ's era (lol expansion) being better

repped

[oarabbus]

This from the guy that says a 30% decline in dunk frequency from 1998 to 2001 is likely noise in the data.... are you serious dude???

stfu dude and do me a favor bro... don't respond in my threads anymore... seriously..

you will say anything to support your agenda, no matter how ridiculous, which i wouldn't mind if you really understood the game and could manage a troll with genius, which you can't do because the understanding isn't there.. instead, only rudimentary, shallow understanding of the game... go have a drink with skip bayless, even though he's a bron hater, because otherwise, you guys think the same.


fpliii is one of the better posters on this site, and one of the few who I've NEVER seen post with an agenda. You just ethered yourself OP :applause:

[Prometheus]

To try and be succinct about this - basketball has ALWAYS been about open shots. What you're seeing, if anything, is a modern game in which teams are BETTER at getting them.

[3ball]

fpliii is one of the better posters on this site, and one of the few who I've NEVER seen post with an agenda. You just ethered yourself OP :applause:
Garbage... no he isn't... he's disingenuous and wants to waste peoples time... and i know that now.
.

[3ball]

He was just posting data. I don't really see any agenda in that :confusedshrug:
That's the right reaction because he's being disingenuous.... and i now know definitively that he likes to waste people's time.

But anyway, looking at the data, it's clear that the Spurs shot MUCH better than the Heat on contested shots.

This lets me know that there is a lot of variation in what "contested" means and the Heat's shots were obviously contested better than the Spurs - i.e. when the Spurs shots were contested, it was after good ball-movement where the defense gets there late and can only do a reach-in or fly-by type of contest - and guys got their shots in stride more, which helps against a contest... For the Heat, their offense was weaker, so when their shots got contested, it was often a full stop-type of contest where the offensive player's shot gets materially altered or stuffed..

So the Spurs offense did a better job of moving the defense and guys got their shots in stride more, and with weaker contests.

But there is another reason for the Spurs better contested shot rate.... Things are easier in basketball and life when you have more confidence, optimism, energy, adrenaline, etc... In basketball, this is momentum... Momentum can begin to build anytime a team scores two buckets that go unanswered... The defense is confident and upbeat after another stop, which pours over to the other end as the offense anticipates another score... and this can keep building like a snowball down a hill, unless the other team can score to put a stop to it....

If the other team doesn't score to stop momentum, the momentum will facilitate easier scores than otherwise, meaning it will be harder on the defense than it otherwise would have been if the offense could better keep pace - a bad offense makes the other team's offense even better by giving them momentum.

This is important because people forget that the Heat scored by far the least points of any Spurs opponent (only 91ppg) and their horrific offense/inability to stay with the Spurs offensively hurt them as much as their defense... Their status as having the worst offense, meant they were the worst at curbing the Spurs momentum by answering the Spurs buckets.... No wonder the Spurs momentum boiled over - this momentum coupled with an offense that hit players in stride for weaker contests are the reasons the Spurs shot such a high percentage on contested shots..

[fpliii]

Garbage... no he isn't... he's disingenuous and wants to waste peoples time... and i know that now.
.
Apologies if it came off that way (and there's no disrespect intended), but if there's data out there, am I supposed to ignore it?

I don't agree with you 100% of the time but I definitely respect your research and opinions. I don't appreciate you painting me as a troll or as an agenda, and resent those accusations. When I discuss basketball, I look to find the truth and best/most logical explanation, regardless of what it might be.

[Lebronxrings]

meltdown....:lol :lol

[navy]

Garbage... no he isn't... he's disingenuous and wants to waste peoples time... and i know that now.
.
The irony. :roll:

[fpliii]

That's the right reaction because he's being disingenuous.... and i now know definitively that he likes to waste people's time.
Again, I don't appreciate the ad hominems, and I'm not intending to waste people's time. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they're trolling. I recognize when there are other valid opinions on issues, and am always willing to change my mind if I see something in the tape and in a large sample of data that goes against my held beliefs.


But anyway, looking at the data, it's clear that the Spurs shot MUCH better than the Heat on contested shots.

This lets me know that there is a lot of variation in what "contested" means and the Heat's shots were obviously contested better than the Spurs - i.e. when the Spurs shots were contested, it was after good ball-movement where the defense gets there late and can only do a reach-in or fly-by type of contest - and guys got their shots in stride more, which helps against a contest... For the Heat, their offense was weaker, so when their shots got contested, it was often a full stop-type of contest where the offensive player's shot gets materially altered or stuffed..[QUOTE]
There is some variation. stats.nba.com defines a contest FGA as one in which the defender is within 4 feet of the shooter. Doesn't necessarily mean the defender was in a proper stance or had his hands up, or reacted in time. The information is still valuable though, because the Spurs shot better with guys closer than without them in sight.

[QUOTE]So the Spurs offense did a better job of moving the defense and guys got their shots in stride more, and with weaker contests.
Agree 100%. The Spurs were passing and shooting at an incredible rate, and Miami wasn't closing out defensively.


But there is another reason for the Spurs better contested shot rate.... Things are easier in basketball and life when you have more confidence, optimism, energy, adrenaline, etc... In basketball, this is momentum... Momentum can begin to build anytime a team scores two buckets that go unanswered... The defense is confident and upbeat after another stop, which pours over to the other end as the offense anticipates another score... and this can keep building like a snowball down a hill, unless the other team can score to put a stop to it....

If the other team doesn't score to stop momentum, the momentum will facilitate easier scores than otherwise, meaning it will be harder on the defense than it otherwise would have been if the offense could better keep pace - a bad offense makes the other team's offense even better by giving them momentum.

This is important because people forget that the Heat scored by far the least points of any Spurs opponent (only 91ppg) and their horrific offense/inability to stay with the Spurs offensively hurt them as much as their defense... Their status as having the worst offense, meant they were the worst at curbing the Spurs momentum by answering the Spurs buckets.... No wonder the Spurs momentum boiled over - this momentum coupled with an offense that hit players in stride for weaker contests are the reasons the Spurs shot such a high percentage on contested shots..
We'll have to agree to disagree here. Momentum is important, but it's not going to affect the games as much as great offense by the Spurs and poor defense by the Heat shaped the series.

Let's look at ORtg/DRtg by teams in the Finals (winner listed first) since 1985 (first season for which ORtg is listed on basketball-reference.com):

2014: 120.8/104.8
2013: 108.5/109.3
2012: 115.1/110.6
2011: 110.7/107.9
2010: 106.1/102.1
2009: 110.8/100.5
2008: 113.1/103.9
2007: 104.4/97.2
2006: 101.0/99.9
2005: 103.4/105.7
2004: 106.7/96.1
2003: 100.0/93.3
2002: 116.6/106.5
2001: 110.0/102.6
2000: 112.6/114.5
1999: 98.9/93.1
1998: 105.5/96.1
1997: 104.6/103.8
1996: 111.3/106.7
1995: 117.1/109.9
1994: 100.1/101.0
1993: 113.0/113.0
1992: 110.8/103.0
1991: 115.7/104.5
1990: 109.3/104.2
1989: 120.6/113.1
1988: 108.8/111.6
1987: 118.4/114.1
1986: 111.9/105.5
1985: 112.3/109.7

Not once does any team

[3ball]

On the other hand, teams with an ORtg as bad or worse than the Heat aren't rare in the Finals, and have actually won 7 times


You can't compare the Heat's offense to that of past Finals participants because the game is played differently over the years and the rules change every year - the appropriate comparison is to compare the Heat's offense to their CURRENT, CONTEMPORARY PEERS, not teams in previous seasons and eras when the game was played differently.

The Heat's current, contemporary peers that play the same brand of basketball under the exact same rules, would be other Spurs opponents in this year's playoffs - and when appropriately compared to them, the Heat's offense was by far the worst of any Spurs opponent... It's not even close...

The Heat scored by FAR the least number of points as any Spurs opponent - scoring the least number of points is going to hurt you, no???????????

It's pretty obvious and intuitive that bad offense hurts a team, but I went ahead and explained anyway exactly why a bad offense hurts a team (a bad offense means guys aren't being hit in stride, shots are being contested very well, and yes, a bad offense gives momentum to the other team).

Heat and Lebron fans want to blame the Heat's loss exclusively on their bad defense, as if having a horrific offense, didn't play an equal part in doing them in... :rolleyes:
.

[navy]

The Heat scored by FAR the least number of points as any Spurs opponent - scoring the least number of points is going to hurt you, no???????????


Did you take into account Pace? I already know the answer actually.

The Heat offense was good for games 1, 2, and 3. Bad in 4 and 5. Defense was bad in all except 2 and the first 3 quarters of game 1.

Wait, let me put this in terms you understand.

Heat offense and defense was bad in every game because this isnt the MJ era. :applause: