Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen: RED WARRIORS

[3ball]

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/4edbb751f39b8777aaf99246f5e04ec9.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chOsRrvpnGc

this video shows why Jordan and Pippen were the most optimal 1-2 punch of all time: best defensive 1-2 punch and best offensive 1-2 punch ever...

when watching the video, it becomes IMMEDIATELY evident how much better the level of play was and how individually unique the skills were back then, as needed to mitigate a no-spacing environment (with less open shots that anyone can do, more individually-unique skills were needed), and also how much quicker and instinctive the game played... it's like night and day from today's marching-band-like, choreographed-looking spacing, and the resulting slower pace, predictable movements and commodotized play-finishing.

shaq and kobe stans will want to make a case for best 1-2 punch, but the chemistry between kobe and shaq was tenuous and unsustainable.

also, Jordan and Pippen were BOTH first-team all-defense for all 6 championship years... Shaq's never even made a first-team all-defense, ever.
.

[Kvnzhangyay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chOsRrvpnGc

this video shows why Jordan and Pippen were the most optimal 1-2 punch of all time: best defensive 1-2 punch and best offensive 1-2 punch ever...

when watching the video, it becomes IMMEDIATELY evident how much better the level of play and skills were back then, as needed to mitigate a no-spacing environment, and also how much quicker and instinctive the game played... it's like night and day from today's marching-band-like, choreographed-looking spacing, and the resulting slower pace and predictable movements.

shaq and kobe stans will want to make a case for best 1-2 punch, but the chemistry between kobe and shaq was tenuous and unsustainable.

also, Jordan and Pippen were BOTH first-team all-defense for all 6 championship years... Shaq's never even made a first-team all-defense, ever.
.

Thats not really true

[3ball]

Thats not really true
but you agree with the rest, so i'm fine with the anomaly of you being mistaken about that one thing.

[rlsmooth775]

OP why do you care about players who are retired

[3ball]

OP why do you care about players who are retired
idk about you, but i prefer to watch the best brand of basketball out there, and that isn't this era.. :confusedshrug:

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/d2661e74da27c2adf64ae8de0e0e160d.gif

[Straight_Ballin]

OP why do you care about players who are retired

Because those were the greatest years of basketball period point blank.

[3ball]

Because those were the greatest years of basketball period point blank.
it's this, but more specifically, previous eras played a superior brand of basketball.

the brand of basketball played in previous eras forced guys to play faster, more instinctively, and use a higher skill level as required to mitigate a no-spacing environment.

this is far superior to today's marching-band-like, choreographed-looking spacing, and the resulting slower pace and predictable movements.

[Angel Face]

Old highlight video but still exciting to watch. Best Duo in NBA history.

Another one of my favorite HL video of them

The Dobermans (Jordan & Pippen Highlight Mix) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs2zJNhngmo)

[Kvnzhangyay]

but you agree with the rest, so i'm fine with the anomaly of you being mistaken about that one thing.

How can you prove I'm mistaken?

[1987_Lakers]

No duo will ever come close to '01 Shaq-Kobe.

[Knicksfever2010]

I thought from the title, this would be about MJ and Scottie going down on women during their periods :confusedshrug:

[MJistheGOAT]

GOAT duo.
Shaq was a monster in offense but always had holes in his defense (PnR) and FT. Kobe was great in D but always a chucker, bad shot selection guy.

[rlsmooth775]

Op it's not good to live that far in the past it's over man

[Mr Feeny]

No duo will ever come close to '01 Shaq-Kobe.

Don't make an ass out of yourself. MJ and Pippen were miles ahead of Kobe and Shaq. The results speak for themselves.
To say that no one will "come close" to a sub 60 win team is a joke.

[Mr Feeny]

GOAT duo.
Shaq was a monster in offense but always had holes in his defense (PnR) and FT. Kobe was great in D but always a chucker, bad shot selection guy.

Which is why Duncan took them out in 99 and 03, and why the Pistons (who lacked any major superstar of the same caliber as the Laker's main guys) handed them their butts on a platter.

MJ and Pippen were probably the greatest duo of all time with Magic and Kareem running them extremely close.
Shaq and Kobe were not in the same league as either of those 1-2 punches.

[3ball]

Op it's not good to live that far in the past it's over man

i'll always prefer basketball where great individual plays are consistently needed to win, which only happened in previous eras because there was no spacing or clear lane to get open shots, and players had no choice but to make great individual plays like the GIF below.

I prefer the individually-unique skill and faster, more instinctive play of previous eras, over today's rigid, marching-band-like spacing, and the resulting commodotized play-finishing and slower pace.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/c15d51e9fbf7a88830dbcccabfb0f613.gif

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/e35ec54942441a5fd146a9b7ac2bd6b1.gif

[1987_Lakers]

Don't make an ass out of yourself. MJ and Pippen were miles ahead of Kobe and Shaq. The results speak for themselves.
To say that no one will "come close" to a sub 60 win team is a joke.

There is always that one poster who is just clueless.


Jordan is the GOAT, but Pippen was a level below Shaq & Kobe, also factor in how Shaq at his peak was pretty much unstoppable & Kobe at that moment just hit his prime, it's a no brainer.

01 Shaq & Kobe >>>>> Any duo in NBA History.

[JohnMax]

Most people think Rose, Westbrook, Wade and Lebron are more exciting because they see unedited highlights of those guys going full speed while Jordan highlights are always in half speed.

[AirFederer]

There is always that one poster who is just clueless.


Jordan is the GOAT, but Pippen was a level below Shaq & Kobe, also factor in how Shaq at his peak was pretty much unstoppable & Kobe at that moment just hit his prime, it's a no brainer.

01 Shaq & Kobe >>>>> Any duo in NBA History.
If you account for defence, like you should, that is simply not true. Pip was not the scorer those guys were, but I'd pick him over Kobe 10/10.

[Mr Feeny]

There is always that one poster who is just clueless.


Jordan is the GOAT, but Pippen was a level below Shaq & Kobe, also factor in how Shaq at his peak was pretty much unstoppable & Kobe at that moment just hit his prime, it's a no brainer.

01 Shaq & Kobe >>>>> Any duo in NBA History.

Are you a moron? Did you just definitively state that Shaq and Kobe > any other duo and call ME clueless? How old are you?

85,87 Magic and Kareem > Shaq and Kobe
92,93,96,97 MJ and Pippen > Shaq and Kobe

and that is a no brainer. Don't put that 2001 duo anywhere near these guys. You're just showing your age.

[Mr Feeny]

If you account for defence, like you should, that is simply not true. Pip was not the scorer those guys were, but I'd pick him over Kobe 10/10.

Shhhh no point in talking sense to a kid. He has no idea who Pippen is. Had to Google him.

[sportjames23]

3ball, what's it like to live rent free in so many people's heads? It's like you have homes in different area codes.

[3ball]

.
although today's game has spacing that generates open shots, it takes time to set up those open shots, so the pace is slower.

also, setting up and maintaining the spacing requires that players perpetually remain behind the 3-point line, which limits the range and diversity of player movement on the floor - the spacing often looks rigid and marching-band-like with predictable setups and less instinctive player movements.

and of course, the very intent of spacing - to get open shots - ends up commodotizing players skills, since anyone can make open shots, as you can see below: patty mills, to green, to splitter, to diaw.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/3b11faa18aba6ff9d5b39c3f8058094c.gif



otoh, in the absence of spacing to generate the type of open shots that anyone can make, previous eras required a higher level of individually-unique skill to make better-contested shots..

also, without needing to set up spacing and restrict player-movement by keeping players behind the 3-point line, teams played much faster, players made quicker decisions, and the game was played more instinctively.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/f257682cd9973e020ff4ffacd6166a98.gif

[AirFederer]

GOAT duo!

And it's confirmed that Pip is ten times the in game dunker that Lebron is.

[ralph_i_el]

i'll always prefer basketball where great individual plays are consistently needed to win, which only happened in previous eras because there was no spacing or clear lane to get open shots, and players had no choice but to make great individual plays like the GIF below.



This only happened in previous eras because of illegal D rules.
1-on-1 basketball is not as exciting as watching an offense like the Spurs just demolish teams with spacing/passing/and shooting.

Basketball is more free now. I also contest your point that players were more skilled then. With the removal of hand-checking we've seen 100 skinny guards who wouldn't have made it back in the day, who are absolute wizards with the ball and can shoot the lights out. We have 15 point guards in the league this year who can do things that maybe 5 guards at any given time could have done back then.


also, setting up and maintaining the spacing requires that players perpetually remain behind the 3-point line, which limits the range and diversity of player movement on the floor - the spacing often looks rigid and marching-band-like with predictable setups and less instinctive player movements.

...seriously? When was the last time you watched a game and saw 3 offensive players crowded on one side of the court doing ****ING NOTHING like back before the rule changes (and for a few years afterwards while everyone figured out team basketball)? In todays NBA you have to be able to shoot or you kill the offense even when you're away from the ball. in MJ's day you could plant non-shooters away from the ball and then ****in ISO....and when you have MJ you win because 1-on-1 no guard ever did it better. Today MJ would need shooters just like any star needs shooters, or he'd have 2 guys draped all over him every damn play. I know you can show me some .gifs of individual plays where either illegal D wasn't called, or MJ drove the lane when his own men were in the paint.....but I'm talking every play.

Watch any Wizards game from before last season. Wall can get by 1 man AT WILL....but when your shooters are guys like Nick Young and Jordan Crawford, and you start two non-shooting big men, EVERY TIME he'd get by his man, 2-3 defenders had feet in the paint and were staring right at him. MJ would face that same shit. Obviously he's MJ and he'd make it work. He'd still probably be the best player in the league, but there is no way in hell he'd be doing it the same way he did it in the 90's.

[97 bulls]

Jordan and Pippen are the GOAT duo. As far as accomplishments, theyre unmatched. Six Championships in basically 8 years together. The only duo to ever win 70+ games which is the best record ever. They own the second best record ever. Never lost while having homecourt, they complemented each other well, both were entertaing. No duo can match what they did together. I could go on but I don't see a need

[fpliii]

far superior
Not that you're wrong (it's a matter of opinion; I might agree with you, might disagree, not sure which I prefer), but John Wooden was a big fan of the introduction of the 3pt line. In his book "Practical Modern Basketball" (page 402 in my edition), he noted:


The Three-Point Goal

There has been considerable discussion and experimentation in the last several years in regard to this new rule, which was adopted for the 1986-87 season. Although there seems to be a favorable reaction to the rule by most coaches, many feel the 19-feet, 9-inch distance is too close.

I personally concur with this reaction as I feel the distance should be a minimum of 21 feet. However, the 1986-87 season provided a good test.

If the rule was adopted to discourage the use of zone defenses, then I think it is wrong. However, if it was to diminish some of the physical play in the deep-post area and cut down on fouls, then it certainly was worth adopting. Not only is the latter thought a good possibility, but the rule may help the smaller, quicker player by forcing the defense to extend out a little farther and thus open up more driving room for the more maneuverable player.

Since I think that basketball was meant to be a game of finesse and maneuverability rather than physical strength and brute force, I am hopeful that this rule may lead us back toward that style of play.

I don't know if one is superior to the other (I'm a huge fan of the low post game, and the back-to-the-basket style isn't encouraged as much today), but they are pretty distinctly different play-styles.

[hitmanyr2k]

I think Jordan and Pippen would murder the league as it currently is. They were just too skilled and athletic. They could play on-ball, off-ball, slash, catch and shoot and both had great post games. And on top of that they would have free reign in the paint with no worry of being clobbered and no legit 7 footers in their way. They could dunk or finish over any of these guys in the paint with ease today.

[97 bulls]

I think Jordan and Pippen would murder the league as it currently is. They were just too skilled and athletic. They could play on-ball, off-ball, slash, catch and shoot and both had great post games. And on top of that they would have free reign in the paint with no worry of being clobbered and no legit 7 footers in their way. They could dunk or finish over any of these guys in the paint with ease today.
Too true. Especially in the case of Pippen. Can you imagine the damage he would do defensively today with him not having to guard a man and can freely roam. The DPOY award would be his until he didn't want it.

[3ball]

This only happened in previous eras because of illegal D rules.


and the defensive 3 seconds rule - the NBA rulebook states in black and white (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=363929), that defenders in today's game cannot be in the paint unless they are within "armslength" of their man - so this would be 3 feet, since a man's arm is 3 feet long.. so today's players must be within 3 feet of their man to stay in the lane.

in previous eras, defenders could stay in the lane if their man was 3 feet outside the lane on either side of the paint - the paint is 16 feet wide, so defenders could literally be 19 feet away from their man, and still remain in the paint.

these are the facts... and this is why today's defenders must tippy-toe to ensure they stay out of the lane whenever they are out of 3-foot armslength reach.

otoh, defenders in previous eras never had to tippy-toe or worry about getting out of the paint like today's players do, because they could be 19 feet away from their man and still stay in the lane - no need to tippy-toe under those circumstances.. :confusedshrug:





1-on-1 basketball is not as exciting as watching an offense like the Spurs just demolish teams with spacing/passing/and shooting.


you're dead wrong here - ANYONE can make open shots obtained off the ball movement - you only need role players to do that as the spurs showed... role players making open shots is boring compared to stars NEEDING to make great individual moves and plays for their team to win.





Basketball is more free now


no it's not - players on-court movements are restricted by spacing requirements, which requires players to remain behind the 3-point line - this LIMITS movement and makes player movements more predictable.





With the removal of hand-checking we've seen 100 skinny guards who wouldn't have made it back in the day


how is this better?





who are absolute wizards with the ball and can shoot the lights out. We have 15 point guards in the league this year who can do things that maybe 5 guards at any given time could have done back then.


you just said that in the quote right before this one, that there are 100 guards that wouldn't have made it back in the day due to hand-checking





Watch any Wizards game from before last season.


spacing creates more room for players to maneuver - that's why spacing makes it easier for all players... this is common knowledge - you know that... Jordan never had spacing in his day, which means all his numbers would go up in today's game... no sense denying it.
.

[3ball]

Not that you're wrong (about spacing).... (it's a matter of opinion; I might agree with you, might disagree, not sure which I prefer)


although today's 3-point shooting creates spacing, which in turn generates open shots, it takes time to set up the spacing for those open shots, so the pace is slower.

also, setting up and maintaining the spacing requires that players perpetually remain behind the 3-point line, which limits the range and diversity of player movement on the floor - the spacing often looks rigid and marching-band-like with predictable setups and less instinctive player movements.

and of course, the very intent of spacing - to get open shots - ends up commodotizing players skills, since anyone can make open shots, as you can see below: patty mills, to green, to splitter, to diaw.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/3b11faa18aba6ff9d5b39c3f8058094c.gif



otoh, while spacing generates the type of open shots that anyone can make, the contested shots more characteristic of no-spacing environments in previous eras required a higher level of individually-unique skill.

also, without needing to set up spacing and restrict player-movement by keeping players behind the 3-point line, teams played much faster, players made quicker decisions, and the game was played more instinctively.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/f257682cd9973e020ff4ffacd6166a98.gif

[fpliii]

although today's 3-point shooting creates spacing, which in turn generates open shots, it takes time to set up the spacing for those open shots, so the pace is slower.

also, setting up and maintaining the spacing requires that players perpetually remain behind the 3-point line, which limits the range and diversity of player movement on the floor - the spacing often looks rigid and marching-band-like with predictable setups and fewer instinctive player movements.

and of course, the very intent of spacing - to get open shots - ends up commodotizing players skills, since anyone can make open shots, as you can see below: patty mills, to green, to splitter, to diaw.

otoh, in the absence of spacing to generate the type of open shots that anyone can make, previous eras required a higher level of individually-unique skill to make better-contested shots..

also, without needing to set up spacing and restrict player-movement by keeping players behind the 3-point line, teams played much faster, players made quicker decisions, and the game was played more instinctively.
It does take time for HCO to progress, but I don't have a huge problem with deliberate actions. Less instinctual decisions, but decisions still have to be made.

Doesn't have to look rigid per se though, look at the Spurs' swing motion offense. There are plenty of options, and it comes down to execution. Yes, there's less improvisation, but there you still have to make the right decisions

[3ball]

It does take time for HCO to progress, but I don't have a huge problem with deliberate actions. Less instinctual decisions, but decisions still have to be made.

Doesn't have to look rigid per se though, look at the Spurs' swing motion offense. There are plenty of options, and it comes down to execution. Yes, there's less improvisation, but there you still have to make the right decisions
people have certainly developed an affinity for the slower, more structured style of today's game and the commodotized skills (3-and-D) associated with play-finishing and open shots... and that's fine... the open shots and play-finishing still require decisions, as you point out.

but it's also easy to see the intuitive flipside as well - open shots and play-finishing can be executed by anyone (such as the spurs role players shown previously), and accordingly, require a less individual offensive skill and less individually-unique offensive skill, compared to creating your own shot and/or taking your man...

and when 27% of the shots taken are 3-pointers like in today's game, it reduces the diversity of shots taken pretty severely - for example, today's players can't do a lot of the moves and shots done in previous eras (like the Elgin Baylor move that MJ did in the earlier GIF), because they don't NEED to use such skill in today's game... they just need to pass to the open man for another play-finish like the spurs GIF showed.

[fpliii]

require a lower level of individual offensive skill and less individually-unique offensive skill, compared to creating your own shot and/or taking your man...
I guess so, but IMO it's more so that the skills required to succeed have changed in today's game. Maybe things are more commoditized like you said, but I think it's just that some coaches/front offices have a better idea of what they're trying to do (the smarter ones at least).

The ability to create shots, and convert shots that are ordinarily difficult helps out a ton. Look at what Dirk does in today's league, which tells us MJ or Bird would excel today. But aside from outlier shot creating talents (like Dirk, MJ, Bird, etc.), organizations are trying to avoid isolation ball. Fewer astonishing one-on-one moves yeah, and less individualism. With this comes fewer opportunities/less playing time for guys who were pretty good at that type of game, but not Dirk/MJ/Bird.

[3ball]

I guess so, but IMO it's more so that the skills required to succeed have changed in today's game. Maybe things are more commoditized like you said, but I think it's just that some coaches/front offices have a better idea of what they're trying to do (the smarter ones at least).

The ability to create shots, and convert shots that are ordinarily difficult helps out a ton. Look at what Dirk does in today's league, which tells us MJ or Bird would excel today. But aside from outlier shot creating talents (like Dirk, MJ, Bird, etc.), organizations are trying to avoid isolation ball. Fewer astonishing one-on-one moves yeah, and less individualism. With this comes fewer opportunities/less playing time for guys who were pretty good at that type of game, but not Dirk/MJ/Bird.
any perimeter player in today's game can have a field day with iso's, because the spacing, ban on physicality and clear lane makes it easier... spacing makes it easier for all offensive players.

so it's not just dirk.... it's harden, curry, bledsoe, durant, lowry - you name it - ANY perimeter player can go crazy today if they want or if the coach allows them to iso, and they frequently do.

it's really more the forwards and centers that have been commodotized... as well as the many 3-and-D specialists at the wing positions that we have today.
.

[fpliii]

ANY perimeter player in today's game can have a field day with iso's, because the spacing and ban on physicality makes it easier.

it's not just dirk.... it's harden, curry, bledsoe, durant, lowry - you name it - ANY perimeter player can go crazy today if they want or if the coach allows them to iso, and they frequently do.

it's really more the forwards and centers that have been commodotized... as well as the many 3-and-D SG's we have today.
I'm not saying they can't iso, just that they don't anywhere near as often as guys would in the past. Late 90s-early 00s, almost every possession seemed like clear out and let a guy do his thing against the defense. It's important that you said if the coach allows it, because offenses playing team ball, that doesn't happen as often. Though as Bogut said recently (http://www.ibabuzz.com/warriors/2014/11/26/warriors-111-magic-96-andrew-bogut-plays-elite-level-cog-steve-kerrs-offense/?doing_wp_cron=1420325397.7704920768737792968750), not many teams are strictly playing as a team:

[1987_Lakers]

Are you a moron? Did you just definitively state that Shaq and Kobe > any other duo and call ME clueless? How old are you?

85,87 Magic and Kareem > Shaq and Kobe
92,93,96,97 MJ and Pippen > Shaq and Kobe

and that is a no brainer. Don't put that 2001 duo anywhere near these guys. You're just showing your age.

87 Kareem & Magic?:oldlol:

The same Kareem that put up 17 PPG... you are putting him in the conversation with peak Shaq & prime Kobe? Moron.

2001 Lakers - 15-1 in postseason.
Shaq - 30 PPG | 15 RPG | 2.4 BPG | 55.5 FG%
Kobe - 29 PPG | 7 RPG | 6 APG | 47 FG%

Greatest Duo Ever!!!

Nuff said.

[1987_Lakers]

If you account for defence, like you should, that is simply not true. Pip was not the scorer those guys were, but I'd pick him over Kobe 10/10.

Kobe was an All-NBA Defender in '01 and not to mention he was a much better offensive player than Pippen.

'01 Kobe > Any version of Pippen.

[3ball]

I'm not saying they can't iso, just that they don't anywhere near as often as guys would in the past.


iso-ball hasn't declined in effectiveness or prevelance - as bogut said, a lot of teams still mostly do iso's of some kind.

but ball movement has become more effective due to the rule changes, just as the league intended - consequently, ball movement has SURPASSED iso ball in effectiveness, and is a more preferred option than it used to be when the lack of spacing rendered it less effective.





Some of those guys (including Durant obviously) you mentioned have great isolation scoring ability, but a lot of guys work more off screens now. Some guys have trouble getting open at all without a screen.


this isn't true... all point guards just go get the ball at the top of the key or on the perimeter somewhere and have a nicely spaced floor to work with - ditto for ball-handling wing players... and at that point, the spacing and rule changes make penetration pretty much automatic with or without a screen, just as the league intended... Thibbs' strategies mitigate the spacing and rule changes somewhat, but only enough so it's not a complete free-for-all.

what can the defender do to stop the penetration?... play absolutely PERFECT defense without touching their man?... how often does that happen?... in previous eras, it didn't have to happen, because the defender could just get physical with the would-be penetrator... plus they had backup waiting in the paint... and with no spacing, other defenders were in closer proximity to help out quicker.





I think the specialization comes in 3 forms:

1) 3-and-d types (as you noted; though I don't think they're just SGs, can be any perimeter position 1-3)
2) stretch 4's (and with guys like Antic, there are some stretch 5s)
3) defensive specialist bigs


and all of this demonstrates a lower level of skill - do you really think kevin love and his 26/13 per game (in MIN), or any other stretch 4 in today's game, has skill remotely close to the good PF's and Centers of previous eras?

any PF in previous eras putting up 26/13 would DESTROY love or any PF in today's game... this kind of proves the point about how open shots means lesser skill and ability than what guys had to do in previous eras (score ON defenders much more often).
.

[fpliii]

prevelance

ball movement has SURPASSED iso ball in effectiveness
Right, it's not less effective than it used to be, but relatively speaking it is, because of ball movement as you noted.

A lot of teams do run isos of some kind when plays break down, but they're still less common than they were in the late 90s/early 00s. Again though, this happens less often with the better teams (which generally have better coaches).

this isn't true

play absolutely PERFECT defense without touching their man?
There still are a ton of screens set though. It's impossible to play perfect defense which is why there are a lot of fouls. But guys nowadays use their feet instead of their hands to play defense (because hand-checking is called so tightly now).

plus they had backup waiting in the paint... and with no spacing, other defenders were in closer proximity to help out quicker.
There were backups waiting in the paint back then often, but there is help outside the paint now. All about guiding your man into sideline/baseline/help defenders.

kevin love
He doesn't have the same shot creation abilities. Nobody would say that. But he has excellent technical passing and shooting abilities, and very good moving off ball. If he's not taking threes he's obviously going to be less effective.

[3ball]

There were backups waiting in the paint back then often, but there is help outside the paint now.


defensive help that is already inside the paint is more effective paint defense than help that has to run from further distances outside the paint.

of course it goes without saying, previous eras had help from BOTH inside and outside the paint.





All about guiding your man into sideline/baseline/help defenders.


previous eras maintained defensive effectiveness without having to do as much of this, because defenders could be physical, backup was waiting in the paint, and with no spacing, other defenders were in closer proximity to help out quicker from shorter distances.

in today's game, Thibbs' strategies mitigate the loss of the aforementioned defensive advantages (physicality, no spacing, and being able to camp in the lane), but only enough so it's not a complete free-for-all.... but a lot of times, it's still a free-for-all (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10700195&postcount=6), with open lanes and porous paint defense never seen before.
.

[fpliii]

defensive help that is already inside the paint is more effective paint defense than help that has to run from further distances outside the paint.
I guess so, but they don't need to run too much if they just set up *near* the paint. Obviously if a guy gets through though, less resistance at the basket. But denying the paint isn't inherently a bad strategy unless you leave shooters open. Again though, as you said, can't play the same defense at the basket.

a lot of times, it's still a free-for-all though
Yeah, there are defensive breakdowns today, that's true. It's impossible to execute perfectly 100% of the time, since you sacrifice the strength of your help D or leave a shooter open for the skip pass.

[3ball]

I guess so, but they don't need to run too much if they just set up *near* the paint. Obviously if a guy gets through though, less resistance at the basket. But denying the paint isn't inherently a bad strategy unless you leave shooters open. Again though, as you said, can't play the same defense at the basket.

Yeah, there are defensive breakdowns today, that's true. It's impossible to execute perfectly 100% of the time, since you sacrifice the strength of your help D or leave a shooter open for the skip pass.
Indeed, and in previous eras when defenders could stay in the lane, they could remain stationary and just swivel-chair their head and body when there was a skip pass or when the ball was swung, rather than leave the paint like they must do in today's game.. a nice advantage for a defense to have and just another reason why ball movement was less effective back then.

Otoh, defenses today have to pick their poison as you point out - they simply can't deal with the spacing strategy, rule changes that cleared the lane, AND the physicality ban all at once - which is why when these rules came out in the early 2000's, new defensive strategies were needed to maintain the same defensive effectiveness as before.

Thibbs was the guy that came up with the new defensive methodologies designed to carry the heavier defensive burden... but if Thibbs hadn't come up with something to mitigate defensive 3 seconds and guard the larger surface area caused by 3-pointers, someone else would have.

He deserves credit, but his strategies would've been developed at some point anyway, because the rule changes & spacing necessitated it... it's natural for humans to react to changing circumstances... GM Daryl Morey says just that:

[fpliii]

I think most innovation is a result of rule changes, though there are also innovations in response to those innovations (to balance off/def).