Stu Jackson says the new rules were designed to make penetration easier

[3ball]

The person responsible for implementing the new rules, Vice President of Basketball Operations Stu Jackson, says the rule changes were specifically designed to make penetration easier and increase shot quality for literally EVERYONE. Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger:

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html


NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

Stu Jackson: With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim..



NBA.com: Doesn't the wide-open style benefit certain types of players? For example, wing players vs. frontcourt players?

Stu Jackson: The benefits of an open game are not limited to just perimeter players. An open game can benefit a post player as well. Remember, if the players are spaced wider and using more of the court, then defenses have to play those players closely because they're good shooters. The style actually serves to open up the middle of the floor. If a team has an effective post player, he would have more room to operate in the post.


:confusedshrug:


This is why posting articles or quotes about the rule changes can be wildly conflicting.

Ultimately, it really depends on the SPECIFIC TOPIC being discussed - if you ask Jordan, McGrady and Duncan about zone, they say it makes defenses tougher... But ask them about spacing, defensive 3 seconds, or the ban on hand-checking/physicality, and they say it makes defenses weaker. These things all offset each other.
.

[AirFederer]

Kobe took advantage

[sportjames23]

Kobe took advantage

Dammit, beat me to it.

[tomtucker]

http://www.frumsatire.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ky-jelly-chosson-and-kallah-class.jpg

[senelcoolidge]

Of course. They wanted to open up the game more and make it easier to score. Thus these rule changes. They even brought the 3pt shoot closer for a little while. The low scoring, physical, clogged lanes of previous decades weren't appealing. It's all about entertainment.

[IGOTGAME]

Kobe took advantage

he is a jumpshooter. tbh, slashers and smaller guards benefitted the most relatively speaking. Kobe's would have stood out more with the old rules

[sportjames23]

he is a jumpshooter. tbh, slashers and smaller guards benefitted the most relatively speaking. Kobe's would have stood out more with the old rules



http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140113174926/creepypasta/images/c/c1/900x900px-LL-658002b7_joke_over_your_head.jpeg

[3ball]

he is a jumpshooter. tbh, slashers and smaller guards benefitted the most relatively speaking. Kobe's would have stood out more with the old rules


Riiiiiiiight... Kobe wasn't a slasher or penetrator in his prime... :rolleyes:

Obviously, penetration is not limited to small guards.

If penetration is easier for small guards and small penetrators, it's easier for big guards and big penetrators too.

Of course, this goes without saying... :rolleyes:

[Marchesk]

If penetration is easier for small guards and small penetrators, it's easier for big guards and big penetrators too

That sentence cracks me up.

http://blogimages.thescore.com/tbj/files/2011/05/LeBronFace.jpg

[Dr.J4ever]

The Vice President of Basketball Operations for the NBA, Stu Jackson, said the new rules implemented in 2005 were meant to make penetration easier and increase the quality of shots:

"Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble-penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler..."

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html


:confusedshrug:

Mission accomplished.:applause:

This is why posting articles or quotes about the rule changes can be wildly conflicting.

Ultimately, it really depends on the SPECIFIC TOPIC being discussed - if you ask Jordan, McGrady and Duncan about zone, they say it makes defenses tougher... But ask them about spacing, defensive 3 seconds, or the ban on hand-checking/physicality, and they say it makes defenses weaker. These things all offset each other.


Did you edit out the some of Jackson's quote? This is what he said, and he was also referring to rules changes after 2004 with hand checking and the backcourt violation:

NBA.com: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

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

So it wasn't the defensive 3 seconds, it was more of hand checking and, in my opinion, offensive philosophy that has opened the game. Rules makers wanted NBA teams to rely less on individual play and use more "5 man offenses". Teams started relying on great shooters more, and less on superstar/hero ball play.

Also with regards to Tmac and Jordan, you have to put their comments in context of what was being discussed which was today's zone defenses.Their comments were specific and were on point.

Now, if hand checking were being discussed, then I agree defenses during other eras were tougher in terms of roughing up a quick player and preventing penetration.

[tomtucker]

Kobe took advantage

[B]in fact, Kobe don

[navy]

Kobe took advantage
:applause:

[blablabla]

The 90s are over homie, accept it, move on with your life

[97 bulls]

That sentence cracks me up.

http://blogimages.thescore.com/tbj/files/2011/05/LeBronFace.jpg
Lol. Now I can't stop laughing.

[Rooster]

[QUOTE=tomtucker][B]in fact, Kobe don

[HomieWeMajor]

So what kind of D correlates to what type of penetration ? Does more length on D help stop penetration or does it ease it in ?

[3ball]

So what kind of D correlates to what type of penetration ? Does more length on D help stop penetration or does it ease it in ?


as the data shows, players were taller in previous eras anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience


"The NBA peaked in height during the 1986–87 season, when the average height was 6 feet 7.62 inches (2.0223 m).

The second and third tallest seasons are the 2002–03 and 1987–88 seasons. In fact, four of the seven tallest seasons occurred in the latter half of the 1980s.

Meanwhile, the NBA's shortest seasons in recent history have been 2006–07 and 2007–08."

[Rose'sACL]

as the data shows, players were taller in previous eras anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience


"The NBA peaked in height during the 1986–87 season, when the average height was 6 feet 7.62 inches (2.0223 m).

The second and third tallest seasons are the 2002–03 and 1987–88 seasons. In fact, four of the seven tallest seasons occurred in the latter half of the 1980s.

Meanwhile, the NBA's shortest seasons in recent history have been 2006–07 and 2007–08."
then that should mean that length doesn't impact defense that much given how bad defense was in the 80s.

[3ball]

then that should mean that length doesn't impact defense that much given how bad defense was in the 80s.
Stu Jackson said the rule changes made scoring easier for ALL players - perimeter players, post players, penetrators, at-rim percentages - the rule changes were literally designed to make ALL ASPECTS OF OFFENSE EASIER.

But don't take my word for it - read the interview in the article - it says ALL OF THIS AND MORE.
.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

2004 defense has nothing to do with the 80s or 90s

League Average Def Rating

1984 107.6
1994 106.3
2004 102.9

:facepalm

[bluechox2]

which penetration are we talking about here?

[3ball]

2004 defense has nothing to do with the 80s or 90s

League Average Def Rating

1984 107.6
1994 106.3
2004 102.9
2014 106.6

:facepalm
fixed your post.

but you know why it was so low in 2004? that was AFTER the zone had been introduced but BEFORE the new defensive 3 seconds rule - so 2001-2004 was a period of full-fledged zone defenses without the new defensive 3 seconds rule.

the new defensive 3 seconds rule didn't get introduced until 2005 - that rule implemented an "armslength" rule that banned zones in the paint, and this coupled with the hand-check ban caused ORtg to increase the most it ever has (since the inception of the 3-point shot)... the perimeter scoring of ALL perimeter players went through the roof in 2005.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

fixed your post.

but you know why it was so low in 2004? that was AFTER the zone had been introduced but BEFORE the new defensive 3 seconds rule - so 2001-2004 was a period of full-fledged zone defenses without the new defensive 3 seconds rule.

the new defensive 3 seconds rule didn't get introduced until 2005 - that rule implemented an "armslength" rule that banned zones in the paint, and this coupled with the hand-check ban caused ORtg to increase the most it ever has (since the inception of the 3-point shot)... the perimeter scoring of ALL perimeter players went through the roof in 2005.

No one denies that scoring was easier compared to 2001-2004. What relevance does that have to the 80s and 90s? All the rule changes in the world haven't even sniffed the videogame numbers and creampuff defenses those eras produced. :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

No one denies that scoring was easier compared to 2001-2004. What relevance does that have to the 80s and 90s? All the rule changes in the world haven't even sniffed the videogame numbers and creampuff defenses those eras produced. :confusedshrug:
you just don't understand the game that's all.

higher offensive rebounding and FT rates increase at team's ORtg in the calculation.

Two-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, so the higher proportion of two-pointers taken in previous eras caused Team ORtg's (and therefore Opponent DRtg) to be higher than today.

On the flipside, today's game takes far more 3-pointers, which have a lower offensive rebounding and FT rate, and therefore decrease Team ORtg and Opponent DRtg.

[TheMarkMadsen]

So what kind of D correlates to what type of penetration ? Does more length on D help stop penetration or does it ease it in ?

:roll: :roll:

[Hands of Iron]

Penetration occurs with natural ease when you're a handsome mother****er dripping masculinity with an A+ personality. And a MWC.

[3ball]

i fixed the OP - i didn't even have the best quotes in there originally...


NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

Stu Jackson: With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim..



NBA.com: Doesn't the wide-open style benefit certain types of players? For example, wing players vs. frontcourt players?

Stu Jackson: The benefits of an open game are not limited to just perimeter players. An open game can benefit a post player as well. Remember, if the players are spaced wider and using more of the court, then defenses have to play those players closely because they're good shooters. The style actually serves to open up the middle of the floor. If a team has an effective post player, he would have more room to operate in the post.


http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html

[RoundMoundOfReb]

That's what she said

[SamuraiSWISH]

So what kind of D correlates to what type of penetration ? Does more length on D help stop penetration or does it ease it in ?
:roll: :roll: :roll: