You guys all know that today's NBA doesn't allow zone defense in the paint right?

[3ball]

right?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

You know the NBA allowed even less zone defense in the paint in the 90s right? IE "0 in the key" as opposed to "3 in the key" right?

[3ball]

You know the NBA allowed even less zone defense in the paint in the 90s right? IE "0 in the key" as opposed to "3 in the key" right?
not true at all.

i have the rules right here - i'm looking right at them.

why don't you show me the source for your information - post it here itt.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

not true at all.

i have the rules right here - i'm looking right at them.

why don't you show me the source for your information - post it here itt.
Any form of zone defense was outlawed prior to 01. thus you could not move off your man and stand in the key (or anywhere else) for any given time.

[3ball]

Any form of zone defense was outlawed prior to 01. thus you could not move off your man and stand in the key (or anywhere else) for any given time.
You are making things up, whereas i have the rules from the actual NBA rulebook:


b. When a defensive player is guarding an offensive player who is adjacent (posted-up) to the 3-second lane, the defensive player may be within the "inside lane" area with no time limitations. An offensive player shall be ruled as "postedup" when he is within 3' of the free throw lane line. A hash mark on the baseline denotes the 3' area.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html


Based on the definitions in the English language, the above rule states that defenders could remain in the lane as long as their man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint, as denoted by hash marks on the baseline.

Keep in mind, the paint is a massive 16 feet wide, by 19 feet long.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

You are making things up, whereas i have the rules from the actual NBA rulebook:


b. When a defensive player is guarding an offensive player who is adjacent (posted-up) to the 3-second lane, the defensive player may be within the "inside lane" area with no time limitations. An offensive player shall be ruled as "postedup" when he is within 3' of the free throw lane line. A hash mark on the baseline denotes the 3' area.

http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html


Based on the definitions in the English language, the above rule states that defenders could remain in the lane as long as their man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint, as denoted by hash marks on the baseline.

Keep in mind, the paint is a massive 16 feet wide, by 19 feet long.


You realize that defenders are STILL allowed to do that? IE be in the key for an infinite amount of time if the person they're guarding is within arms length?

I'm talking about zoning OFF of your assigned defensive matchup.

Illegal in the 90s:

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/article/media_slots/photos/000/852/191/Overload1_crop_exact.png?w=650&h=433&q=85

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/article/media_slots/photos/000/852/195/Overload2_crop_exact.png?w=650&h=433&q=85

[3ball]

You realize that defenders are STILL allowed to do that? IE be in the key for an infinite amount of time if the person they're guarding is within arms length?

I'm talking about zoning OFF of your assigned defensive matchup.

Illegal in the 90s:

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/article/media_slots/photos/000/852/191/Overload1_crop_exact.png?w=650&h=433&q=85

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/article/media_slots/photos/000/852/195/Overload2_crop_exact.png?w=650&h=433&q=85
where in the rules that i just posted does it say anything about armslength?

the armslength language is TODAY'S language - there is no such language in the old rules.

the old rules say a defender can remain in the paint if their man is within 3 feet of either side of the paint - a man's arm is 3 feet long, and the paint is 16 feet wide, so a defender in previous eras could be quite far out of armslength reach and remain in the paint. do the math.
.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

We're talking about zone defense - which requires LEAVING your man and standing in the paint. This was not allowed AT ALL in the 90s.

[Cocaine80s]

*sigh*
another 3ball thread


http://i.imgur.com/1VcxU3X.gif

[3ball]

We're talking about zone defense - which requires LEAVING your man and standing in the paint. This was not allowed AT ALL in the 90s.


yes it was - anytime a defender's man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint (which was literally all the time in a no-spacing environment), the defender could stay in the lane WITH NO TIME RESTRICTION.

with your scenario, defenders can only stay in the lane for 3 seconds.

"no time restriction" is better than "3 seconds".

[RoundMoundOfReb]

yes it was - anytime a defender's man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint (which was literally all the time in a no-spacing environment), the defender could stay in the lane WITH NO TIME RESTRICTION.

with your scenario, defenders can only stay in the lane for 3 seconds.

"no time restriction" is better than "3 seconds".

lmao There is no "time restriction" now as well when you're guarding your man. We're talking about Zone.

[3ball]

lmao There is no "time restriction" now as well when you're guarding your man. We're talking about Zone.


yeah there is - it's called defensive 3 seconds - if you aren't within "armslength" of your man (about 3 feet), you can't be in the paint for more than 2.9 seconds.

this constitutes a time restriction, and having to be within armslength is the very definition of man-to-man defense. but the armslength/man-to-man restriction only applies inside the paint - anywhere else on the floor, a zone is allowed.

otoh, there was no armslength requirement in previous eras, so defenders could stay in the lane with no time restriction as long as their man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint - a man's arm is about 3 feet long and the paint is 16 feet wide, so a defender in previous eras could be quite far out of armslength reach and remain in the paint.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

yeah there is - it's called defensive 3 seconds - if you aren't within "armslength" of your man (about 3 feet), you can't be in the paint for more than 2.9 seconds.

this constitutes a time restriction, and having to be within armslength is the very definition of man-to-man defense. the armslength/man-to-man restriction only applies inside the paint - anywhere else on the floor, a zone is allowed.

otoh, there was no armslength requirement in previous eras, so defenders could stay in the lane with no time restriction as long as their man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint - a man's arm is about 3 feet long and the paint is 16 feet wide, so a defender in previous eras could be quite far out of armslength reach and remain in the paint.
But they couldn't do it ALL if there man was more than 3 ft from the key.

Put it this way - 2013's heat team in the 90s with:

Chalmers
Allen
LeBron
Battier
Bosh

Would absolutely rape with their 5 out offense in the 90s. LeBron would drive and get a layup every time until they started doubling (remember it has to be a hard double - not a soft double) him - which would result in a wide open 3 for one of the other 4.

[3ball]

But they couldn't do it ALL if there man was more than 3 ft from the key.

Put it this way - 2013's heat team in the 90s with:

Chalmers
Allen
LeBron
Battier
Bosh

Would absolutely rape with their 5 out offense in the 90s. LeBron would drive and get a layup every time until they started doubling (remember it has to be a hard double - not a soft double) him - which would result in a wide open 3 for one of the other 4.
you think that if a defender's man is out at the 3-point line, they have to follow the offensive player all the way out there?

those were NOT the rules at all and many new fans erroneously think this - defenders didn't have to go out to the 3-point line - they could sag back and straddle the paint just like today's game. it's no different.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

you think that if a defender's man is out at the 3-point line, they have to follow the offensive player all the way out there?

those were NOT the rules at all and many new fans erroneously think this - defenders didn't have to go out to the 3-point line - they could sag back and straddle the paint just like today's game. it's no different.

If they did that he would just pass it off for an open 3:oldlol:

[TheMilkyBarKid]

OP, I am what experts refer to as a 'visual learner'.

Can you please provide a visual example (perhaps a few gifs?) to better demonstrate your point.

[ralph_i_el]

you think that if a defender's man is out at the 3-point line, they have to follow the offensive player all the way out there?

those were NOT the rules at all and many new fans erroneously think this - defenders didn't have to go out to the 3-point line - they could sag back and straddle the paint just like today's game. it's no different.
:rolleyes: nope

[3ball]

If they did that he would just pass it off for an open 3:oldlol:


that's the same as today - what do you think lebron does today? he drives and kicks. the only difference is that it's so much easier in today's game, because as Stu Jackson said, penetration was made easier by the rule changes.

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.

[AnaheimLakers24]

6> 5>>>>>>>>>>>> 2*

[3ball]

:rolleyes: nope
wtf are you talking about? players could absolutely sag off their man if he was behind the 3-point line - granted, they couldn't sag back into the paint for more than 2.9 seconds, but neither can today's players. defenders back then and today are not allowed to stay in the paint for more than 2.9 seconds when their man is behind the 3-point line. so what's the difference?

the problem is that you have a complete misapprehension about what man-to-man defense is.

you think man-to-man defense means defenders run around clinging to their man all around the court.

any basketball person can come on here and tell you that the first thing they teach you about man-to-man defense is to play halfway in between your man and the ball whenever possible, and since you are halfway in between, use your hands to point to your man and the ball at all times so you keep track of where both are - this is standard coaching 101 of man-to-man defense.

the only case where this is not the case is the NBA's current imposition of defensive 3 seconds in the painted area, where defenders must stay within "armslength" of their man or vacate the paint. a man's arm is 3 feet long and the NBA paint is 16 feet by 19 feet, so players today must cling to their man even when their man is already inside the paint. defenders either cling to their man, or vacate the paint - those are today's rules.

[3ball]

Here's the very person who implemented the new rules in 2005 - Vice President of Basketball Operations, Stu Jackson, who said the rules were designed to make penetration easier and make offense easier for everyone, even post players:

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.
This thread became a ghost town once I posted the right quotes from Stu Jackson (shown above), who said the rule changes were designed to make penetration easier and offense easier for all players, even post players.

Stu Jackson is the NBA's Vice President of Basketball Operations and he personally implemented the rules, so he would know.

So it's confirmed itt by the NBA's Vice President of Basketball Operations - the rule changes made penetration easier and offense easier for all players, even post players. Glad we solved that one... Whew..

[24-Inch_Chrome]

OP, I am what experts refer to as a 'visual learner'.

Can you please provide a visual example (perhaps a few gifs?) to better demonstrate your point.

:roll:

[Droid101]

Everyone in the world gets that you can't just put four offensive players on one sideline and do the 1 on 1 MJ special on the other sideline anymore. 3ball is the only one who fails to get it.

[Practice?]

They can and do run zone in the paint. They just have to step out of it every 3 seconds if a defender doesn't come within arms reach before those 3 second run out. Essentially they can run zone 3 out of every 4 seconds and even more often if somebody comes nearby.

[3ball]

They can and do run zone in the paint. They just have to step out of it every 3 seconds if a defender doesn't come within arms reach before those 3 second run out.



you are forgetting that the paint is 16 feet wide - there's 8 feet distance between tippy-toeing at the edge of the paint and being able to camp right under the rim.

here's the difference between having to tippy-toe at the edge of the paint:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/c33b0be11565b94476f8e7a7e9902217.gif




and being able to just stand right under the damn rim:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/832a26d5ea87f83465b92fe12837530b.gif


No comparison.. and these are not cherry-picked GIFs - paint-camping happened on every single play back then - the only purpose of the GIFs is to demonstrate for people who aren't aware that it happened on every play.

See the other thread about the 1996 Sonics defense in the Finals for an entire video of such plays - or go watch old footage of Jordan against great defensive teams like the Bad Boys, Riley's Knicks, or Bird's 1986 Celtics... in reality, ALL teams paint-camped as a standard, so go watch ANY game from back then.

[fpliii]

you are forgetting that the paint is 16 feet wide - there's 8 feet distance between tippy-toeing at the edge of the paint and being able to camp right under the rim.

here's the difference between having to tippy-toe at the edge of the paint:
You realize that it isn't illegal to double the guy with the ball, right? There would be no reason to "tippy-toe" as you said. One defender is just rotating and watching his man, and comes in too late to help. The rest are trying not to sag off their men on the perimeter because they don't want to give up the open three...

If you want to credit the defense played there to spacing, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the rule book.

[3ball]

You realize that it isn't illegal to double the guy with the ball, right? There would be no reason to "tippy-toe" as you said. One defender is just rotating and watching his man, and comes in too late to help. The rest are trying not to sag off their men on the perimeter because they don't want to give up the open three...

If you want to credit the defense played there to spacing, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the rule book.
I don't understand what doubling the ball has to do with it - the fact that guys have to be within armslength of their man causes them to need to tippy-toe in and out of the paint. We see it all the time.

Having to tippy-toe in and out of the paint means the defender is at the edge of the paint, and about 8 feet from the rim - that's 8 feet from where the defender in previous eras would be camping (right under the rim).

[fpliii]

I don't understand what doubling the ball has to do with it - the fact that guys have to be within armslength of their man causes them to need to tippy-toe in and out of the paint. We see it all the time.

Having to tippy-toe in and out of the paint means the defender is at the edge of the paint, and about 8 feet from the rim, where the defender in previous eras would be camping.
They only need to be within armslength of their man if they're guarding a guy off-ball. If they're helping on a guy with the ball, the rule doesn't come into play.

In previous eras players would be camping due to suboptimal offensive strategy/floor geometry. If you don't have to respect the three, there's no reason not to play closer to the rim to deter higher percentage shots.

[3ball]

They only need to be within armslength of their man if they're guarding a guy off-ball. If they're helping on a guy with the ball, the rule doesn't come into play.

In previous eras players would be camping due to suboptimal offensive strategy/floor geometry. If you don't have to respect the three, there's no reason not to play closer to the rim to deter higher percentage shots.
when a guy starts his drive 25 feet from the basket, a defender cannot be standing under the rim waiting, unless he is within armslength of an offensive player - obviously, that offensive player CANNOT be the guy beginning his drive 25 feet out.

Also, are you refuting what Stu Jackson said? He said the defensive 3 seconds rule was meant to open up the game and allow for more freedom of movement, but you seem to think it makes no difference at all. So why did Stu implement the rule then, and why did he subsequently say that it was meant to open up the game?

[Droid101]

when a guy starts his drive 25 feet from the basket, a defender cannot be standing under the rim waiting
Is this drive going to take longer than 3 seconds? If not, then the defender most certainly can do that.

Have you ever been right about anything?

[3ball]

Is this drive going to take longer than 3 seconds? If not, then the defender most certainly can do that.


defenders never assume a drive will take less than 3 seconds, which is why we never see guys waiting under the rim in today's game, unless they are already within armslength of their man.

what we DO see, is guys not sure if it will be 3 seconds, so to make sure they don't get called for it, they tippy-toe in and out of the lane on the EDGE of the 16 foot-wide paint, or 8 feet from under the rim where previous era defenders typically waited (previous era defenders would be right under the rim setting up a tent with their man invariably within 3 feet of either side of the paint).
.

[Droid101]

defenders never assume a drive will take less than 3 seconds, which is why we never see guys waiting under the rim in today's game,

.
I think you might be drunk.

[3ball]

I think you might be drunk.
defenders don't camp under the rim in today's game.

are you trying to say that they do?

[fpliii]

I'm not going to get into a big debate about this again. We agreed to disagree when I linked you to extensive footage of Kobe vs the Celtics in the 08, 10 Finals, and you didn't feel those team defenses were better than those of the early 90s. Just a few things though:


when a guy starts his drive 25 feet from the basket, a defender cannot be standing under the rim waiting, unless he is within armslength of an offensive player - obviously, that offensive player CANNOT be the guy beginning his drive 25 feet out.
You keep trying to present the defensive 3 seconds as a disadvantage. It's not difficult for guys to step out for a second, and when there aren't 4+ shooters on the floor, it takes no effort for two bigs to rotate in and out of the paint so that one guy is always there (haven't you heard guys yell "2.9!" and switch during games?). If a guy is beginning to drive to drive, and a man moves in to double, he isn't going to be called for illegal defense since he's helping on a guy with the ball.


Also, are you refuting what Stu Jackson said? He said the defensive 3 seconds rule was meant to open up the game and allow for more freedom of movement, but you seem to think it makes no difference at all. So why did Stu implement the rule then, and why did he subsequently say that it was meant to open up the game?
Why is Stu Jackson's word more valuable than Larry O'Brien's? Anyhow though, you're misinterpreting anyway, so I'll correct you here...

Jackson indeed mentioned defensive three seconds in the interview you linked (though for some reason you ignored the first and third questions, and only reposted the second and fourth):


NBA.com: One of the fundamental criticisms of the NBA was that there was too much isolation. What did the league do to address those concerns and improve the overall game?

Stu Jackson: In the late '90s and the beginning of the decade, the game had become too focused on isolation play, while other players stood around under the old illegal defense guidelines. The game had also gotten too physical and too slow. A special committee of basketball experts was formed in the early part of the decade to study the game and make recommendations as to how to make it more exciting to watch. In 2001, that committee made a rules package recommendation to the Board of Governors, which was ultimately passed for implementation during the 2001-02 season. The Board voted to eliminate our old illegal defense guidelines, to implement a new defensive three-second call, reduce the time allowable to get the ball across half-court from 10 seconds to eight seconds, and allow less contact. All changes were passed with the idea of trying to encourage more free flowing five-man offenses, open up the lanes for cutting and passing and speed up the game by encouraging teams to get into their offenses quicker.

Changes were made to discourage isolation ball. The late 90s and early 00s were full of boring, clear-out isolation plays.

Anyhow, the portion you cited was with regards to the changes in hand-checking guidelines starting in 04-05, after the Pistons won the title:


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.

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?

SJ: It doesn't. 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. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.

NBA.com: The number of 3-point attempts has risen since the 2004-05 season, more so than the mid-range shots. Is this a positive development?

SJ: It depends on your perspective. We feel the 3-point shot has been an exciting play for our game and has put a premium on having skill players with an all-around game.

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

SJ: 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.
The interview you posted had everything to do with hand-checking, and nothing to do with defensive three seconds.

It's unquestionably irrational to paint the current defensive three second rules (note that I'm not discussing hand-checking or improved spacing, since both do benefit offenses, and make life tougher for defenses) as more limiting to defensive players. You keep harping on this "arms length" vs "in the post" (within the 3 foot hatchmarks to the side of the paint) difference for guarding guys in the paint off-ball, and trying to project it to guys playing with the ball.

EDIT: You don't have to respond to this post, I'm not in the mood for a back-and-forth. It's just frustrating for you to act as if someone's opinion is invalid, and act as if your own interpretations are factual.

[Practice?]

[SIZE="3"]you are forgetting that the paint is 16 feet wide - there's 8 feet distance between tippy-toeing at the edge of the paint and being able to camp right under the rim.

Right, they can't camp under the rim the whole time, but they can spend 80% of the time a step or 2 away from being there.

[Droid101]

If, in the 80s/90s, an offensive player stayed near the key while their scorer was about to drive, that's their own team's fault. Pull the defender out to the three point line for the easy driving lane. Leave your guy who went out to the 3 point line? Illegal defense. Game over.

[3ball]

We agreed to disagree when I linked you to extensive footage of Kobe vs the Celtics in the 08, 10 Finals, and you didn't feel those team defenses were better than those of the early 90s.


did you see the video of the Sonics guarding Jordan in the 1996 Finals? the 2008 and 2010 Celtics D is not nearly physical or congested as that.

and the 2010 Celtics let Dwayne Wade go off for 33 PPG on 66% TS.

just based on that, it's impossible they had a better defense than the Bad Boys, Knicks, Miami, Seattle, and many other teams where Jordan's shooting efficiency was nowhere near Wade's - Jordan has never shot that well against ANY TEAM in the playoffs, ever.

you have said yourself that "wade is worse than jordan in every way." well if that's the case, than it's impossible for Boston's defense to be superior, when Wade shot better against them than Jordan ever did against the defenses of his day.





You keep trying to present the defensive 3 seconds as a disadvantage. It's not difficult for guys to step out for a second, and when there aren't 4+ shooters on the floor, it takes no effort for two bigs to rotate in and out of the paint so that one guy is always there (haven't you heard guys yell "2.9!" and switch during games?).


you have no idea what would be "difficult" for a professional athlete.

the very fact that you concede there IS a circumstance to mitigate (defensive 3 seconds) is all i need to prove my point - your opinion of whether mitigating said circumstance is difficult or not has zero bearing on the argument.

btw, how is it that a man of your mathematical aptitude can't understand that waiting right under the rim (previous eras) is EIGHT FEET AWAY from someone at the edge of the lane tippy-toeing in and out (today's era)? it's baffling to me. that's a long distance you are trying to disregard.





If a guy is beginning to drive to drive, and a man moves in to double, he isn't going to be called for illegal defense since he's helping on a guy with the ball.


But the defender can't already be there waiting - he has to "move in" as you say... that's the difference - today's era has to tippy toe the edge of the lane, 8 feet away from the rim, and then "move in" to help on penetration... this is a stark contrast from previous eras, where defenders were allowed to wait in the lane right under the rim... no need to "move in".

a defender in today's game simply cannot wait under the rim for a guy beginning his drive on the perimeter.. but previous era defenders COULD wait under the rim on perimeter penetration.





The interview you posted had everything to do with hand-checking, and nothing to do with defensive three seconds.


FROM STU JACKSON'S INTERVIEW:

"The Board voted to eliminate our old illegal defense guidelines, to implement a new defensive three-second call, reduce the time allowable to get the ball across half-court from 10 seconds to eight seconds, and allow less contact. All changes were passed with the idea of trying to encourage more free flowing five-man offenses, open up the lanes for cutting and passing..."

^^^^^^^^ this says the defensive 3 seconds rule was implemented to "open up the lanes for more passing and cutting".

Also, the NBA.com website specifically says that defensive 3 seconds was meant to "open up the game."... look under the 2001 rules on the NBA Rules History Page, here: http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html





and trying to project it to guys playing with the ball.


i don't have to project anything - the reality is what it is - defenders in previous eras could wait in the paint on perimeter penetrators, and today's defenders cannot. today's defenders can "move in" as you say from outside the paint, but they can't wait INSIDE the paint, unless they are within armslength of their man.

everyone knows that the spacing and the physicality ban already hinders today's defenders, but defensive 3 seconds ALSO hinders defenders... how could it not?... it's a defensive 3 seconds rule that requires defenders to vacate the paint after 3 seconds... :confusedshrug:





EDIT: You don't have to respond to this post, I'm not in the mood for a back-and-forth. It's just frustrating for you to act as if someone's opinion is invalid, and act as if your own interpretations are factual.


you're good at math bro, but you should work on your reading comprehension and also i would brush that bias off your shoulder too - it's preventing you from seeing clearly... meanwhile, i'll work on my math a little bit.

[fpliii]

Just a note though, your claims about it being a DISADVANTAGE to a defender to be able to play zone, while being required to step out of the paint once every three seconds that your man is away OR when the guy on the ball is not attacking the paint are ludicrous to me. If my opinion isn't good enough, I'd be interested in hearing some defensive players say it's a disadvantage.

The rest of your post is the same stuff I have responded to in the past 1000x (and you have responded to me, and so on...bottom line is, we've both made up our minds, and you've posted nothing to convince me to change my mind). If you want to agree to disagree that's fine. But don't act as if your opinion is fact.

Two quick corrections:

FROM STU JACKSON'S INTERVIEW:

"The Board voted to eliminate our old illegal defense guidelines, to implement a new defensive three-second call, reduce the time allowable to get the ball across half-court from 10 seconds to eight seconds, and allow less contact. All changes were passed with the idea of trying to encourage more free flowing five-man offenses, open up the lanes for cutting and passing..."

^^^^^^^^ this says the defensive 3 seconds rule was implemented to "open up the lanes for more passing and cutting".
Again, O'Brien said the same thing with regards to the rule change in 81-82:

http://i.imgur.com/tWjGF3z.jpg.

You can't pick and choose your sources.

Anyhow though, the question asked to which Stu Jackson responded, with his full reply (which I just posted above):


NBA.com: One of the fundamental criticisms of the NBA was that there was too much isolation. What did the league do to address those concerns and improve the overall game?

Stu Jackson: In the late '90s and the beginning of the decade, the game had become too focused on isolation play, while other players stood around under the old illegal defense guidelines. The game had also gotten too physical and too slow. A special committee of basketball experts was formed in the early part of the decade to study the game and make recommendations as to how to make it more exciting to watch. In 2001, that committee made a rules package recommendation to the Board of Governors, which was ultimately passed for implementation during the 2001-02 season. The Board voted to eliminate our old illegal defense guidelines, to implement a new defensive three-second call, reduce the time allowable to get the ball across half-court from 10 seconds to eight seconds, and allow less contact. All changes were passed with the idea of trying to encourage more free flowing five-man offenses, open up the lanes for cutting and passing and speed up the game by encouraging teams to get into their offenses quicker.

Rule changes made it harder to play isolation ball, and wanted to encourage team play. End of discussion.


Also, the NBA.com website specifically says that defensive 3 seconds was meant to "open up the game."... look under the 2001 rules on the NBA Rules History Page, here: http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

The phrase "open up" appears once on the page, with regards to the hand-checking rule change ONLY:

[QUOTE]2004-05

[3ball]

Just a note though, your claims about it being a DISADVANTAGE to a defender to be able to play zone, while being required to step out of the paint once every three seconds that your man is away OR when the guy on the ball is not attacking the paint are ludicrous to me. If my opinion isn't good enough, I'd be interested in hearing some defensive players say it's a disadvantage.


yes indeed - having to step in and out of the paint requires more effort from defenders than otherwise.

also, stepping in and out of the paint requires the defender to remain on the edges of the paint... the edge of the paint is 8 feet away from the midpoint of the paint (right under the rim), which is where previous era defenders were allowed to wait on penetration... previous era defenders didn't have to yell out shit.





Again, O'Brien said the same thing with regards to the rule change in 81-82:

You can't pick and choose your sources.


I can tell from this post that you just want to win the argument and don't really care if you are actually right or not.

Obviously, the game was a lot different in 1982 - the 3-point line had just been instituted, no one knew what spacing was like we do today, and everyone's perception of what constituted an "open lane" was night and day different from what we consider an open lane today.

and that's my entire point - if previous eras saw the open lane of today's game, it would blow their socks off.... and vice versa - what constituted an open lane in previous eras would be considered a crowded lane today.





Rule changes made it harder to play isolation ball, and wanted to encourage team play. End of discussion.


Except you either misread the rules or are lying - Stu Jackson never said the rule changes "made it harder" to play iso ball - he said "the game had become too focused on isolation play"... that's it... you completely made up the "harder to play isolation ball" part.

All of today's high scoring wings get most of their points from isolations and perimeter drives to the hoop. Iso-play is alive and well.

Now while Stu Jackson never said isolation ball would be harder, you know what he DID say would be harder to do under the new rules? Defend penetration:




"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.."


he says it right there - the rule changes "made it harder for defenders to guard penetration."... end of discussion... see, i'm just posting the ACTUAL QUOTES, not giving his quotes a different interpretation like you did.




"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."





The phrase "open up" appears once on the page, with regards to the hand-checking rule change ONLY.

There is no mention whatsoever about the defensive 3 seconds rule change specifically opening up play.


you're decent at math, but your reading comprehension needs a lot of work, so i'll just post the rule excerpt from 2001 below and leave it there for other posters to correctly interpret it...



2004-05
• New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

let's face it, you don't care if you are right. you just want the last word. if that's all you want bruh, believe me, you can have it.

[fpliii]

let's face it, you don't care if you are right. you just want the last word. if that's all you want bruh, believe me, you can have it.
Actually, being right is ALL I care about. If I didn't believe what I was saying, I wouldn't say it. If someone presents evidence that disproves my belief, I will happily change it (and have before).

You are, again, confusing the 2001-02 and 2004-05 rule changes. You're also taking sentences discussing one point (elimination of hand-checking), and claiming they pertain to another point (defensive 3 seconds). That's bullshit, and dishonest argumentation.

Here is Stu Jackson's interview from 2001:


Eliminating illegal defense guidelines:

Jackson: The illegal defense guidelines needed to be eliminated because they have become problematic. They are problematic for our fans, who don't understand the rule. They are problematic for the officials, who admittedly have had difficulty administering the rule. And finally, our teams have used the guidelines in a way that produces isolation basketball. Teams identify areas on the floor that they can use to their advantage in a given offensive matchup and this produces a real sameness of play amongst a lot of our teams. With isolation basketball, a lot of our teams began standing around. There is little player movement, there is little ball movement, and there is a decreasing amount of fastbreak opportunities. These developments began with the misuse of the illegal defense guidelines and therefore they needed to be eliminated. By eliminating them, our desired result is to get a game that once again is based on passing, cutting, player movement, and ball movement. A game that hopefully produces fastbreak opportunities because that is the way our game should be played.

A defensive three-second violation that would prohibit a player on defense from being in the lane for more than three seconds, except when the player is defending an opponent in the lane area:

Jackson: When we eliminated the illegal defense guidelines, the number one concern was that teams would take a bigger player, like a Shaquille O'Neal, Theo Ratliff, Shawn Bradley, or Dikembe Mutombo, and simply put him in the middle of the lane to camp out and prohibit drives to the basket and encourage low-percentage shots. In an effort to help alleviate that concern, the defensive three-seconds violation was recommended. Prohibiting a player from being in the lane for longer than three seconds will hopefully prevent a player from simply camping in the lane for the entire possession.

source: http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html

The two go hand-and-hand...the league wanted to be rid of clear-out plays. Another link:


In general, scoring has been on the decline for more than a decade and bottomed out in the lockout-shortened 1999 season when teams averaged only 91.6 points per game. Rules changes were instituted after that season to cut down on hand-checking and contact away from the ball, but the unintended effect has been to encourage non-entertaining isolation plays because they have become so easy to run.


Part of the problem is the trend of gearing offenses toward 2-on-2 or 1-on-1 isolation plays in which a majority of a team's players stand idle on the weak side to draw their defenders away from the ball.

http://staugustine.com/stories/021001/spo_0210010078.shtml

I don't give a shit about the last word, but I'm getting sick and tired of you spreading lies about the elimination of illegal defense + institution of defensive 3 seconds making it harder to play defense from before. I've ignored your posts on it for weeks, but I decided that you weren't going to get away with it in this thread too.

Have a good one bruh...

[3ball]

Have a good one bruh...


And you stay in denial bud!!!



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:

[fpliii]

And you stay in denial bud!!!

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.

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: The number of 3-point attempts has risen since the 2004-05 season, more so than the mid-range shots. Is this a positive development?

SJ: It depends on your perspective. We feel the 3-point shot has been an exciting play for our game and has put a premium on having skill players with an all-around game.

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:

Edited in the portions of the quote you deleted. :cheers:

[3ball]

Have a good one bruh...
Btw, from your OWN POST - you must have ignored or simply missed this:


Jackson: When we eliminated the illegal defense guidelines, the number one concern was that teams would take a bigger player, like a Shaquille O'Neal, Theo Ratliff, Shawn Bradley, or Dikembe Mutombo, and simply put him in the middle of the lane to camp out and prohibit drives to the basket and encourage low-percentage shots. In an effort to help alleviate that concern, the defensive three-seconds violation was recommended. Prohibiting a player from being in the lane for longer than three seconds will hopefully prevent a player from simply camping in the lane for the entire possession.

[fpliii]

Btw, from your OWN POST - you must have ignored or simply missed this:

Eliminating illegal defense guidelines:

Jackson: The illegal defense guidelines needed to be eliminated because they have become problematic. They are problematic for our fans, who don't understand the rule. They are problematic for the officials, who admittedly have had difficulty administering the rule. And finally, our teams have used the guidelines in a way that produces isolation basketball. Teams identify areas on the floor that they can use to their advantage in a given offensive matchup and this produces a real sameness of play amongst a lot of our teams. With isolation basketball, a lot of our teams began standing around. There is little player movement, there is little ball movement, and there is a decreasing amount of fastbreak opportunities. These developments began with the misuse of the illegal defense guidelines and therefore they needed to be eliminated. By eliminating them, our desired result is to get a game that once again is based on passing, cutting, player movement, and ball movement. A game that hopefully produces fastbreak opportunities because that is the way our game should be played.

A defensive three-second violation that would prohibit a player on defense from being in the lane for more than three seconds, except when the player is defending an opponent in the lane area:

Jackson: When we eliminated the illegal defense guidelines, the number one concern was that teams would take a bigger player, like a Shaquille O'Neal, Theo Ratliff, Shawn Bradley, or Dikembe Mutombo, and simply put him in the middle of the lane to camp out and prohibit drives to the basket and encourage low-percentage shots. In an effort to help alleviate that concern, the defensive three-seconds violation was recommended. Prohibiting a player from being in the lane for longer than three seconds will hopefully prevent a player from simply camping in the lane for the entire possession.

Correct, that is what I said. :cheers: Illegal defense was eliminated, and a much more lax restriction was put in place.

Seriously, this is the last time I'll discuss this topic with you. Nothing against you, but there's nothing else to be said.

[insidious301]

Actually, being right is ALL I care about. If I didn't believe what I was saying, I wouldn't say it. If someone presents evidence that disproves my belief, I will happily change it (and have before).

You are, again, confusing the 2001-02 and 2004-05 rule changes. You're also taking sentences discussing one point (elimination of hand-checking), and claiming they pertain to another point (defensive 3 seconds). That's bullshit, and dishonest argumentation.

Here is Stu Jackson's interview from 2001:



source: http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html

The two go hand-and-hand...the league wanted to be rid of clear-out plays. Another link:





http://staugustine.com/stories/021001/spo_0210010078.shtml

I don't give a shit about the last word, but I'm getting sick and tired of you spreading lies about the elimination of illegal defense + institution of defensive 3 seconds making it harder to play defense from before. I've ignored your posts on it for weeks, but I decided that you weren't going to get away with it in this thread too.

Have a good one bruh...

Informative posts -- thanks. I think people are too hung up on rules and whether said era is tougher than the other.

Superstars will be superstars regardless of minor rule changes.

[3ball]

OP, I am what experts refer to as a 'visual learner'.

Can you please provide a visual example (perhaps a few gifs?) to better demonstrate your point.



in the GIF below, look specifically at horace grant under the rim - the rules in previous eras didn't require horace to stay within armslength (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) of his man, so he decides to stop under the rim and camp in the paint, instead of following his man toni kukocs out to the 3-point line in the far corner... as a result, horace is there waiting on MJ, and actually gets there AHEAD of time:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/ff00eb05f6a2bc1d374e2727b50a5351.gif




otoh, look specifically at harrison barnes near the far corner below - durant must stay within armslength (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html) of barnes to remain in the paint - so durant goes towards the edge of the paint to stay within "armslength", and consequently, he's late coming over.


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/270ad21b124fe5a38ae181bac30c0a8d.gif

[3ball]

OP, I am what experts refer to as a 'visual learner'.

Can you please provide a visual example (perhaps a few gifs?) to better demonstrate your point.



http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b209aeddf6bfaaa9fcaed8eea3c72c65.gif


in this clip, Klay Thompson's dad (#43 in the middle of lane) would get a tech after 3 seconds in today's game because his man is out of "armslength".... but back then, he was legal because his man was "adjacent to the paint" (within 3 feet of either side of the paint), which was the only requirement at the time - as you can see, the paint is huge (16 feet by 19 feet) and "adjacent to the paint" is well out of "armslength" reach... also, notice how there is no need for Thompson to tippy-toe in and out of the paint.

[3ball]

Correct, that is what I said. :cheers: Illegal defense was eliminated, and a much more lax restriction was put in place.


Defensive 3 seconds is topic we were discussing and the topic of the thread - as you can see, the rule was meant to prevent paint-camping:


Stu Jackson: When we eliminated the illegal defense guidelines, the number one concern was that teams would take a bigger player, like a Shaquille O'Neal, Theo Ratliff, Shawn Bradley, or Dikembe Mutombo, and simply put him in the middle of the lane to camp out and prohibit drives to the basket and encourage low-percentage shots. In an effort to help alleviate that concern, the defensive three-seconds violation was recommended. Prohibiting a player from being in the lane for longer than three seconds will hopefully prevent a player from simply camping in the lane for the entire possession.


http://www.nba.com/features/jackson_rules_response.html

[BruceLeeBowen]

Edited in the portions of the quote you deleted. :cheers:
Wow! 3ball caught nitpicking and deliberately editing his sources to push his agenda.:facepalm

Micheal Jordan = poorman Tony Allen.:lol

[Droid101]

Wow! 3ball caught nitpicking and deliberately editing his sources to push his agenda.:facepalm

He's a liar AND an idiot. Bad combination.