The Real Genius is the NBA, Not Coaches

[3ball]

I concede that NBA teams in the 80's should have shot more 3-pointers to draw defenders away from the rim like today's game - this would have exploited various aspects of the illegal defense rules back then..

But teams didn't shoot 3's.. Coaches in the 80's and 90's had their roots in 2-pointer basketball.. Their foolish positioning of players in and around the paint activated Rule 2b of the Illegal Defense Guidelines - the rule (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) allowed defenders to legally camp in the paint if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side of the paint.. Coaches played right into the defense's hands by running offenses that allowed the rule to apply.

This is the reason paint-camping was the NBA's #1 concern (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367211) after scrapping the Illegal Defense Guidelines.. It had simply been a legit problem.. Whether the NBA was aware the issue was due to coaches being dumb, or whether they just read their own rulebook and were like wtf - either way, they'd be right.

The reality of legal paint-camping gives previous eras a solid argument for why it was just as hard to score back then as it is now... The paint-camping argument piggy-backs the spacing argument, as well as the ban on hand-checking/physicality, designed to make penetration easier (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=366941).

Knowing it was just as hard to score in previous eras is important because while it can be debated whether teams shooting more 3-pointers would have an advantage over other teams back then, there would be no advantage for INDIVIDUALS trying to score - they would have to face no spacing, paint-camping and physicality/hand-checking, which offsets anything they face today.

[AirBourne92]

sophisticated weakside rotations + more athletic players + advanced technology film study makes up for paint camping in the playoffs.

roamers and satellite defenders makes today's nba defense superior to the 80s and 90s. i dont even know why you brought up the 80s, that era was a joke in terms of defense.


also, the shooting skill has evolved to the highest point, players back then couldn't shoot nearly as well as today's players

[Practice?]

What do you mean the genius is the NBA, not coaches? Do you mean the players? League administrators?

[Taller than CP3]

You should read what you just typed, I swear you must be at least 50 years old or something.

[3ball]

sophisticated weakside rotations makes up for paint camping in the playoffs.


Weakside rotations are old news and have been nullified for years by smart teams like the Spurs and Mavs - these teams simply take advantage of the weakside being a man down by moving the ball to that side... Off-ball players on the weakside are the beneficiary - their numbers go through the roof against strong-side floods.





more athletic players


athleticism takes hundreds and thousands of years to materially evolve, not 20 or 30... also, players today only appear more athletic because they are doing moves previous eras weren't allowed to do because of stricter rules on dribbling - how can previous eras appear equally athletic if they aren't allowed to do the same moves?

Players today are able to use maximum navigation efficiency (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360900), which allows them to maximize their athleticism on the offensive end of the floor.

But on the defensive end, the ban on physicality actually PREVENTS today's players from maximizing their athleticism on that end of the floor - previous eras have the advantage here, as they were allowed to be more physical, and therefore realize more of their athletic capacity on that end of the floor than today's defenders.

Also, players are shorter today than previous eras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience





also, the shooting skill has evolved to the highest point, players back then couldn't shoot nearly as well as today's players


better inside players though - more than makes up for it.





i dont even know why you brought up the 80s, that era was a joke in terms of defense.


other than a brief period between 1999 and 2004, league-wide offensive rating (ORtg) has remained between 106-108 for 35 years - this statistically proves that all the factors we've discussed itt have been evening out for a long time.
.

[AirBourne92]

Weakside rotations are old news and have been nullified for years by smart teams like the Spurs and Mavs - these teams simply take advantage of the weakside being a man down by moving the ball to that side... Off-ball players on the weakside are the beneficiary - their numbers go through the roof against strong-side floods.

rotations do not stop at the lowest defender sliding over to stop the drive. switches occur throughout the whole floor, it is not as simple as you make it seem. teams exploit laziness.




athleticism takes hundreds and thousands of years to materially evolve, not 20 or 30... also, players today only appear more athletic because they are doing moves previous eras weren't allowed to do because of stricter rules on dribbling - how can previous eras appear equally athletic if they aren't allowed to do the same moves?

Players today are able to use maximum navigation efficiency (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=360900), which allows them to maximize their athleticism on the offensive end of the floor.

But on the defensive end, the ban on physicality actually PREVENTS today's players from maximizing their athleticism on that end of the floor - previous eras have the advantage here, as they were allowed to be more physical, and therefore realize more of their athletic capacity on that end of the floor than today's defenders.

i never argued for biological evolution of athleticism.

evolution in training systems and programs, however, is very obvious. power lifting and strength training were not popular in basketball programs until the mid 90s.


Also, players are shorter today than previous eras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience



better inside players though - more than makes up for it.



other than a brief period between 1999 and 2004, league-wide offensive rating (ORtg) has remained between 106-108 for 35 years - this statistically proves that all the factors we've discussed itt have been evening out for a long time.
.

--shorter players but more athletic

--basketball has evolved not only in training but in each aspects of it's game

statistically you can generalize and come to any irrational conclusion you want to, but it's not going to help your case on making it seem like players back in the days were as competitive as today's league. there is absolutely no way around that

[Chadwin]

This is why I think Jordan would have been just as effective today.

I hear people say they would just load up the strong side against him, but is that really going to happen with guys like Kerr on the perimeter? You can't afford to do it.

[3ball]

This is why I think Jordan would have been just as effective today.

I hear people say they would just load up the strong side against him, but is that really going to happen with guys like Kerr on the perimeter? You can't afford to do it.


Kerr would hurt the strong-side flood, but Jordan himself was an off-ball player, so he would hurt it even more.. You could mistakenly be thinking Jordan plays like Lebron or McGrady, or some other ball-dominant player that is most susceptible to a strong side flood.

MJ usually scored off of catch-and-go's (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10862372&postcount=18)... He or Pippen's off-ball game on the weakside would be a nightmare for a strong-side flood.

Jordan's natural game is built for spacing, especially as an off-ball player - keep in mind, on a strong side flood, the paint is WIDE-OPEN... that benefits off-ball players that can beat defenders (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10861834&postcount=13) to the open paint.. Also, the standard tactic against a strong-side flood is to swing the ball, so players that act quickly on the catch (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10995238&postcount=18) will take the best advantage of a shifting, spaced-out defense.

But the point of the thread is to say that coaches in previous eras foolishly positioned players close to the rim and activated Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the old Illegal Defense Guidelines, which allowed limited paint-camping if your man was in the paint or close to the paint - all coaches ran offenses that actually enabled legal paint-camping... The legal paint-camping, coupled with higher physicality and no spacing, made it just as hard to score in previous eras as today's era.