Paint-Camping was once legal in the NBA

[3ball]

All coaches in previous eras foolishly ran offenses that positioned players close to the rim, which activated Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) in the Illegal Defense Guidelines - this rule allowed defenders to paint-camp if their man was in the paint already, or within 3 feet of either side of the paint.

While Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) allowed defenders to paint-camp when their man was within 3 feet of the paint, Rule 2a (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) covered instances when the defender's man was outside of the 3 feet distance - in these instances, Rule 2a didn't allow defenders to paint-camp, but they could still stay in the lane for 2.9 seconds, just like today's game.

Rule 2a (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) also nullifies a common misperception by new fans that think weakside defenders had to hug their man out at the 3-point line:


2a. Weakside defenders may be within the "outside lane" with no time limit, and within the "Inside lane" for 2.9 seconds.



But again, the main issue is the paint-camping provision provided by Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html).. All coaches ran offenses that activated Rule 2b, thus enabling LEGAL paint-camping... The legal paint-camping, coupled with higher physicality, hand-checking and no spacing, made it just as hard to score in previous eras as today's era..

The ban on hand-checking/physicality was particularly significant, since the NBA said it's primary purpose was to make penetration easier (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html).
.

[bdreason]

What are you a fukcing parrot.

[3ball]

What are you a fukcing parrot.
what are you, too much of a ***** to either concede or debate the paint-camping issue?

without being aware of these regulatory issues, it's impossible to have viable player comparisons over eras..

the at-rim percentages and penetration ability of today's wings will be misperceived and overrated without the knowledge that legal paint-camping and hand-checking was allowed under previous eras rules.

[MP.Trey]

Cool.

[KobesFinger]

How many times will you make this thread?

[Chadwin]

Hubie Brown said it was harder back then too. Let me find the interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JttE4UT74k

[ralph_i_el]

What do you think about this Zach Lowe quote from his article on big men that came out today?

[Quote=Zach Lowe]
The low-post game isn

[Prometheus]

It seems like you think nobody cares. It's not that. It's just that we already know this shit. Everyone knows. You're wasting your time, and you're doing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

[lilteapot]

OP lives a sad, pathetic life

[ArbitraryWater]

Karmen Karma can suck a mean dick

[RRR3]

OP is a cancerous tumor on ISH. He needs to be removed.

[mehyaM24]

3ball - where do you see shaq ranking in today's game?

[RRR3]

http://surajdatla.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/insanity-einstein_2.gif

[3ball]

What do you think about this Zach Lowe quote from his article on big men that came out today?


I would say that Zach Lowe is shallow-minded reporter, while Stu Jackson is the Vice President of Basketball Operations, and the implementer of the new rules in 2005:


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: 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: 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

[3ball]

3ball - where do you see shaq ranking in today's game?
put a prime version on houston and they ring EASY for many years

[ralph_i_el]

I would say that Zach Lowe is shallow-minded reporter, while Stu Jackson is the Vice President of Basketball Operations, and the implementer of the new rules in 2005:


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: 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: 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

Except that observation will tell you that's not true.

[3ball]

Hubie Brown said it was harder back then too. Let me find the interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JttE4UT74k


nice find - hubie brown breaks down two-pointer basketball: defenders guard a smaller surface area, which naturally depresses percentages, especially in the early eras when a much smaller lane was used... naturally, paint-camping was standard procedure (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10866902&postcount=134).

two-pointer basketball kept players closer to the rim, which allowed the paint-camping provision in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines to remain perpetually activated.

this is why paint-camping was the league's #1 concern (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367211) after scrapping the illegal defense guidelines in 2001 - they wanted to makes sure they got it right this time around, and they wanted a rule that was easy to read and enforce.

the smaller space that defenders must guard in two-pointer basketball also produces more 1-on-1 play amongst the 2 through 5 positions - in smaller spaces when ball movement is not as effective, 1-on-1 becomes a more viable option.. otoh, in today's game, the spacing and subsequent ball movement replaces much of the 1-on-1 skill at the 2-5 positions with play-finishing skill.

moving the ball involves running offense, and we all know that the purpose of running of offense is get an open shot - two-pointers don't need to be as open as 3-pointers, so less offense needs to be run to get them.. without the burden of having to set up spacing and run offense for open 3-pointers, teams played faster by settling for lower quality 2-pointers that were closer to the rim... historically the stats show that as 3-pointers increased in subsequent years, pace declined - pace declined and the only difference is the threes.

[Chadwin]

nice find - hubie brown breaks down two-pointer basketball: defenders guard a smaller surface area, which naturally depresses percentages, especially in the early eras when a much smaller lane was used... naturally, paint-camping was standard procedure (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10866902&postcount=134).

two-pointer basketball kept players closer to the rim, which allowed the paint-camping provision in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines to remain perpetually activated.

this is why paint-camping was the league's #1 concern (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=367211) after scrapping the illegal defense guidelines in 2001 - they wanted to makes sure they got it right this time around, and they wanted a rule that was easy to read and enforce.

the smaller space that defenders must guard in two-pointer basketball also produces more 1-on-1 play amongst the 2 through 5 positions - in smaller spaces when ball movement is not as effective, 1-on-1 becomes a more viable option.. otoh, in today's game, the spacing and subsequent ball movement replaces much of the 1-on-1 skill at the 2-5 positions with play-finishing skill.

moving the ball involves running offense, and we all know that the purpose of running of offense is get an open shot - two-pointers don't need to be as open as 3-pointers, so less offense needs to be run to get them.. without the burden of having to set up spacing and run offense for open 3-pointers, teams played faster by settling for lower quality 2-pointers that were closer to the rim... historically the stats show that as 3-pointers increased in subsequent years, pace declined - pace declined and the only difference is the threes.

I think when comparing the rules you have to assume the same level of outside shooting for both. Jordan with good shooters isn't going to look that much different with today's rules. They can't afford to leave their man and help on Jordan now or back then.

If he has poor shooters, they could still abuse illegal defense rules to get isos, but the defender can hand check. Now, they can just load up on Jordan's side and force him to pass.

[3ball]

I think when comparing the rules you have to assume the same level of outside shooting for both. Jordan with good shooters isn't going to look that much different with today's rules. They can't afford to leave their man and help on Jordan now or back then.

If he has poor shooters, they could still abuse illegal defense rules to get isos, but the defender can hand check. Now, they can just load up on Jordan's side and force him to pass.


Moving the ball is the way to beat the strong-side flood and it's done routinely as a standard by all teams - but people mistakenly compare Jordan's game to that of Lebron or McGrady, or some other ball-dominant player that is most susceptible to a strong side flood.

They forget that Jordan was normally the guy being passed to - even in his own era, he scored most of his points after receiving the pass from another player.

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 to the open paint (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10861834&postcount=13).. Also, the standard tactic against a strong-side flood is to swing the ball (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10995238&postcount=18), so players that act quickly on the catch will take the best advantage of a shifting, spaced-out defense.

But again, the main issue is the paint-camping provision provided by Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html).. All coaches ran offenses that activated Rule 2b, thus enabling LEGAL paint-camping... The legal paint-camping, coupled with higher physicality, hand-checking and no spacing, made it just as hard to score in previous eras as today's era..

The ban on hand-checking/physicality was particularly significant, since the NBA said it's primary purpose was to make penetration easier (http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html).
.

[kshutts1]

I like that Stu Jackson literally said that the players today are better shooters. And that's being ignored here.

Again, the game, strategies and players all change over time. Not better or worse, but different. Appreciate what we have, and have had.

If someone yearns for the 90s, then I would suggest to that person that they buy old games and watch only those.

[#number6ix#]

I like that Stu Jackson literally said that the players today are better shooters. And that's being ignored here.

Again, the game, strategies and players all change over time. Not better or worse, but different. Appreciate what we have, and have had.

If someone yearns for the 90s, then I would suggest to that person that they buy old games and watch only those.
Couldn't of said it better myself... :applause:

[3ball]

I like that Stu Jackson literally said that the players today are better shooters. And that's being ignored here.


it doesn't matter WHY players were closer to the basket in previous eras - whether it's player's lack of shooting, or coaching incompetence by not spreading the floor... it doesn't matter... it only matters that offensive players WERE closer to the basket.

so anyone playing back then, including today's player transported back to a previous era, would play in an offense where the positioning of teammates close to the rim and lack of floor-spreading activated legal paint-camping, as stipulated in Rule 2b (http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html) of the Illegal Defense Guidelines.

legal paint camping and no-spacing, coupled with legal hand-checking and physicality designed to make penetration easier (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=366941), made it just as hard to score in previous eras as today.

[oarabbus]

Jordan had a 35" vert, not even 40". Mediocre athlete