Surely there is concensus that "modern" defenses have more freedom right?

[Akhenaten]

This should be the one thing everyone can agree on, defenses today have much less constraints, hence they are much more dynamic and unpredictable.

It's basketball, there is no "advanced" defensive tactics, it's not quantum physics. What today's defenses have is freedom. They are ALLOWED to be much more dynamic than in the past. Being allowed to double off the ball and being allowed to play "in between" committing to helping or staying home enables the defense to much easily and greatly impact spacing, rhythm and time.

So that it is much easier for defenders to help and recover, rotations are much shorter because the help can come from a shorter distance. 1 on 1 defense is harder to play but team defense is much easier, and I'm certain EVERYONE would agree that team > individual.

Certainly it's easier to affect a team's offensive efficiency as is evident in the numbers (speaking specifically about offensive efficiency in the 80's and 90's vs today) however that is not the where the biggest impact is made.

The biggest impact is on time and opportunity. It takes more time to get open shots and more time to get the ball to your most proficient offensive player. The effect is exponentially
more pronounced for offensive player's who rely on low post play to be dominant scorers.

Because the defender is allowed to play freely between ball and man, the defender is allowed to sag all the way back to the post player to discourage the entry pass and still be able to recover. On top of that weakside defenders can also sink down and play defense on a post player who doesn't even have the ball.

So the angles for the entry pass are more acute, so a post player has to start his offense one or two more steps farther than where is is most effective. Added to this if he does get the ball he has less time to operate.

So, previously his avg catching point would be say 3-6 ft from thee basket, now its 6-9 ft. Where he had an average of 10-14 seconds to go to work, now he has 8-11 secs. So the amount of opportunities inarguably decrease in this era, the amount of FGA inarguably decrease also, markedly decrease at that.

You would literally have to FORCE feed a low postplayer every possession for him to avg 20 FGA. Just being able to get the ball in his hands to begin with is MUCH more difficult.

This is why ppp is irrelevant, cause bigs these days much more seldomly touch the ball in positions where they can attack.

80's/90's = 50 touches, 20 FGA on avg
00's-??= 25 touches, 10 FGA

then when an offensive player DOES get the ball in prime position with time to work, the much more dynamic and amorphous help defense makes READS much more difficult. Is a guy helping is he staying? do i dropstep baseline or go middle? Do I pass to back to the entry passer or skip it across the court because the defense it tilted to my side.


Many more decisions to make, far less time to make them. I dont see how ANYONE disagrees with this, this is fundamental FACTS.

[andgar923]

naw.... too easy.:D

3ball take it away!

[LAZERUSS]

The NBA is currently shooting an eFG% of .495.

11 teams currently have an eFG% of .500+.

Nine teams have a 2pt FG% of .500+.

The Orlando Magic, who are 24-53, have an eFG% of .495 (which is the league average.)

You can go right down the list. Defense is NOT being played better today. In fact, it is as BAD as it has EVER been.

Sure, scoring is down from the 80's. BUT, so are fast-breaks. In fact, aside from the Warriors and Clippers, the entire league has eschewed the fast break offense. Coach's prefer to play close to the vest, and run the shot-clock down...often passing up easy shots in the process.

Furthermore, true POST-UP CENTERS are a rarity. Why? Because ESPN shows highlights of big men making 3's. You want an example...how about a kid by the name of Thon Maker. Seven-foot high school sensation. Instead of dominating his peers in the post, he is dancing around the 20 ft area, and shooting 3's. HOWEVER, he is simply AWFUL at it. Don't let his highlights fool you. He made 28% of his High School 3's last season, and overall, shot less than 50% from the field. Just a disgusting mis-use of talent.

And are you seriously going to tell us that a PRIME Shaq, or a PRIME Chamberlain, or a PRIME Kareem were not being SWARMED? I can show you footage where they are completely surrounded, and often without the ball.

A prime Bill Walton was considered one of the best defensive centers of his era. Watch this footage against Kareem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&playnext=1&videos=YqP06ya0k4w


Bill Russell is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w


Demarcus Cousins is primarily a post-up center, albeit with near 20 ft range, and he is currently averaging 24 ppg in 34 mpg. Give him 40 mpg, and he would be nearly putting up Shaq's 30 ppg in 40 mpg in 2000.


If anything, the floor is much more spread now because of the 3pt shot. A true post-up center has MORE room to work with.

[Akhenaten]

The NBA is currently shooting an eFG% of .495.

11 teams currently have an eFG% of .500+.

Nine teams have a 2pt FG% of .500+.

The Orlando Magic, who are 24-53, have an eFG% of .495 (which is the league average.)

Where are you getting the efg % numbers from? What is the efg% for the league overall and what how do they juxtapose vs previous eras (particularly 80's and 90's?)?

Cherrypicking 11 teams (which accounts for about 34% of the league) is inadequate to refuting anything I typed in the OP, especially given the breadth of my assertions.

Where is the comparative efg% for 80's, 90's teams? How can you so assuredly say that defense is worse now given those numbers and not post the numbers for when defenses were supposedly more effective?

I know this for a FACT, team FG% and FGA have significantly decreased 2000 onward compared to the 80's/90's. I will actually post the numbers, I will compare LEAGUE FG% and FGA for 1980-91 vs 2004-2015..15 years.

1980: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 108 ppg
2004: 44% FG, 79 FGA per game, 93 ppg

1981: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2005: 45% FG, 80 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1982: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2006: 45% FG, 79 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1983: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2007: 46% FG, 80 FGA per game, 99 ppg

1984: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 111 ppg
2008: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1985: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2009: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1986: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2010: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1987: 48% Fg, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2011: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 pg

1988: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2012: 45% FG, 81 FGA per game, 96 ppg

1989: 48% FG, 87 FGA per game, 107 ppg
2013: 45% FG, 82 FGA per game, 98 ppg

1990: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 106 ppg
2014: 45% FG, 83 FGA per game, 101 ppg

1991: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 105 ppg
2015: 45% FG, 78 FGA per game, 100 ppg




You can go right down the list. Defense is NOT being played better today. In fact, it is as BAD as it has EVER been.

Go right on down what list? You never posted one, if there is a list of info that underscores that defense of the 80's/90's > today please post or link me to it.

Also I would never say defenses of today are better or worse because i try my best to keep my OPINION out of debates. People get naturally defensive when you use the word better and instinctively tout the era or players that the are biased towards.

The discrepancy in the numbers are HUGE, and the numbers state unequivocally that teams/players today are limited to less shot attempts and decreased efficiency than teams/players of yesteryear. That cannot be disputed, saying one era's D is better than the other however can be debated ad infinitum.

[
Sure, scoring is down from the 80's. BUT, so are fast-breaks.

You say that so dismissively like its just an afterthough, scoring isnt "down" from the eighties as you dryly put it, it is SIGNIFICANTLY, DRAMATICALLY, SEISMICALLY down.


In fact, aside from the Warriors and Clippers, the entire league has eschewed the fast break offense. Coach's prefer to play close to the vest, and run the shot-clock down...often passing up easy shots in the process.

Ok, this is most common argument for people who try to explain the collosal gulf in scoring and pace in past eras compared to now. The only problem with this argument is that pace has STEADILY decreased through EVERY decade of NBA basketball.

So the argument goes "well 80's coaches prioritized the fast breaks and players were much more decisive". So ostensibly teams of this era could simply place emphasis on running and voila! teams magically could start putting up 87-90 FGA like they did in the 80's.

Only problem with that argument is it's completely fallacious and not based in logic AT ALL. Teams stressed running in 80's yet compared to the 70's they played at a tortoise pace and compared to the 60's they play as a snail's pace.

60's = 100-104 FGA per game
70's = 96-99 FGA per game
80's = 87-89 FGA per game
90's = 83-87 FGA per game
00's on = 78-82 FGA per game

So, if all modern days coaches need to do in order to play at an 80's pace is simply change their philosophy and approach, then surely 80's teams could have played at a 60's pace simply by changing philosophy and "not playing close to the vest".

What's more plausible an explanation for STEADY, decade by decade incremental decreases in pace?

Coaches/players timidity and over-cautiousness or defense (particularly transition defense) become more of a priority?

There are plenty teams that have both the personnel and philosophy to want to play as fast as possible and no matter WHAT they will never come close to playing at an 80's Nuggets pace. Let's not even speak of the 70's or 60's, no way are you getting a 105 shots a game unless you SIGNIFICANTLY compromise your transition defense, floor balance, and offensive efficiency.

The league avg 105 FGA per game on 41% FG in 60-61. Just 10 years later it was down to 98 FGA per game on 45%.

Did people just stop running and start playing cautious? Or did the basketball minds just evolve and realize just running down the court as fast as possible and taking whatever shot was just not smart?

and if they played that way against teams that used actual intricate strategy that that style would be annihilated?




And are you seriously going to tell us that a PRIME Shaq, or a PRIME Chamberlain, or a PRIME Kareem were not being SWARMED? I can show you footage where they are completely surrounded, and often without the ball.

Sure they were, but not with nearly the frequency and consistency that a post player of today is. Moreover it was MUCH easier to read WHEN and WHERE the swarm was coming from AND they had much more time in which to make their decisions.

Where and when the help came was MUCH more predictable and it took longer for the help to get there...that's a FACT.




A prime Bill Walton was considered one of the best defensive centers of his era. Watch this footage against Kareem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&playnext=1&videos=YqP06ya0k4w


Bill Russell is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w

How is this germane to any of the VERY specific points I have made?



Demarcus Cousins is primarily a post-up center

yes, but he shots WAY more jumpshots than bigs of the previous eras, the avg distance of his FGA are much farther away from the basket than post players of the 80's/90's consequently he shoots in the mid to high 40's from the field UNDERSCORES MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT PERFECTLY.


albeit with near 20 ft range, and he is currently averaging 24 ppg in 34 mpg. Give him 40 mpg, and he would be nearly putting up Shaq's 30 ppg in 40 mpg in 2000.

Perhaps, but it would take him way more shot attempts and he would shoot 10-20 % worse from the field than 30 ppg Shaq.



If anything, the floor is much more spread now because of the 3pt shot. A true post-up center has MORE room to work with.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/Haskel45/30c4t1g.gif

You just dont get it and probably will never get it, the 3 point shot serves to alleviate some of the spacing issue but in COMPARISON to the restrictive defensive rules of the past!? not even close.

You do understand (I know you either wont or will pretend not to because of stubborness and wanting to be right, even though you're as wrong as two left shoes. i will post this for the erudition of those who are willing learners anyway) that being able to "tilt the floor" can pretty much nullify whatever space a 3 pint shooter creates for a big.

All the other team has to do is bring the help from 2-3 passes away, MORE importantly that help DOES NOT HAVE TO COME ALL THE WAY!

So, I can bring a defender from the opposite corner 3/4's to all the way to either discourage a baseline move or just to disrupt or give the impression that i'm going to flood the baseline THEN recover, and then bring I can bring my top side defender down to the free throwline to impact the move to the middle BUT NOT BRING HIM SO FAR THAT HE CANT IF THE BIG PASSES OUT!

The rules make it so much easier to BOTH HELP AND RECOVER!
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?:biggums:

[3ball]

Restriction #1: today's defenders cannot paint-camp.

Restriction #2: today's defenders cannot be physical.

Restriction #3: today's defenders cannot hand-check.

Restriction #4: most importantly, today's defenders must defend spacing and extend their defense out to the 3-point line (it's physics - today's defenders must guard a larger surface area due to 3-pointers).

otoh, previous eras did not have ANY of these restrictions..

i'll be back later to elaborate.

[Akhenaten]

i'll be back later to elaborate.

No point, i ended this last reply, thanks for playing though.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/Haskel45/Thanks%204%20Playing_zpsmu8qtdad.gif

[AirBourne92]

The NBA is currently shooting an eFG% of .495.

11 teams currently have an eFG% of .500+.

Nine teams have a 2pt FG% of .500+.

The Orlando Magic, who are 24-53, have an eFG% of .495 (which is the league average.)

You can go right down the list. Defense is NOT being played better today. In fact, it is as BAD as it has EVER been.

Sure, scoring is down from the 80's. BUT, so are fast-breaks. In fact, aside from the Warriors and Clippers, the entire league has eschewed the fast break offense. Coach's prefer to play close to the vest, and run the shot-clock down...often passing up easy shots in the process.

Furthermore, true POST-UP CENTERS are a rarity. Why? Because ESPN shows highlights of big men making 3's. You want an example...how about a kid by the name of Thon Maker. Seven-foot high school sensation. Instead of dominating his peers in the post, he is dancing around the 20 ft area, and shooting 3's. HOWEVER, he is simply AWFUL at it. Don't let his highlights fool you. He made 28% of his High School 3's last season, and overall, shot less than 50% from the field. Just a disgusting mis-use of talent.

And are you seriously going to tell us that a PRIME Shaq, or a PRIME Chamberlain, or a PRIME Kareem were not being SWARMED? I can show you footage where they are completely surrounded, and often without the ball.

A prime Bill Walton was considered one of the best defensive centers of his era. Watch this footage against Kareem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHMKlx7Was&playnext=1&videos=YqP06ya0k4w


Bill Russell is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w


Demarcus Cousins is primarily a post-up center, albeit with near 20 ft range, and he is currently averaging 24 ppg in 34 mpg. Give him 40 mpg, and he would be nearly putting up Shaq's 30 ppg in 40 mpg in 2000.


If anything, the floor is much more spread now because of the 3pt shot. A true post-up center has MORE room to work with.



skill wise shooting and scoring has improved as well

defense is no doubt better

any professional coach will tell you this

[3ball]

A lot of people forget that if any player from today's game (let's say steph curry) were transported back to 1985, none of his teammates would be spreading the floor for him - so he'd face the same no-spacing and congested paints that everyone else did back then... And it would be night-and-day more physical.. Good thing curry isn't injury-prone.. oh wait.. :oldlol:.. love curry tho

Today's defenses like to hang their hat on shading and floods that happen outside the paint - but these partial zones weren't needed nearly as much in previous eras when there is no spacing and paint-camping was legal.. However, today's game has spacing and bans paint-camping, so the shading/flooding merely provides a bandaid so defensive effectiveness doesn't fall off a cliff in comparison to previous eras.. It should be mentioned that shading is easy to beat for perimeter ballhandlers, who get to face bigs on the perimeter instead of in the paint.

Btw, with no spacing in previous eras, defenders were in MUCH closer proximity, so shading and flooding happened quite naturally, as well as overtly - with the invariably slower bigs coming away from the rim to shade in the ballhandler's wheelhouse (the perimeter), previous era ballhandlers took advantage (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372613) the same way ballhandlers do today.

[3ball]

defense is no doubt better

any professional coach will tell you this


ok - let's get this straight - we know that today's game now has spacing.. we know that paint-camping has been banned along with physicality and hand-checking.

if there was no extra defensive strategy to handle these extra burdens, then it would be far easier to score today than previous eras.

fortunately, coaches came up with extra strategy to offset these things - but don't mistake the extra strategy for defenses being "better".. the extra strategy merely ensures that it's just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras when there weren't these extra burdens on the defense.

that's why league-wide offensive rating (ORtg) has remained between 106-108 for the last 30 years - defenses adjust to employ the best strategy given the rules and playing style.. actually pace, scoring and league-wide ORtg was lower in the mid-90's thru mid-2000's.

get it?

Daryl Morey does - he says today's defensive strategy is "a natural evolution of the rule changes":

http://www.quotetimes.com/people/51429/daryl-morey

[LAZERUSS]

Where are you getting the efg % numbers from? What is the efg% for the league overall and what how do they juxtapose vs previous eras (particularly 80's and 90's?)?

Cherrypicking 11 teams (which accounts for about 34% of the league) is inadequate to refuting anything I typed in the OP, especially given the breadth of my assertions.

Where is the comparative efg% for 80's, 90's teams? How can you so assuredly say that defense is worse now given those numbers and not post the numbers for when defenses were supposedly more effective?

I know this for a FACT, team FG% and FGA have significantly decreased 2000 onward compared to the 80's/90's. I will actually post the numbers, I will compare LEAGUE FG% and FGA for 1980-91 vs 2004-2015..15 years.

1980: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 108 ppg
2004: 44% FG, 79 FGA per game, 93 ppg

1981: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2005: 45% FG, 80 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1982: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2006: 45% FG, 79 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1983: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2007: 46% FG, 80 FGA per game, 99 ppg

1984: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 111 ppg
2008: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1985: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2009: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1986: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2010: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1987: 48% Fg, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2011: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 pg

1988: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2012: 45% FG, 81 FGA per game, 96 ppg

1989: 48% FG, 87 FGA per game, 107 ppg
2013: 45% FG, 82 FGA per game, 98 ppg

1990: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 106 ppg
2014: 45% FG, 83 FGA per game, 101 ppg

1991: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 105 ppg
2015: 45% FG, 78 FGA per game, 100 ppg


Ahhh...the "let's pull the wool over the uneducated's eyes" theory...

1980: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.486
1981: 2pt%=.491, eFG%=.489
1982: 2pt%=.497, eFG%=.495
1983: 2pt%=.492, eFG%=.488
1984: 2pt%=.499, eFG%=.495
1985: 2pt%=.499, eFG%=.496
1986: 2pt%=.495, eFG%=.493
1987: 2pt%=.490, eFG%=.488
1988: 2pt%=.490, eFG%=.489
1989: 2pt%=.490, eFG%=.489
1990: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.489
1991: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.487
1992: 2pt%=.486, eFG%=.487
1993: 2pt%=.489, eFG%=.491
1994: 2pt%=.483, eFG%=.485
1995: 2pt%=.491, eFG%=.500
1996: 2pt%=.486, eFG%=.499
1997: 2pt%=.480, eFG%=.493
1998: 2pt%=.470, eFG%=.478
1999: 2pt%=.457, eFG%=.466 (strike year...condensed schedule)
2000: 2pt%=.468, eFG%=.478
2001: 2pt%=.461, eFG%=.473
2002: 2pt%=.465, eFG%=.477
2003: 2pt%=.463, eFG%=.474
2004: 2pt%=.460, eFG%=.471
2005: 2pt%=.470, eFG%=.482
2006: 2pt%=.478, eFG%=.490
2007: 2pt%=.485, eFG%=.496
2008: 2pt%=.484, eFG%=.497
2009: 2pt%=.485, eFG%=.500
2010: 2pt%=.492, eFG%=.501
2011: 2pt%=.487, eFG%=.498
2012: 2pt%=.477, eFG%=.487 (strike year...condensed schedule)
2013: 2pt%=.483, eFG%=.496
2014: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.501
2015: 2pt%=.485, eFG%=.496

In 1980 the NBA shot a 2pt% of .488, and an eFG% of .486.
This year the NBA is shooting a 2pt% of .485, and an eFG% of .496.

You tell me the difference...

Again...Defense TODAY, is as BAD as it has EVER BEEN.


Now, Shaq's numbers from '94 thru '03 varied little. In 1994 he averaged 29.3 ppg on a .599 FG%. In 2000 he averaged 29.7 ppg on a .574 FG%. Even as late as 2003 he averaged 27.5 ppg on a .574 FG%. Even in 2004, when he started a severe decline, he still averaged 21.5 ppg on a .584 FG%, and the next year, his last dominant one, he was at 22.9 ppg on a career high .601 FG%. Basically, while overall defenses were at their PEAKs from 1998 to 2004, Shaq's numbers were as dominant as ever.

[andgar923]

It's only a consensus amongst idiots.

Do I have to flood the board with tons of video links to prove the point.

Today's defense/defenders are CRIPPLED, starting with their inability to use any physical touch that may impede an offensive player- no camping in the lane (3 seconds rule) which opens up the lane for players.

Say the word and I'll umleash a f*ckin nuclear onslaught of videos cremating this silly and ass backwards delusion.

[LAZERUSS]

Now, watch a typical basketball game in the 80's...teams FLYING down the court. THAT is why teams were averaging 110 ppg in that decade. Half-court DEFENSES were no worse than today.

Why don't teams run more today? COACHING. Teams RUN the CLOCK down, AND, they often pass up BETTER shots in doing so.

Hell, the Warriors are averaging 110 ppg this year...AND, are 63-14. Why doesn't EVERY team play at that pace?

[andgar923]

Now, watch a typical basketball game in the 80's...teams FLYING down the court. THAT is why teams were averaging 110 ppg in that decade. Half-court DEFENSES were no worse than today.

Why don't teams run more today? COACHING. Teams RUN the CLOCK down, AND, they often pass up BETTER shots in doing so.

Hell, the Warriors are averaging 110 ppg this year...AND, are 63-14. Why doesn't EVERY team play at that pace?

I'd have to disagree with you to a degree.

MJ ruined the game.

People wanted to be like mike but for all the wrong reasons. Players became more ball dominant and rules changed traditional roles. So less ball movement, less player movement, slower pace, etc etc.

[Showtime80']

Finally someone else mentions the I wanna be like Mike syndrome that has had an undeniable effect on the modern player's IQ and basic fundamentals. Athleticism was put before basic skills and has been for the worse.

All I hear is that the modern game is full of unselfishness and teamwork well the 1980's was probably the most unselfish era in basketball history! Take a look at the championship winning rosters of that decade and the great players that were present and wrap your head around the fact that NONE of those teams had a player averaging more than 26 ppg! The top scorers ranged around 21 to 24 ppg. Compare that to 1991 and after where virtually EVERY title winning team except for the Spurs and Pistons had their top guys averaging from 27 to 30+ ppg!!! Jordan syndrome in full effect.

Fact is that between the salary explosion, salary cap and expansion that coincided in the early 90's it became more financially reasonable to build teams around 1 or 2 scorers thus turning the offenses into shells of the diversity and firepower they once exhibited not to mention coaches started to become control freaks to keep their lucrative jobs (thank Pat Riley and Knicks for that one).

Is it a coincidence that the NBA's golden era (79 to 91) also came at the same period that the NCAA experienced their greatest period ever? Ponder that

[Rose'sACL]

All I hear is that the modern game is full of unselfishness and teamwork well the 1980's was probably the most unselfish era in basketball history! Take a look at the championship winning rosters of that decade and the great players that were present and wrap your head around the fact that NONE of those teams had a player averaging more than 26 ppg! The top scorers ranged around 21 to 24 ppg. Compare that to 1991 and after where virtually EVERY title winning team except for the Spurs and Pistons had their top guys averaging from 27 to 30+ ppg!!! Jordan syndrome in full effect.

Fact is that between the salary explosion, salary cap and expansion that coincided in the early 90's it became more financially reasonable to build teams around 1 or 2 scorers thus turning the offenses into shells of the diversity and firepower they once exhibited not to mention coaches started to become control freaks to keep their lucrative jobs (thank Pat Riley and Knicks for that one).

i might agree with your statement for early 00s but it certainly hasn't been the case for some time now.
mavs, heat, spurs have all played unselfish ball. hawks and warriors are conference leaders right now. truth is that celtics and lakers were so loaded with talent that you didn't need anyone to carry the team alone. it is easy to be unselfish when your team has 4-5 HoF players in their prime or close to it with HoF coach while defense was still not a really big part of the game like in the 90s or now.

[Showtime80']

The present day Warriors average 110 points in today's toughest conference, you think they have anywhere near the talent the 80's Lakers, Sixers, Pistons or Celtics had? Hell teams that did not win like the Bucks, Mavs, Sonics, Rockets, Hawks, Suns and Nuggets had between 3 and 4 go to scorers on their teams. Just can't build offenses like that anymore when 15 and 6 guys want to make 80 million dollars!

It's easy to be unselfish when your team LEADERS are unselfish (Bird, Magic, Erving, Thomas). How many so called "super teams" have crashed and burned in the last 20 years because of problems on how to merge their respective talent. Not easy at all.

Blame David Stern for the over expansion and the glorification of the Jordan brand (not the real Michael) for the league being inferior to the 80's.

Like I asked before, how come the NBA's golden period also came as the same time the NCAA had its best period? By the same token that goes hand in hand with todays watered down NBA being mirrored by a downturn in the NCAA? Can't be just a coincidence

[Rose'sACL]

The present day Warriors average 110 points in today's toughest conference, you think they have anywhere near the talent the 80's Lakers, Sixers, Pistons or Celtics had? Hell teams that did not win like the Bucks, Mavs, Sonics, Rockets, Hawks, Suns and Nuggets had between 3 and 4 go to scorers on their teams. Just can't build offenses like that anymore when 15 and 6 guys want to make 80 million dollars!

It's easy to be unselfish when your team LEADERS are unselfish (Bird, Magic, Erving, Thomas). How many so called "super teams" have crashed and burned in the last 20 years because of problems on how to merge their respective talent. Not easy at all.

Blame David Stern for the over expansion and the glorification of the Jordan brand (not the real Michael) for the league being inferior to the 80's.

Like I asked before, how come the NBA's golden period also came as the same time the NCAA had its best period? By the same token that goes hand in hand with todays watered down NBA being mirrored by a downturn in the NCAA? Can't be just a coincidence
you liked 80s showtime lakers and are lecturing present day fans about defense?

[Showtime80']

You don't win 5 titles in the greatest period in NBA history without having very good defense! That Lakers team could adjust to ANY style. Fast breaking track meets in the 130 and 140's against the Nuggets or Sixers? No problem! Mixed grinding half court with opportunistic transition in the 100 to 110's against the Celtics? No sweat! Chaotic rugby scrimmages in the 90 to 100's range against the Bad Boy Pistons? Check! Nothing phased that team.

Show me a better half court trapping team in the NBA right know than the 80's Lakers (specially earlier in the decade), you can't. Not their fault that they could speed up the pace full throttle thanks to the talent and depth they had which teams now a days just don't possess.

Sorry for the people who missed not only the greatest period in NBA history but also the NCAA. But hey you still got Curry, LeBron, Westbrick and Harden! LOL, pathetic period indead.

[Akhenaten]

Now, watch a typical basketball game in the 80's...teams FLYING down the court. THAT is why teams were averaging 110 ppg in that decade. Half-court DEFENSES were no worse than today.

Why don't teams run more today? COACHING. Teams RUN the CLOCK down, AND, they often pass up BETTER shots in doing so.

Hell, the Warriors are averaging 110 ppg this year...AND, are 63-14. Why doesn't EVERY team play at that pace?


Ok so does this explanation apply to why 80's teams ran and scored less than 70's teams?

teams in the 70's ran more than team in 80's to the same degree that 80's teams run more than current teams.

so were 80's team's passing up better shots by running the clock in comparison to 70's teams?

and were 70's coachs/teams doing the same in comparison to 60's coaches/teams who played EVEN FASTER than the 70's teams?

[Rose'sACL]

i have not watched the 70s on tape or in person so i can only comment about the 80s.
the main reason teams teams ran in the 80s so much was because teams were bad at getting back quickly on defense. there are literally all the big playoff games on youtube for evidence if you want.
warriors score big because they have 2 of the 5 best 3 point shooters of all time. they pull up from 3 if the other team tries to protect the paint on fast breaks. you can't play like warriors on offense against every team unless you have curry and thompson on your team.

you will see it this year. warriors and spurs will both play at high pace but spurs will try to slow it down against cavs because they can outpace any team in the league, even the warriors. spurs' plan last year was to run because miami was too old and miami lost because of defense for that same reason.

so the only reason to keep playing at high pace in current league is if the other team is too old to play good transition defense or if you have the rare combination of best shooting back-court in the the history of this league.

[LAZERUSS]

Ok so does this explanation apply to why 80's teams ran and scored less than 70's teams?

teams in the 70's ran more than team in 80's to the same degree that 80's teams run more than current teams.

so were 80's team's passing up better shots by running the clock in comparison to 70's teams?

and were 70's coachs/teams doing the same in comparison to 60's coaches/teams who played EVEN FASTER than the 70's teams?

The thing is...you have to look at each era. I have posted on the topic before, but players whose careers that spanned the decade of the 60's, almost to a man, shot better in the last part of the decade. But there is no way in hell that you are going to convince me that Johnny Green, or Darrell Imhoff suddenly learned how to shoot in the last half of the decade. Same with West, whose jump shot was identical in the '62 ASG, as it was in the '72 ASG (footage is on youtube.) Or Wilt, who shot .461 from the field in '60, and .727 in his last season...BUT, whose FT% started declining year-after-year.

What happened? MANY factors, but perhaps the biggest, was the scheduling. In Wilt's '62 season, back-to-backs were the norm. Three-in-a-rows were common. Multiple four-in-a-rows. Hell, even FIVE games in a row, with two of them on the road.

I vividly recall the 11-12 strike season. The NBA had to scramble to get in as much of the schedule as they could after the strike...and for the bulk of it, they condensed it. Scoring and shooting took a huge decline in that time frame, and it finally started a slow climb back after the schedule returned to normalcy later on. Overall, though, scoring and shooting still took a dive that year.

In any case, you HAVE to account for ERAs. How about baseball? How come E.R.A.'s and HRs were miniscule in the first part of the 20th century? How come scoring, HRs, and E.R.A.s nose-dived in the WWII years? How come scoring, HRs, and E.R.A.s sky-rocketed in the 90's and early 00's?

Same with the NFL (and AFL) late 60's to mid-70's...passing was almost an afterthought. Scoring was down dramatically. Now, passing yards and scoring are off-the-charts. Are defenses WORSE today than in the 70's?

The "Wilt-bashers" disparage Chamberlain's stats because of "pace". BUT, they never acknowledge era-specific shooting. You simply can't reduce the 60's FGAs and FTAs down to current levels, and use those figures. If you do, the teams in the 60's would be averaging 86 ppg today. You HAVE to adjust their eFG%'s (obviously, FT%'s don't need to be adjusted.) And when you do adjust for the eFG%'s...then the scoring from the 60's nearly matches the current NBA (the only differences would be the scoring due to FT%'s.)

BTW, most reasonable Chamberlain fans will acknowledge the fact that his scoring was slightly inflated, and that his rebounding was considerably inflated. Even adjusting for those facts, his highest seasons still translate to about 42 ppg and 18 rpg in today's NBA. Of course, the next question would be...would Chamberlain be playing 48 mpg? Still, if you reduce his mpg, you HAVE to at least assume that his FG% and TRB%'s would be MORE efficient.

Now, you argue that modern defenses are better than ever. I have shown you that, NO, they are among the WORST they have ever been. Having said that, though, there have been periods in the last 15-20 years, in which defenses WERE among the best ever. From 1998-2004 scoring and especially efficiency, took a big dive. BTW, this also occurred between the '77-78 and '78-79 seasons....which took a huge jump (from a .469 league-wide FG% to a .485 league-wide FG%.) And to be honest, I couldn't tell you why, either. The ABA merger took place after the 75-76 season, and the 3pt shot didn't come into play until the '79-80 season.

Let me give you another example. How about Bob McAdoo's 74-75 season? The uneducated fan will claim that his 34.5 ppg came in an "inflated" season. Guess what? They would be wrong. The NBA averaged 102.6 ppg on a .457 eFG% in that 74-75 season. Just last season, the NBA averaged 101.0 ppg on a .501 FG%. Put that McAdoo (the Durant of his era) into the current NBA, and his scoring would be nearly identical.

So, you HAVE to put these "eras" into proper CONTEXT. What we do KNOW, is that simply SHOOTING the ball is no better today, than it was over 50 years ago. How do I KNOW that? In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line. CURRENTLY, the NBA is shooting .752 from the line. Those of us who were fortunate enough to have been around in the 60's, will attest that the best pure SHOOTERS from that era, were every bit as good then, as they are today. Granted, we can't compare 3pt%'s, because, aside from the ABA, they were non-existent. Even Larry Bird's 3pt% was nowhere near as good as the best 3pt shooters in today's NBA...BUT, just watch him in those 3pt contests...he was AUTOMATIC.

Now, how about the CENTER position...and DEFENSE? Look no further than Kareem. At his PEAK, he faced two centers who primarily defended him one-on-one...Wilt and Nate Thurmond. In his 28 career H2H's with Wilt, 27 of which came against a Chamberlain that was 34+ and post-surgery...he shot .464 from the field. And against a full-time Nate it was even worse. In his 35 career H2H's against a full-time Thurmond... a career .447 FG%. Oh, and his HIGH game against Thurmond... 34 points. Hell, he only had FIVE 30+ games against Thurmond.

How about a 38-39 year old Kareem, who couldn't jump over a match-stick? In 10 straight H2H's with a 23-24 year old Hakeem... 32 ppg on a .630 FG%, which included THREE games of 40+, and a HIGH of 46 (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) Hell, a 40 year old KAJ outscored a 25 year old Hakeem in their four H2H's, and outshot him by a .567 to .403 margin. Oh, and in the same week that Kareem plastered Hakeem with that 46 point game...he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game (on 15-22 shooting, while holding Patrick to 9 points on 3-17 shooting.)

Even a 35-36 year old Artis Gilmore pummeled a 23-24 year old Hakeem. In his 10 straight H2H's, he averaged 24 ppg on...get this... a .677 FG%! Oh, and a way-past-his-prime Moses Malone, outrebounded a prime Hakeem in their seasonal H2H's, in a season in which Hakeem led the NBA in rpg.

So, looking at the "bridges" KAJ and Gilmore...I could argue that defense was MUCH better in the early-to-mid 70's, than it would be in the mid-80's. How come?

In any case...be careful in your assertions that defense is better today. The numbers simply do not back you up.

[Dr.J4ever]

The thing is...you have to look at each era. I have posted on the topic before, but players whose careers that spanned the decade of the 60's, almost to a man, shot better in the last part of the decade. But there is no way in hell that you are going to convince me that Johnny Green, or Darrell Imhoff suddenly learned how to shoot in the last half of the decade. Same with West, whose jump shot was identical in the '62 ASG, as it was in the '72 ASG (footage is on youtube.) Or Wilt, who shot .461 from the field in '60, and .727 in his last season...BUT, whose FT% started declining year-after-year.

What happened? MANY factors, but perhaps the biggest, was the scheduling. In Wilt's '62 season, back-to-backs were the norm. Three-in-a-rows were common. Multiple four-in-a-rows. Hell, even FIVE games in a row, with two of them on the road.

I vividly recall the 11-12 strike season. The NBA had to scramble to get in as much of the schedule as they could after the strike...and for the bulk of it, they condensed it. Scoring and shooting took a huge decline in that time frame, and it finally started a slow climb back after the schedule returned to normalcy later on. Overall, though, scoring and shooting still took a dive that year.

In any case, you HAVE to account for ERAs. How about baseball? How come E.R.A.'s and HRs were miniscule in the first part of the 20th century? How come scoring, HRs, and E.R.A.s nose-dived in the WWII years? How come scoring, HRs, and E.R.A.s sky-rocketed in the 90's and early 00's?

Same with the NFL (and AFL) late 60's to mid-70's...passing was almost an afterthought. Scoring was down dramatically. Now, passing yards and scoring are off-the-charts. Are defenses WORSE today than in the 70's?

The "Wilt-bashers" disparage Chamberlain's stats because of "pace". BUT, they never acknowledge era-specific shooting. You simply can't reduce the 60's FGAs and FTAs down to current levels, and use those figures. If you do, the teams in the 60's would be averaging 86 ppg today. You HAVE to adjust their eFG%'s (obviously, FT%'s don't need to be adjusted.) And when you do adjust for the eFG%'s...then the scoring from the 60's nearly matches the current NBA (the only differences would be the scoring due to FT%'s.)

BTW, most reasonable Chamberlain fans will acknowledge the fact that his scoring was slightly inflated, and that his rebounding was considerably inflated. Even adjusting for those facts, his highest seasons still translate to about 42 ppg and 18 rpg in today's NBA. Of course, the next question would be...would Chamberlain be playing 48 mpg? Still, if you reduce his mpg, you HAVE to at least assume that his FG% and TRB%'s would be MORE efficient.

Now, you argue that modern defenses are better than ever. I have shown you that, NO, they are among the WORST they have ever been. Having said that, though, there have been periods in the last 15-20 years, in which defenses WERE among the best ever. From 1998-2004 scoring and especially efficiency, took a big dive. BTW, this also occurred between the '77-78 and '78-79 seasons....which took a huge jump (from a .469 league-wide FG% to a .485 league-wide FG%.) And to be honest, I couldn't tell you why, either. The ABA merger took place after the 75-76 season, and the 3pt shot didn't come into play until the '79-80 season.

Let me give you another example. How about Bob McAdoo's 74-75 season? The uneducated fan will claim that his 34.5 ppg came in an "inflated" season. Guess what? They would be wrong. The NBA averaged 102.6 ppg on a .457 eFG% in that 74-75 season. Just last season, the NBA averaged 101.0 ppg on a .501 FG%. Put that McAdoo (the Durant of his era) into the current NBA, and his scoring would be nearly identical.

So, you HAVE to put these "eras" into proper CONTEXT. What we do KNOW, is that simply SHOOTING the ball is no better today, than it was over 50 years ago. How do I KNOW that? In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line. CURRENTLY, the NBA is shooting .752 from the line. Those of us who were fortunate enough to have been around in the 60's, will attest that the best pure SHOOTERS from that era, were every bit as good then, as they are today. Granted, we can't compare 3pt%'s, because, aside from the ABA, they were non-existent. Even Larry Bird's 3pt% was nowhere near as good as the best 3pt shooters in today's NBA...BUT, just watch him in those 3pt contests...he was AUTOMATIC.

Now, how about the CENTER position...and DEFENSE? Look no further than Kareem. At his PEAK, he faced two centers who primarily defended him one-on-one...Wilt and Nate Thurmond. In his 28 career H2H's with Wilt, 27 of which came against a Chamberlain that was 34+ and post-surgery...he shot .464 from the field. And against a full-time Nate it was even worse. In his 35 career H2H's against a full-time Thurmond... a career .447 FG%. Oh, and his HIGH game against Thurmond... 34 points. Hell, he only had FIVE 30+ games against Thurmond.

How about a 38-39 year old Kareem, who couldn't jump over a match-stick? In 10 straight H2H's with a 23-24 year old Hakeem... 32 ppg on a .630 FG%, which included THREE games of 40+, and a HIGH of 46 (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) Hell, a 40 year old KAJ outscored a 25 year old Hakeem in their four H2H's, and outshot him by a .567 to .403 margin. Oh, and in the same week that Kareem plastered Hakeem with that 46 point game...he hammered Ewing with a 40 point game (on 15-22 shooting, while holding Patrick to 9 points on 3-17 shooting.)

Even a 35-36 year old Artis Gilmore pummeled a 23-24 year old Hakeem. In his 10 straight H2H's, he averaged 24 ppg on...get this... a .677 FG%! Oh, and a way-past-his-prime Moses Malone, outrebounded a prime Hakeem in their seasonal H2H's, in a season in which Hakeem led the NBA in rpg.

So, looking at the "bridges" KAJ and Gilmore...I could argue that defense was MUCH better in the early-to-mid 70's, than it would be in the mid-80's. How come?

In any case...be careful in your assertions that defense is better today. The numbers simply do not back you up.

On Wilt shooting at a higher % during the early 70s than the early 60s--Wasn't Wilt more of a volume scorer in the early 60s? During the 70s, wasn't Wilt more of a high %, select shots type of guy? He wasn't even the focus of the offense with the Lakers, correct?

It's difficult to prove either way, but today's defenses feature more sophisticated styles that force offenses to produce more 5 man team offenses also. There is more overall passing and teamwork today which has been forced by defenses specifically designed to stop isolation basketball. Shooting from distance is also at a higher level than ever before. I mean, in the 80s, it used to be said that if you live by the jump shot, you die by it. Not so today.

On 1998 to 2004 featuring some of the best defenses---I think you have to account for offensive styles. The Steve Nash era Suns after 2004 really influenced a lot of thinking on how to play offense in the modern game. Before that, it was a lot of isolation basketball still and post ups.

I think with all these arguments on era and defense, you have to account for the "arms race" part of it. Defenses come up with physicality, offenses come up with big players who go isolation or post up(like in the 90s), and today because of new zone style defenses or "shading" or "flooding" or whatever, offenses have responded in kind with 5 man offenses.

Eventually, they balance out, and numbers pretty much settle down to a norm across the eras, but what is undeniable is that offenses and defenses today look much different that what they used to look like just 30 years ago. So what more 50 years ago.

[Im Still Ballin]

On Wilt shooting at a higher % during the early 70s than the early 60s--Wasn't Wilt more of a volume scorer in the early 60s? During the 70s, wasn't Wilt more of a high %, select shots type of guy? He wasn't even the focus of the offense with the Lakers, correct?

It's difficult to prove either way, but today's defenses feature more sophisticated styles that force offenses to produce more 5 man team offenses also. There is more overall passing and teamwork today which has been forced by defenses specifically designed to stop isolation basketball. Shooting from distance is also at a higher level than ever before. I mean, in the 80s, it used to be said that if you live by the jump shot, you die by it. Not so today.

On 1998 to 2004 featuring some of the best defenses---I think you have to account for offensive styles. The Steve Nash era Suns after 2004 really influenced a lot of thinking on how to play offense in the modern game. Before that, it was a lot of isolation basketball still and post ups.

I think with all these arguments on era and defense, you have to account for the "arms race" part of it. Defenses come up with physicality, offenses come up with big players who go isolation or post up(like in the 90s), and today because of new zone style defenses or "shading" or "flooding" or whatever, offenses have responded in kind with 5 man offenses.

Eventually, they balance out, and numbers pretty much settle down to a norm across the eras, but what is undeniable is that offenses and defenses today look much different that what they used to look like just 30 years ago. So what more 50 years ago.

Bingo

It's harder today for stars and teams to get away with basic offenses that got teams over in the past

[Showtime80']

LOL! 5 man offenses really?!? Is that why the majority of Eastern conference offenses have being so inept for the past 15 years when compared to the West (Lebron has spent his entire career in the horrible East).

Wasn't it just yesterday that Kobe and Gasol went to the Finals 3 straight years and won two titles basically being a two star centric offensive team doing it in the tougher conference?!?

NO TEAM today can field the overall talent of the 80's champions, NONE. Those teams didn't need to shoot 25 3's a game to score more than 110 points. They were lead by PURE past first quaterbacks at the point with solid inside-outside games that opened every other aspect of their repertoire.

Sad to see teams today passing the ball for 22 seconds just to get off a contested three pointer (NO INSIDE GAME) and the kicker, fast breaking with numbers advantage to end up shooting three pointers instead of layups and dunks (Thanks D Antoni's Suns)

The NBA has had two subpar decades after the 80's, all the rule changes that have occurred since 1991 have reflected this, the 10's are shaping up to be worst yet! And I forgot:

WHERE ARE THE RIVALRIES IN TODAY'S NBA?????

[DonDadda59]

Bingo

It's harder today for stars and teams to get away with basic offenses that got teams over in the past

You mean like LeBron ball vs the 80s lite Spurs offensive system? :oldlol:


You don't win 5 titles in the greatest period in NBA history without having very good defense! That Lakers team could adjust to ANY style. Fast breaking track meets in the 130 and 140's against the Nuggets or Sixers? No problem! Mixed grinding half court with opportunistic transition in the 100 to 110's against the Celtics? No sweat! Chaotic rugby scrimmages in the 90 to 100's range against the Bad Boy Pistons? Check! Nothing phased that team.

Pat Riley doesn't get the credit he deserves for being adaptable as a coach. Remarkable to go from coaching the high octane Lakers Showtime offense to the grind em out, ultra physical defense-oriented Knicks of the 90s (and the mid 00s Heat too).

[Im Still Ballin]

Lebron is an exception because he's a generational talent with the most unstoppable fastbreak and drive in history

There are always exceptions... On average though teams 20 years ago could get away with relying on their "stars" a lot more than today where defenses aren't handicapped and can dynamically change based on the offense they face. It's not rocket science.

[DonDadda59]

Lebron is an exception because he's a generational talent with the most unstoppable fastbreak and drive in history

There are always exceptions... On average though teams 20 years ago could get away with relying on their "stars" a lot more than today where defenses aren't handicapped and can dynamically change based on the offense they face. It's not rocket science.

2011 was LeBron Ball (didn't exactly work out) vs Dirk and change

2012 was LeBron Ball vs OKC my turn, your turn isolation ball :oldlol:

2013, 2014 was Lebron Ball vs Spurs 80s lite offense

What teams in the East did LeBron ball have to get through that relied on '5 man basketball'? Their biggest nemesis was the Pacers, look at them without PG. Old faded Celtics, look at them without the Big 3.

Name the squads that didn't over rely on at least one star that were contenders the past 5 years. You have the Spurs, maybe the Grizzlies. Everyone else... OKC (Durant, Westbrook), Pacers (PG), Clips (CP3, KIA), Blazers (Aldridge, Lilliard), Rockets (Beard, Dwight), Celtics (Big 3), Heat (Big 3), etc.

Who are these teams playng '5 man basketball' against zones? :confusedshrug:

[LAZERUSS]

On Wilt shooting at a higher % during the early 70s than the early 60s--Wasn't Wilt more of a volume scorer in the early 60s? During the 70s, wasn't Wilt more of a high %, select shots type of guy? He wasn't even the focus of the offense with the Lakers, correct?

It's difficult to prove either way, but today's defenses feature more sophisticated styles that force offenses to produce more 5 man team offenses also. There is more overall passing and teamwork today which has been forced by defenses specifically designed to stop isolation basketball. Shooting from distance is also at a higher level than ever before. I mean, in the 80s, it used to be said that if you live by the jump shot, you die by it. Not so today.

On 1998 to 2004 featuring some of the best defenses---I think you have to account for offensive styles. The Steve Nash era Suns after 2004 really influenced a lot of thinking on how to play offense in the modern game. Before that, it was a lot of isolation basketball still and post ups.

I think with all these arguments on era and defense, you have to account for the "arms race" part of it. Defenses come up with physicality, offenses come up with big players who go isolation or post up(like in the 90s), and today because of new zone style defenses or "shading" or "flooding" or whatever, offenses have responded in kind with 5 man offenses.

Eventually, they balance out, and numbers pretty much settle down to a norm across the eras, but what is undeniable is that offenses and defenses today look much different that what they used to look like just 30 years ago. So what more 50 years ago.

On Wilt...oh, of course.

BUT, in his rookie season, he scored 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%. In his third year, he scored 50.4 ppg on a .506 (and on a .613 FT%.) In his 4th year... 44.8 ppg on a .528. In his 6th year... 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG% (BTW, they had widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season, and it had ZERO effect on Wilt's production.) In his 7th, he became more selective...and a 24.1 ppg on a .683. HOWEVER, before the start of his 69-70 season, his new coach, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. And in his first nine games... a league-leading 32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%. Unfortunately, in that ninth game (in which he had scored 33 points on 13-14 shooting, and in only 28 minutes)...he shredded his knee, and he was never the same offensive force again.

My point being, that Wilt was still a 30+ ppg scorer in his 11th season in the league, and a full decade after his rookie year. And, his efficiency (at least from the field) was truly remarkable.


As for the rest of your post...Shaq was a DOMINANT player from his second year on into his 14th. And in the period from '98 thru '04, which was the best defensive period of this era...he was STILL putting up 30 ppg seasons on near .600 shooting. Furthermore, at way past his peak, and as recently as his 2009 season, he still was capable of hanging a 45 point game,

I'm sorry, but a truly dominant big man, like a prime Wilt, Kareem, McAdoo, Moses, Hakeem, Robinson, and Shaq...would have ZERO issues with dominating in today's NBA. In fact, with the spacing, they likely would be even more dominant.

[Im Still Ballin]

How can the spurs be a lite version of the 80's if they have 10x as better shooting?

Lol

[navy]

Too many agendas to shift through.

How were the Spurs an 80's light offense?

Why do people attribute offensive declines in earlier periods to defenses and not offenses?

Defenses are not better or worse. Just different. And if you think so, what rule changes would you suggest to improve them? .

[Showtime80']

And that is the Jordan hangover talking full effect! Jordan was also a generational talent with an all-time side kick in Pippen and probably the best coach in history in PJax. After their run of titles in the 90's a and thanks to the increase in salaries as well as a harder cap, teams began building offenses around 1 or 2 players, most of the time perimeter oriented guys. It worked wonderfully when you had Shaq/Kobe or Duncan/Robinson but it became awful to watch guys like Iverson, VC, TMac, Allen trying to mimic 80's Jordan going basically 1 against 5.

I agree with Still Ballin, that philosophy produced some HORRIBLE basketball from 1994 to 2004 and the league were basically FORCED to do something about it.

The rule changes were more about how to change the way teams were building rosters more so than to alter a style of play. You say zones I say removal of the hand check and 3-seconds in the lane rule have made driving lanes a lot easier to penetrate for perimeter players. It evens itself out. The decay of low post big men started around the mid 90's well before the rule changes when basically Tim Duncan was the last true player to come into the league with a commitment to that style.

Even after the rule changes you still saw guys like Wade, Kobe and Lebron win titles while being leading scorers and still going iso more than Jordan was doing during the last 3-peat. The difference was that those teams were more well-balanced than those that were being built (Aside from Bulls, Jazz and Pacers) from 1994 to 2004 and that is what the league wanted.

The result, offenses DEFINITELY look better than what they did from 2000 to 2004 but are NOWHERE near and probably never will be as fluid and potent as what they were in the 80's

[DonDadda59]

How were the Spurs an 80's light offense?



If we're using Imobsessedwithd*cks '5 man offense' argument, then the Spurs are definitely a lite version of Showtime Lakers or Celtics squads. Obviously the Spurs take more 3s (even though they're always middle of the pack in terms of attempts) but look at the offensive distribution of say the Spurs last year and the '85 Lakers. Then look at some game tape and come back here and tell me SA was the better offensive/passing/'5 man team'.

Some guys here act like Pop invented passing last year.

The Spurs last season averaged less assists on generally higher paces than all but one Bulls championship squad.


I agree with Still Ballin, that philosophy produced some HORRIBLE basketball from 1994 to 2004 and the league were basically FORCED to do something about it.

:oldlol:

What are you talking about? It only got worse after the rule changes. Perimeter scoring exploded and most squads were one man teams. '06 Wade was a one man wrecking crew in the finals, '07 LeBron iso'ed his way to the finals, the big 3 went at it with Kobe/Pau (running the triangle mind you) twice, Dwight and random dudes made the finals, then we entered the LeBron ball/Big 3 era in the East vs the Spurs, a one man Dallas team, and Iso all stars OKC.

What exactly changed?

[Showtime80']

I love the Spurs but give me a break their offense is not even in the same ball park as the 80's Celtics or Lakers. Just because you shoot 20 more 3's than those teams because you build your team with cheap spot up shooters instead of all around playmakers doesn't make you're better at shooting for God's sake.

Look at the raping the Spurs gave the Heat last year with basically and older Tim Duncan as the ONLY low post threat!!! Can you imaging what the Celtics and Lakers would've done to them with 3 GREAT INSIDE PLAYERS EACH! Guys like Byron Scott, Michael Cooper, Scott Wedmann and Dennis Johnson would've had a field day shooting open 2's and 3's. Not to mention the all-time fast break games both teams had. Pick your poison.

Present Spurs are great, not in the class of 80s Lakers or Celtics though

[navy]

If we're using Imobsessedwithd*cks '5 man offense' argument, then the Spurs are definitely a lite version of Showtime Lakers or Celtics squads. Obviously the Spurs take more 3s (even though they're always middle of the pack in terms of attempts) but look at the offensive distribution of say the Spurs last year and the '85 Lakers. Then look at some game tape and come back here and tell me SA was the better offensive/passing/'5 man team'.

Some guys here act like Pop invented passing last year.

The Spurs last season averaged less assists on generally higher paces than all but one Bulls championship squad.
They are usually at the top in terms of percentages so they dont need as many attempts.

It's just a different sort of game. Because of the three point threat defensives literally have to scramble all over the floor to cover everyone. It's different from the 80s or 90s where they stuck more or less to their man because they were forced to, and because you didnt need to cover the three point line to the same extent.

In fact, Larry Bird himself claims defense is better today. Not that I agree, because I dont, but he literally played in the 80s offense. Just different.

[Im Still Ballin]

It has been shown all throughout league history that offenses and defenses constantly evolve

Sure perimeter scoring exploded after that rule change, but the isolation shift still would take a few more years to now where it is

And soon defenses are going to find a way to counter this pace and space game

Tactics are constantly evolving

[LAZERUSS]

They are usually at the top in terms of percentages so they dont need as many attempts.

It's just a different sort of game. Because of the three point threat defensives literally have to scramble all over the floor to cover everyone. It's different from the 80s or 90s where they stuck more or less to their man because they were forced to, and because you didnt need to cover the three point line to the same extent.

In fact, Larry Bird himself claims defense is better today. Not that I agree, but he literally played in the 80s offense.....

As a side-note...

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/fran_blinebury/07/15/legend-chamberlain/index.html


When the topic of all-time greatest player was once raised, a fellow named Larry Bird didn't hesitate. "Let me tell you something," Bird said. "For a while, they were saying that I was the greatest. And before me, it was Magic who was the greatest. And then it's Michael's turn. But open up the record book and it will be obvious who the greatest is."


BTW, Magic, Bird, West, and other's, constantly change their opinions.

[JohnFreeman]

It's called zone-sandwich. Don't you read the good threads here?

[Dr.J4ever]

On Wilt...oh, of course.

BUT, in his rookie season, he scored 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%. In his third year, he scored 50.4 ppg on a .506 (and on a .613 FT%.) In his 4th year... 44.8 ppg on a .528. In his 6th year... 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG% (BTW, they had widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season, and it had ZERO effect on Wilt's production.) In his 7th, he became more selective...and a 24.1 ppg on a .683. HOWEVER, before the start of his 69-70 season, his new coach, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. And in his first nine games... a league-leading 32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%. Unfortunately, in that ninth game (in which he had scored 33 points on 13-14 shooting, and in only 28 minutes)...he shredded his knee, and he was never the same offensive force again.

My point being, that Wilt was still a 30+ ppg scorer in his 11th season in the league, and a full decade after his rookie year. And, his efficiency (at least from the field) was truly remarkable.


As for the rest of your post...Shaq was a DOMINANT player from his second year on into his 14th. And in the period from '98 thru '04, which was the best defensive period of this era...he was STILL putting up 30 ppg seasons on near .600 shooting. Furthermore, at way past his peak, and as recently as his 2009 season, he still was capable of hanging a 45 point game,

I'm sorry, but a truly dominant big man, like a prime Wilt, Kareem, McAdoo, Moses, Hakeem, Robinson, and Shaq...would have ZERO issues with dominating in today's NBA. In fact, with the spacing, they likely would be even more dominant.

Oh no question. Moses would dominate today. He would make Kevin Love look like, well, Kevin Love. :lol

Basketball is basketball, and whatever changes the game undergoes, at it's heart, it's the same game. Adjustments are made. Maybe Moses would play with a stretch 4 who can guard perimeter players and play pick n roll defense, but Moses would guard the 5 position just like used to, and dominate offensively and on the boards, just like he used to.

[navy]

As a side-note...

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/fran_blinebury/07/15/legend-chamberlain/index.html




BTW, Magic, Bird, West, and other's, constantly change their opinions.
I know they are full of shit. Like I said, I didnt agree.
I think defenses are different not better, but's its not some outlandish claim the kids who never saw the 80s say like people make it out to be.

[3ball]

let's look at the facts we know for certain - we know that today's game now has spacing.. we know that paint-camping has been banned along with various physicality and hand-checking.

if there was no extra defensive strategy to handle these extra burdens, then it would be far easier to score today than previous eras.

fortunately, coaches came up with extra strategy to offset these things - but don't mistake the extra strategy for defenses being "better".. that's the way a 3rd grader thinks.. the extra strategy merely ensures that it's just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras when there weren't these extra burdens on the defense.. the stats demonstrate the steadiness of defensive effectiveness over the eras.

[Im Still Ballin]

You cannot argue that offenses are the best they've been atleast since the 80's

And even then they didn't have the quality of shooting we have now

[Showtime80']

I'm with you Dadda, as I said in my post, iso and 2 star centric teams were still prevalent AFTER the rule changes but what I feel the league wanted to kill off and prevent from spreading was the Iverson-like offenses were you had a team reaching the Finals with basically one offensive weapon scoring 30+ points on horrible FG% (those Sixers were painful to watch)

Now a days you at least flank the so called "stars" with more long distance spot up shooters (Kerr/Korver type) so they can keep the defense honest and somehow make the offense more balanced. Those Sixers didn't have ANYBODY who could make a shot beyond 20 feet on a consistent basis including AI, like I said, horrible offensive team.

[LAZERUSS]

You cannot argue that offenses are the best they've been atleast since the 80's

And even then they didn't have the quality of shooting we have now

Nah...instead we now have either a driving layup, a dunk, or a 3 pt FG. The mid-range game is becoming non-existent.

[navy]

Nah...instead we now have either a driving layup, a dunk, or a 3 pt FG. The mid-range game is becoming non-existent.
Like I said earlier, what rule changes would you propose to stop this if any? The 3 point shot is easily the most powerful offensive tool in basketball.

[3ball]

Like I said earlier, what rule changes would you propose to stop this if any? The 3 point shot is easily the most powerful offensive tool in basketball.
move the 3-point line back 1-3 feet.

3-point shooting has just gotten so much better, that it's too easy of a shot - the entire game is based around getting spreading the floor and getting 3-point looks (for the extra point to boost eFG).

this makes the game boring for some fans - if you want to bring back the good aspects of previous eras, move the line back and force guys to get good at all kinds of two-pointers again...

the only problem with this idea is that it would force the NBA to make the court a tad bigger, but i think that would be good for the game too.

[Dr.J4ever]

I just want to comment that these discussions of era and playing styles are fine as long as you don't bring an agenda.

I think most of the posts here on this thread have elements of the truth. To me, as I said, just from memory, offensive and defensive basketball today looks very different from what I remember it to be during the 80s.

The 80s had a lot of run and gun, 2 man games(like what Moses and Toney use to run), post ups, and high PPG. But it is also correct to say that smaller and lighter guards would have a harder time dribble penetrating the paint because of hand checking and more crowded lanes with bigger bigs on average than today. There were no stetch 4s or stretch 5s. All PFs and Cs were around the painted area.

Sometimes I wish Julius Erving played today. What would a prime Erving average today? Hmmm.

[LAZERUSS]

Like I said earlier, what rule changes would you propose to stop this if any? The 3 point shot is easily the most powerful offensive tool in basketball.

None. Just get better perimeter defenders, and develop TWO post players on offense...ala the 80's Lakers and Celtics. And punish teams at the other end for putting in quick 3pt shooters.

Right now the post-up center (or PF) is becoming extinct. Not because of modern defenses, but because of coaching at the lower levels. Watch footage of Thon Maker. A true seven-footer who thinks he is Dirk.

[Showtime80']

Give me a break with that better shooting BS! If that were true you wouldn't have the present pathetic East which aside from the Hawks and Cavs is a cavalcade of offensive ineptitude. Aside from that THE ENTIRE LEAGUE would have NO problem averaging at least between 105 and 110 on a nightly at least on par with the early to mid 90's which we know is not the case.

You honestly think the 80's Lakers or Celtics couldn't have shot 25 3 pointers a game and be successful at it?!? Please. The difference is those teams were so loaded with ALL-AROUND players they didn't need to take that many 3's while todays modern teams can't have guys like Byron Scott or Dennis Johnson as fourth options on their teams because of monetary reasons so they are forced to build their teams with long range spot up shooters. Still can't reach the level of the offenses from the 80's

[Showtime80']

I agree with 3 ball, move the line back further out or put it in use for the last 2 minutes of quarters only.

[navy]

move the 3-point line back a 2 feet.

3-point shooting has just gotten so much better, that it's too easy of a shot - the entire game is based around getting spreading the floor and getting 3-point looks (for the extra point to boost eFG).

this makes the game boring for some fans - if you want to bring back the good aspects of previous eras, move the line back and force guys to get good at all kinds of two-pointers again...

the only problem with this idea is that it would force the NBA to make the court a tad bigger, but i think that would be good for the game too.
Problem with this is that you would have to widen millions of court arenas that are already built to standard dimensions. The nba could do it. Gyms, schools, and lower courts? Nah. Just not feasible.

And Im sure that nba players would simply practice and shoot further 3 point shots.

I dont think two pointers are particularly more exciting. Whereas the three ball? Damn. The way people hit those shots is crazy :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

once you accept the reality that penetration and ball movement are easier than they used to be, it's easy to see why teams don't post up as much.

[navy]

None. Just get better perimeter defenders, and develop TWO post players on offense...ala the 80's Lakers and Celtics. And punish teams at the other end for putting in quick 3pt shooters.

Right now the post-up center (or PF) is becoming extinct. Not because of modern defenses, but because of coaching at the lower levels. Watch footage of Thon Maker. A true seven-footer who thinks he is Dirk.

I dont think perimeter defenders are better or worse, they just have to rely on teammates differently than they use to.

The NBA is evolving to the point that you cant punish 3 point shooters. 3 and D players are easily the most valuable role players. They always were, but moreso than before.

Imagine Thon Maker shooting 3s and in the post. Unstoppable.

[Dr.J4ever]

None. Just get better perimeter defenders, and develop TWO post players on offense...ala the 80's Lakers and Celtics. And punish teams at the other end for putting in quick 3pt shooters.

Right now the post-up center (or PF) is becoming extinct. Not because of modern defenses, but because of coaching at the lower levels. Watch footage of Thon Maker. A true seven-footer who thinks he is Dirk.

In Philly, there is an ongoing debate on whether Noel and Embiid can play together offensively. See, on defense, it's not as big of a concern because of Noel's freakish athleticism and ability to play on the perimeter, but coach Brett Brown has still said, let's wait and see on that.

On offense, it is a real concern. Would these two big guys clog the paint? Can you play with two guys offensively near the paint like that today?

We are about to find out. In past eras, there would be no question about twin towers working out. Today, with spacing being a top priority and drive and dish for 3s being a premier facet of the game, it's a real question.

[LAZERUSS]

In Philly, there is an ongoing debate on whether Noel and Embiid can play together offensively. See, on defense, it's not as big of a concern because of Noel's freakish athleticism and ability to play on the perimeter, but coach Brett Brown has still said, let's wait and see on that.

On offense, it is a real concern. Would these two big guys clog the paint? Can you play with two guys offensively near the paint like that today?

We are about to find out. In past eras, there would be no question about twin towers working out. Today, with spacing being a top priority and drive and dish for 3s being a premier facet of the game, it's a real question.

Well, it does require at least one of the post-up bigs to be capable of defending the perimeter, or at a minimum, of being able to defend about a 15 foot range (ala Duncan throughout his career.)

[3ball]

I dont think two pointers are particularly more exciting.


see, this makes zero sense to me - most 3-pointers are scored the same way every time - stand-still, catch-and-shoot.. steph curry aside, this is a fact.

whereas 2-pointers are scored in infinitely more ways than 3-pointers.. so for fans to think 2-pointers are boring, it can only mean that they don't have sufficient understanding of the game to differentiate one 2-pointer from another.. :confusedshrug:





Whereas the three ball? Damn. The way people hit those shots is crazy :confusedshrug:


i understand why most fans are so enamored with the 3ball - they like the way the ball arcs really high and splashes through the net - that's what gets most fans.. i understand that.. but for me personally, i can't get my basketball jollies off of that - i need more.

i think it will take most fans a lot longer to tire of it, but i think they eventually will too.. it might take a few years, but eventually you'll see the NBA try to change the game again to appease the fans.. it always happens - today's 3-and-D style won't last forever (thank goodness).

[DonDadda59]

Like I said earlier, what rule changes would you propose to stop this if any? The 3 point shot is easily the most powerful offensive tool in basketball.

Let me 3Ball the f*ck out of this thread if you will...

Allow handchecking again, and I'm talking full court too, not just the half court. You'd see a whole lot more of this:

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2015/d7ZkI6.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-08-2015/CQqc9x.gif

Too easy for guys to get off shots literally any time they want now, and they take advantage of the freedoms granted them. Curry can dribble up unimpeded from the inbounds and get off a shot whenever he feels like it. Harden can dribble around unchallenged until he finds a spot he likes and let it fly. Guys like Reggie (https://youtu.be/GXFF-TXxoSw?t=6m30s), Ray, Rip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzLA78Qb3fg), etc used to have to fight through multiple screens and cut all over the floor in order to get open 3s.

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-08-2015/_EMbS6.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-08-2015/4-Zuby.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-08-2015/Vbg-am.gif

The only 'defense' against that is waving hello at a guy's face. That doesn't do shit to players at that level. :lol

If you're allowed to pressure and physically challenge the ball handlers/small guards/shooters then you would see a dramatic decrease in 3 point shooting. Of course that would also mean slower paced games, a return to the grind em out 90s and that's the NBA's worst nightmare. It'd undo all the work they've put in the past 20 or so years to try to make life as easy as possible for the Steph Currys and James Hardens of the world. :lol

[Dr.J4ever]

Well, it does require at least one of the post-up bigs to be capable of defending the perimeter, or at a minimum, of being able to defend about a 15 foot range (ala Duncan throughout his career.)

What is being discussed is that on offense, Embiid would be the guy that would step out on the perimeter more since he has displayed a shooting touch even from the 3 range. However, Embiid has not displayed the passing skill of Noel, who has shown to be adept at passing to the post. So Noel seems like a better fit to play on the perimeter, but he hasn't shown enough shooting touch from 15 feet to do this.

What's more an Embiid on the perimeter might bring charges and an arrest warrant to coach Brett Brown, who could get accused of mishandling maybe the best talent for low post basketball since the Duncan/Dream days.

Nice problem to have though for Philly, and hoping Noel gets a jump shot before next season to make this debate moot and academic.

[navy]

Let me 3Ball the f*ck out of this thread if you will...

Allow handchecking again, and I'm talking full court too, not just the half court. You'd see a whole lot more of this:

You'd get rid of this? :biggums:
http://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/stephcurrycrossover.gif

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/650/897/000000gz_original.gif


Curry and Harden's dribbling skills are a thing of beauty. Especially compared to the back away from the basket to keep the ball away style that you are suggesting going back to.

I would only formally allow players the ability to ride the offensive player. As in keep a hand touching but not allowed to impede progress. Sort of a gray area in the current rules. Sometimes called, sometimes not.

[DonDadda59]

You'd get rid of this? :biggums:
http://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/stephcurrycrossover.gif

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/650/897/000000gz_original.gif


Curry and Harden's dribbling skills are a thing of beauty. Especially compared to the back away from the basket to keep the ball away style that you are suggesting going back to.

I would only formally allow players the ability to ride the offensive player. As in keep a hand touching but not allowed to impede progress. Sort of a gray area in the current rules. Sometimes called, sometimes not.

You think PGs like Magic and Payton played like that because they didn't have handles? :oldlol:

It's because they were forced to back down in the backcourt/3 point line, etc at times because of the pressure they used to face on the perimeter. They had to protect the ball somehow. Guys like Curry, Irving, Harden would be doing the same if guys were allowed to actually physically challenge them instead of being handcuffed to only waving bye to the ball as they dribble unimpeded and shoot. The gifs you posted just prove my point. Notice that Matthews does nothing that would bother Irving defensively and Kidd just runs alongside Irving without putting any real pressure on him. Back in his prime Kidd would be allowed to actually play defense like he used to with the Jordans, Iversons, Kobes, etc.

I made a thread a while back about how teams don't employ full court zones/traps/pressure like they did in the past. Check out what the Celtics did to Deron Williams (a master ball handler) and the Nets when they tried it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hECMJ5uljUI

And that was with them not being able to physically impede the ball handlers. The Bulls were masters at making life hell for ball handlers during their run. They constantly ran full court traps, presses, or even just had Pippen or Jordan harass the hell out of a guy single-handedly (as the gifs I posted above show). Proved to be a game changer against Magic and the Lakers offense in the '91 Finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eibq7MpTAvE

Can't play like that anymore, hence guys are free to show off their fancy handles and get shots off basically whenever they feel like it. So why wouldn't they take 6, 7, 8 threes per game? :confusedshrug:

[navy]

I didnt say they didnt have handles. (No, I dont think it was at those levels above.) My point was that they couldnt SHOW OFF their handles.

[3ball]

You think PGs like Magic and Payton played like that because they didn't have handles? :oldlol:

It's because they were forced to back down in the backcourt/3 point line, etc at times because of the pressure they used to face on the perimeter. They had to protect the ball somehow. Guys like Curry, Irving, Harden would be doing the same if guys were allowed to actually physically challenge them instead of being handcuffed to only waving bye to the ball as they dribble unimpeded and shoot.

I made a thread a while back about how teams don't employ full court zones/traps/pressure like they did in the past. Check out what the Celtics did to Deron Williams (a master ball handler) and the Nets when they tried it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hECMJ5uljUI

And that was with them not being able to physically impede the ball handlers. The Bulls were masters at making life hell for ball handlers during their run. They constantly ran full court traps, presses, or even just had Pippen or Jordan harass the hell out of a guy single-handedly (as the gifs I posted above show). Proved to be a game changer against Magic and the Lakers offense in the '91 Finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eibq7MpTAvE

Can't play like that anymore, hence guys are free to show off their fancy handles and get shots off basically whenever they feel like it. So why wouldn't they take 6, 7, 8 threes per game? :confusedshrug:
i wouldn't waste your time with navy - the guy just said he thought 2-pointers were boring.

two-pointers are scored in an infinitely more ways, so this can only mean he doesn't have a good understanding of the game to differentiate one 2-pointer from the next.

he's like any other dumb fan today - enamored with the high arch of the ball and the splash through the net.. like a child... i don't think people like this really like the game.. they couldn't - they don't understand it.

[3ball]

You guys think curry, kyrie and the like are coming down and bombing away in transition - and they are - but the vast majority of 3-pointers are still in the halfcourt.

And in the halfcourt, teams run offense to get open looks.. 3-pointers need to be more open then 2-pointers, so they require more offense to be run, which slows the game down.. Other than the last 7-8 years, pace has historically declined with the increase in 3PA.

However, as 3PA has continued to increase over the years, players naturally have begun taking more contested threes than before - so in the last 7-8 seasons, pace has started to creep back up.. But it's still far below the days when teams settled for contested 2-pointers as a standard, enabling teams to run less offense and fly up and down the court.

Make no mistake and don't delude yourself - the 3-point shot slows the game down.

[ILLsmak]

It's basketball, there is no "advanced" defensive tactics, it's not quantum physics.


dunno if I posted this already, but you are misunderstanding the word advanced in this context.

Think of the pick and roll, which is probably (I know nobody agrees) one of the cheesiest simple plays, and how many outcomes it can have. Nobody has a real "way to stop the pick and roll." You have to have 'advanced scouting' and understand what each player is capable of and then roll the dice and play the percentages.

The fact that it seems defensive tactics these days are based not on stops but percentages and math would make them advanced, especially in reference to earlier eras.

-Smak

[Jasper]

Guards can't touch other guards means to me that defense doesn't exist ... that is why the league allowed zone play to be legal.
Only time bball resembles actual defensive games is in the playoff's when ref's let them play.
/

[Micku]

Guards can't touch other guards means to me that defense doesn't exist ... that is why the league allowed zone play to be legal.
Only time bball resembles actual defensive games is in the playoff's when ref's let them play.
/


I think B-ball today is harder to officiate and is more inconsistent then it's ever been. You can see the difference between playoffs where they let them play and RS. You can say it's always been like that, but never been this big of a gap.

Plus the post play. How can you rough a dude up on the post, but you can't touch a perimeter player at all? I understand about protecting the shooters and increase scoring, but it really does allow lack of defense. Especially when a player can just either blow past someone with all of this spacing.

I would say the sophistication in offense has improved so much that the defense can't keep up because of the gutted rules set. It's by design to increase excitement, so we just have to deal with it. The league and I'm sure some of the fans don't wann'a go back to late 90s and early 00s basketball. Maybe a few fans though, but the offense was ugly at the time and the defense got out of of control. The league certainly don't want to. There was a lot of articles by many different sports writers saying how they wanted offense to better.

[3ball]

.

The league and I'm sure some of the fans don't wann'a go back to late 90s and early 00s basketball.


.


but why not the 80's and early 90's?

That was a good brand of basketball with good pace, scoring and rules

[Spurs m8]

Imagine a sport where you're not allowed to defend.

Thanks Silver...you bald cvnt

[Micku]

but why not the 80's and early 90's?

That was a good brand of basketball with good pace, scoring and rules

It would be great. Most of the time, writers in the late 90s and early 00 often talk about the golden era of the NBA which was late 80s and early 90s. There is both pros and cons to it tho.

I would assume that the league would fear it'll go the way of the late 90s.-early 00s still. Teams back then was being influence by Detroit, Knicks, and the Bulls style of defense. So, over time when they didn't have as much stars, they would slow down the pace gradually.

I would argue since we have a big emphasis on shooting, pacing, and spacing now, we might not go down that path. But who knows. It could have some consequences of the overall product if a team would manage to abuse defensive rules like the Pistons and the Knicks did in the late 80s and early 90s. But the biggest fear is that it would eventually go to the Pistons and Spurs of the mid 00s.

[light]

Of course they have more freedom. They can play full zone whenever they choose. That alone changes everything and doubles the choices of what defenses can do.

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/zone.png