I found something for MJ haters so they don't look bad when they post

[3ball]

Someone made a comprehensive list of counter-arguments to the various myths new fans have created to diminish MJ's star.

http://nobodytouchesjordan.blogspot.ca


This is not my site or information.. I did not create this.. But it's a must-read for MJ-bashers so they don't get owned by people with superior knowledge of the history and what happened.

For example - let's say you feel like posting about how MJ faced weak teams, weak defenders, or weak defenses - I would recommend chapters 3, 4, and 5 from that site.. If you don't read those chapters, you risk getting owned by someone that did.

And I would like to add a couple chapters myself:

Chapter X (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606624&postcount=406): Today's paint-camping ban (defensive 3 seconds) and zones allowed outside the paint vs. previous eras' legal paint-camping and no-spacing

Chapter Y (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606684&postcount=408): Spacing 101, including today's weakside spacing that reduces the number of strongside defenders

Chapter Z (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606688&postcount=410): A comparison of strongside scenarios: WITH weakside spacing vs. WITHOUT weakside spacing
.

[RRR3]

We don't hate MJ, we hate your posts.

[ShawkFactory]

We don't hate MJ, we hate your posts.
X1000

Everyone loves or at least respects MJ. Everyone despises you or at least wants you to fall very ill.

[Rose'sACL]

according to you Coaches like stretch 4s in today's game for no reason.

We all saw how warriors didn't need to double lebron at all because they were close to paint anyways because of mozgov and TT can be left unguarded outside the paint unlike the 90s when you had to defend guys like rodman even if they moved to 3 point line because of illegal defense.

[fpliii]

RIP the clear-out era.

[3ball]

RIP the clear-out era.
Chapter Y about weakside spacing is for you.

You're the one that first bragged to me about the strongside flood, not knowing that it only became necessary with the advent of weakside spacing.

[sdot_thadon]

Yeah I doubt anyone hates Mj, it's just you.

[Rose'sACL]

Chapter Y about weakside spacing is for you.

You're the one that first bragged to me about the strongside flood, not knowing that it only became necessary with the advent of weakside spacing.
just tell me one thing. if rodman moved near the 3 point line, can his defender leave him and shadow double MJ in the 90s?
Don't confuse hard double teams with shadow doubling.

Shadow doubling is allowed now unlike the 90s when it was illegal.

[fpliii]

Chapter Y about weakside spacing is for you.

You're the one that first bragged to me about the strongside flood, not knowing that it only became necessary with the advent of weakside spacing.
Please don't put words in my mouth my dude. I never denied that improved offensive strategy required defensive strategy to evolve as well. Rudy T and Thibs were both ahead of their time (Saunders deserves an HM too, first guy to take advantage of the elimination of illegal defense restrictions).

[sdot_thadon]

Chapter Y about weakside spacing is for you.

You're the one that first bragged to me about the strongside flood, not knowing that it only became necessary with the advent of weakside spacing.
So wait you mean to tell me they devised a defense to affect strongside 1st options only only to counter weakside shooters?:biggums:

[3ball]

So wait you mean to tell me they devised a defense to affect strongside 1st options only only to counter weakside shooters?:biggums:
Well, I must admit, for some people, it's not worth the read if they aren't capable of understanding it...

for whatever reason - it could be poor reading comprhension, any number of psychological afflictions, or just sheer denial.

[sdot_thadon]

Well, I must admit, for some people, it's not worth the read if they aren't capable of understanding it...

for whatever reason - it could be poor reading comprhension, any number of psychological afflictions, or just sheer denial.
What's incredible is you can't see how weird that sounds.

The spacing wasn't possible before rule changes according to non other than yourself. After rule changes defense were able to load up on the strong side, (an outstanding tactic when non shooters were on the floor I might add)to limit great scorers or totally negate average ones. The counter to that became having people who can shoot the ball on the floor at every possible postiton. I don't know where the hell you got the idea that strongside defenses were meant to counter guys on the weakside. Weakside shooting was emphasized as a counter to the floods. Where do you think stretch 4's came from? Again let's break it down to the lowest compound.

No zone= no floods, no need for the same type of spacing.
Zone legal= floods legal, new way to make space needed.

[3ball]

The spacing wasn't possible before rule changes


The rule changes have nothing to do with spacing... Spacing = 3-point shooting.

In 1985, there was no spacing because teams only attempted 2 three-pointers per game.. But by 2002 (prior to rule changes), there was a lot of spacing because teams were attempting 18 three-pointers per game.






After rule changes, defenses were allowed to load up on the strong side



Defenses only need to "load up" the strongside if there aren't enough defenders ON the strongside.

In the picture below, 3-point shooters on the weakside (weakside spacing) have drawn defenders away from the strongside.. If Noah doesn't leave #20 Mosgov and flood to the strongside, the strongside will only have 2 defenders on it.


http://i61.tinypic.com/2z7mnvm.png



Otoh, they didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's, so there was no weakside spacing to draw defenders away from the strongside - the strongside was ALREADY FLOODED with all 5 defenders, as seen below:


http://i.imgur.com/0l1UUv8.gif


Does it LOOK like a strongside flood is necessary above??

Of course not - a strongside flood isn't even POSSIBLE when all defenders are already on the strongside.

So it's dumb to brag about today's rules that allow strongside floods, when previous eras played the game in a fashion where the strongside was already flooded at all times.
.

[imdaman99]

3ball, how do you feel about MJ putting up a dud down 0-2 against the Knicks in 93? What was his statline?

Don't ignore this post, or I will consider you a fraud.

[3ball]

3ball, how do you feel about MJ putting up a dud down 0-2 against the Knicks in 93? What was his statline?

Don't ignore this post, or I will consider you a fraud.
After Game 2, he still needed 1 more game to figure out the Knicks.

The Knicks had sealed the paint, which was quite common in that era due to legal paint-camping and no 3-point shooting/spacing - defenders didn't have to occupy the perimeter and could congest the middle of the floor/paint area instead.

For this reason, IT WAS NOT UNCOMMON for guys like athletic wings like MJ to be forced to shoot jumpshots... So that's what MJ did - in Game 4, he scored 54 points on ALL JUMPSHOTS - that proves he's GOAT - what guy can score 54 points in a huge playoff game against a goat defense on all jumpers?... Only MJ... He's the only guy in history capable of this (maybe Bird, actually, but that's it)

[3ball]

strongside flood and satellite big


http://s29.postimg.org/y32v1xeqv/overload.jpg


Flooding Deandre to OUTSIDE the paint on strongside (above) is not the optimal way to guard the entire floor and doesn't reduce the likelihood of a score.. The optimal way is put Deandre under the rim to paint-camp.

By paint-camping under the rim, he can contest Lebron in the paint without having to abandon his own man (Mosgov) and leave the weakside a man-down defensively..

Also, with Deandre still on Mosgov, Griffin doesn't have to leave Love in the near corner - paint-camping avoids the extra rotations like Griffin's, and the resulting mismatches.. Paint-camping has been long-proven as most equitable way to defend the floor.
.

[3ball]

Please don't put words in my mouth my dude. I never denied that improved offensive strategy required defensive strategy to evolve as well. Rudy T and Thibs were both ahead of their time


You bragged about the strongside flood - that's a fact.

You said it was an advantage over previous era defenses - somehow, you didn't realize that flooding is only necessary if the strongside doesn't have enough defenders on it - of course, this only occurs in today's game where defenders must occupy the weakside to guard 3-point shooters.





(Saunders - first guy to take advantage of the elimination of illegal defense restrictions).


You also didn't realize that the strongside flood replaced legal paint-camping - so it's not "taking advantage" of the elimination of the Illegal Defense as you said above, it was Saunders "adjusting"... Teams couldn't legally paint-camp anymore, so they had to do something new.

Btw, the legal paint-camping was another thing you didn't know about until I educated you on it - you actually sent me a link with the Illegal Defense Guidelines, and then I pointed out that Rule 2b was a legal paint-camping provision that you were previously unaware of.

Those are the facts - you were clueless about how the strongside flood originated and why it's necessary, and you didn't know that paint-camping was legal in previous eras - I can dig up the old posts if you want.
.

[3ball]

satellite big floods over to strongside


With flooding replacing paint-camping, big men are forced to come OUT of their wheelhouse (the paint) to contest guards in THEIR wheelhouse, the perimeter.. Even Austin Rivers (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374490) can be a superstar by beating bigs on the perimeter and finishing on unprotected rims.

Of course, previous eras shaded heavily in screen-roll situations too (seen below) - MJ destroyed these situations, but he had to pull-up for more jumpers, because the paint was not open after the screen roll like it is with today's spacing - in MJ's day, after the screen-roll, the paint would still be crowded because there was no spacing to draw everyone to the perimeter:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358589&page=8.

[Real14]

3ball, how do you feel about MJ putting up a dud down 0-2 against the Knicks in 93? What was his statline?

Don't ignore this post, or I will consider you a fraud.

That was the last time I ever cheered against the knicks. FUN fact of the day.

[fpliii]

You bragged about the strongside flood - that's a fact.

You said it was an advantage over previous era defenses - somehow, you didn't realize that flooding is only necessary if the strongside doesn't have enough defenders on it - of course, this only occurs in today's game where defenders must occupy the weakside to guard 3-point shooters.
Why wouldn't I brag about it? As offenses evolve, defenses are forced to as well. Of course it only occurs today, because back in the day the shooters didn't exist. Shooting from distance was not at a premium back then while it is today. Don't say it wasn't necessary, because it wasn't permitted in the illegal defense era. That is why there were so many called clear-out isolations, even when non-shooters were beyond the arc.


You also didn't realize that the strongside flood replaced legal paint-camping - so it's not "taking advantage" of the elimination of the Illegal Defense as you said above, it was Saunders "adjusting"... Teams couldn't legally paint-camp anymore, so they had to do something new.

Btw, the legal paint-camping was another thing you didn't know about until I educated you on it - you actually sent me a link with the Illegal Defense Guidelines, and then I pointed out that Rule 2b was a legal paint-camping provision that you were previously unaware of.
If I didn't "realize" it then, I don't "realize" it now. Because paint camping is not legal, and never was, so my position is unchanged (and it will stay that way).

As long as you have any form of restrictions on the paint, it will never be allowed. The only reason there would be bunches of players in the paint-on offense and defense-is because there weren't tons of shooters on the floor, and coaches did not take advantage of illegal defense immediately. Again, this is why the clear-out isolation era was born, when guys would stand beyond the arc even if they weren't shooters, and the men guarding them had to follow them to an adjacent zone, unless they doubled on ball.

Rule 2b only tells you that a man could stay within 3 feet (from the block to the paint). For some reason, you believe this to be paint-camping enabled by the rules. It isn't. It's only what you perceive to be paint-camping, enabled by poor offensive strategy. If offensive players vacate the paint (to take advantage of illegal defense, or because they are legitimate 3pt shooters), defenders can't stay there either. You keep claiming defensive three seconds is something more restrictive than it was before, as if defensive three seconds didn't exist before. This is nonsense. The old rule 2d was replaced by the defensive three seconds, but without the complicated restrictions (fans, coaches, commentators, and players alike felt illegal defense was overly complicated; aside from the league being tired of teams taking advantage of putting non-shooters beyond the arc to force defenders to follow, the new guidelines were designed to be easier to understand). The only purpose the defensive three second rule change from 01 served was to prevent full-fledged zone, which was never legal.


Those are the facts - you were clueless about how the strongside flood originated and why it's necessary, and you didn't know that paint-camping was legal in previous eras - I can dig up the old posts if you want.
.
If you want to say I was clueless then, then I'm clueless now, because my position is unchanged. In actuality, I disagree with you, and don't think you have a legitimate argument, because you keep insisting that the RULES permitted paint camping, as opposed to POOR OFFENSIVE STRATEGY.

Oh, before you bring up Stu Jackson saying it "opened up the game" (who you will), don't forget this, before the 81-82 rule change:

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

[3ball]

Why wouldn't I brag about it? As offenses evolve (3-point shooting and weakside spacing), defenses are forced to as well (strongside flood, as now allowed by the rules).


So we agree on this part right?

I'm responding to the rest right now

[fpliii]

So we agree on this part right?

I'm responding to the rest right now
Yes, that's obvious. Nobody with a brain would disagree.

[Bernkastel]

Any MJ hater looks good if they debate you.

[superteamtheory]

3Bull,

I may eventually read the D stuff just to see what the arguments are, but my general feeling is that's not really the issue even tho I sometimes in specific cases don't totally buy the 80's-90's superiority… On the whole, yeah, the 80's-90's was better.

I will take a look at Act 7 (weaker era) since I think it's the one that most applies to me / my main argument…

but I can't say going into it this doesn't seems like biased bullshit with descriptions like: "the garbage 2000s era" … Yes, because even if you prefer Jordan's era, professional basketball in the 2000s was garbage.. I'm sure the champs from that era wouldn't like to punch you in the face if you told them that…

First impression: Just another Jordan jocker suffering from Jordanism -- the inability to appreciate any other player.. (There are guys out there on the other end of spectrum who have made similar pages like this "exposing" all the lies about Jordan… I've read their biased shit too.)

Section 9 is pure lies unless he's talking about how Kobe also got special treatment… More to the point: I don't care about this so much since I kinda think special treatment is a good idea to prevent barbarianism that surely will flourish out of jealousy/desperation if this goes unchecked.. Also, you want to preserve stars and I'm glad MJ lasted so long… In general I'd like every star to play a couple decades…

Section 13 I'll also browse tho I already know the counterargument to be a falsehood..

Considering I have Bird right behind Bron right now with little separation between the two, I'm not offended by somebody preferring Bird… but Moses Malone -- very great player -- over Bron... is crackhead. Tho still a better argument than Karl Malone > LeBron ...

Okay, reading time...

[3ball]

Yes, that's obvious. Nobody with a brain would disagree.
If the increase in 3-point shooting and resulting weakside spacing causes the need to strongside flood, then that means the NON-3-point shooting eras didn't need to strongside flood

(even though the non-3-point shooting eras couldn't have strongside flooded even if they wanted to - but again, their inability strongside flood based on the rules doesn't matter, because they didn't NEED to strongside flood in 2-pointer basketball).

Are we agreeing on the above too?

[fpliii]

If the increase in 3-point shooting and resulting weakside spacing causes the need to strongside flood, then that means the NON-3-point shooting eras didn't need to strongside flood

(even though previous eras couldn't have strongside flooded even if they wanted to - but again, their inability strongside flood based on the rules doesn't matter, because they didn't NEED to strongside flood in 2-pointer basketball).

Are we agreeing on the above too?
Yes (before teams started putting non-shooters above the arc where their defenders had to follow them), and no (after teams started doing that).

[superteamtheory]

After a few warmup disagreements, I then almost stopped reading here:

"The same Shaq that won 3 championships and
3 Finals MVPs in the 2000s got swept by Jordan's Bulls
one year*after making the NBA Finals. Shaq in*the real*90s era
of basketball had*0 MVPs, 0 rings,*0 defensive teams,*and got swept 5 times."

Yup. And he beat Jordan.

/argument?

He also points this out: "The 1995 Magic had 6 players in double figures during the Finals (more than the 2014 Spurs), and averaged more ppg and apg in the Finals than the 2014 Spurs. Despite all that, they still couldn't even win one game*against Hakeem's Rockets."

Yes, exactly. And then he turns around and acts as if Kemp putting up huge numbers should guarantee the win or as if any of this has any meaning. It's a *team* game which is why the Magic got swept in Finals, why the Sonics lost despite an amazing effort (same is true of 92 Knicks, 98 Pacers and others), etc. If the other team is stronger, individuals will be helpless despite their greatness. (Like LBbron vs. 09 Magic.) … Also, is he seriously arguing Kemp > Nowitzki … or is he getting lost in the numbers/stats as Jordan Jockers tend to do I'm beginning to notice there is a pattern here..

He also threw me a bone here: "The Pistons only won the 1989 Finals because of Magic Johnson's injury in Game 2."

Well. If we're going to say that then that takes one "unofficial Finals appearance" away from Jordan -- Bulls wouldn't have even beat the Lakers?

"When the Pistons beat the Bulls in 1989, Pippen did not play in Game 6 due to injury."

Damn. You'd think they could extend the same courtesy excuses to Bron playing with injured guys in 2011, 2014 and 2015…

"Kobe only won his 5th championship because Perkins was injured for Game 7 of 2010. Perkins and Garnett never lost a playoff series when they played the entire series together."

lol. ... lol, lol, lol ... Perkins gives nothing but props to Bron, if that's your boi, and come on now, Kobe isn't a champ because Perkins didn't play that game... Maybe they don't win the ring that year if Perkins plays -- may beee -- but none of that should change people's opinions of Kobe ... it's pretty ****in sad and pathetic you're nitpicking role player injuries in an attempt to discredit him...

"Parish is only in the Hall of Fame*because of Bird"

That is true. But I guarantee you the same is true of LeBron&Bosh…

"When Lebron finally got past*the Celtics in 2011, it was after Kevin Garnett was no longer the DPOY."

And when he was, he lost to them deep into a close game 7… What anybody with half a heart would describe as a "tough loss"…

And the way he tries to **** all over a Celtics team Bill Russell thought could win multiple championships even past their prime… They *could* have but then Bron and Wade came along and they didn't.. (And Russell is still salty about it, hence why he called Duncan great but wouldn't do the same for Bron and Wade.) Yeah, the Celtics took 7 games to knock off future FMVP Iggy's Sixers... and they also took 7 games to knock off the Hawks in opening round of 2008... I think most fans would consider these "strange series" where things maybe just got a little out of hand for Celtics who thought they might dominate easier vs. a young, inexperienced lower seed team and weren't really into it yet... The warm ups for Bron & Kobe basically.

The author's various arguments seem way biased.
The argument that K.G. was suddenly **** doesn't hold up either when he's still putting up a Chris Bosh like 18 and 10 in playoffs -- and the Celtics have another *two* hall of fame players, still, plus all-star Rondo…
Jordan also beat a team with 3 hall of famers -- Pistons -- and then three others with just two..
While LeBron, after beating multi-HOF/star Celtics twice, plus K.D., Westbrook, Harden, then also had to deal with the Spurs Big 3 + Kawhi who is emerging as an all-star player who, it wouldn't surprise me, may someday end up in the Hall…

…

Alrite, seriously, the only things that matter:

All-time leaders in 30,5,5 games:

1. Bron by just 1 with 5 years to play -- means Jordan is comparable even if Bron gets ahead but.. 2. Jordan 3. Kobe a comparable but distant third with Jerry West and Larry Bird filling out the list for further evidence that only ATGs make this list…
This doesn't prove Bron is better -- it's just a stat -- no more than Jordan having crazy scoring games doesn't automatically prove he's better either or else Wilt would be the one. (Why Larry phrased it: *If you open the record book*, it's obvious who the greatest is.)
What it does show is Bron's greatness which is absolutely comparable to MJ's even if MJ was better...

2. Bron has *already* beat 3--possibly4(ifWestbrookorHardenmakesit)and going on 4-6--teams with multiple Hall of Famers
vs. Jordan's 4.
That's all I need to know about a top heavy superteam/Big3 era vs. weaker era in this comparison..
Granted, there's always more to the story... There's other things to consider, like when teams have multiple all-stars or depth, like the 2012-2013 Pacers (who Heat eventually destroyed to make the point clearer), 2011 Mavericks or 2015 Golden State Warriors for example, and at the end of it all I'd still put MJ #1 unless something dramatically changes in the next 5+ years...

[3ball]

Yes (before teams started putting non-shooters above the arc where their defenders had to follow them), and no (after teams started doing that).


Teams never did this bolded above^^^^^^

This is a flat-out lie by you and Dr. J4ever - like, if you can't show me one instance where a coach did that, then don't claim it happens... It makes you disingenuous.

Not only was it never done, but it wouldn't work anyway, because the threat of a 3-pointer wasn't there - if you put non-shooters behind the 3-point line, defenders know they won't have to ACTUALLY defend a 3-point shot, so they can hop off their man that much quicker.

That's a stark contrast from today's game, where defenders must hesitate and contemplate whether they should stay at home on their man... Previous era defenders WOULD KNOW they didn't have to stay at home

(I say "would", because again, coaches never did that - you made that up - remember, I know you didn't watch before 1993... and you were 8 then, so that doesn't count - i don't count high school perceptions, so in reality, you just started watching around 2000).





Again, this is why the clear-out isolation era was born, when guys would stand beyond the arc even if they weren't shooters, and the men guarding them had to follow them to an adjacent zone, unless they doubled on ball.


Again, this never happened... Coaches virtually never did this and you can't point me to an instance where they did - not only that, but I watched the games AND it's verifiable on youtube for anyone that didn't... So you sound pretty dumb repeating a lie that is so easily disproven and well-known to be a lie (anyone who watched back then knows that never happened... and anyone can check on youtube that this never happened).

It's amazing that you keep repeating this lie.

And since I've been watching basketball, the 2015 Finals was the only time that I've ever seen clearouts where it's 1-on-1 plus 8 players on other side... That's the only time I've ever seen that.





Rule 2b only tells you that a man could stay within 3 feet (from the block to the paint).


You've interpreted the rule wrong - the rule says a defender could remain in the paint "with no time restriction" if his man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint:


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


Remember, the paint is 16 feet X 19 feet.. In today's game, a defender must stay within armslength of an offensive player (about 3 feet), or vacate the paint - so if a defender is standing under the rim, their man cannot be 8 feet away on the edge of the paint - the defender would have to vacate the paint in 2.9 seconds.

But in previous eras, a defender could stand under the rim INDEFINITELY if their man was 8 feet away on the edge of the paint, and even 3 feet outside that (as denoted by hash marks).
.

[GIF REACTION]

Why wouldn't I brag about it? As offenses evolve, defenses are forced to as well. Of course it only occurs today, because back in the day the shooters didn't exist. Shooting from distance was not at a premium back then while it is today. Don't say it wasn't necessary, because it wasn't permitted in the illegal defense era. That is why there were so many called clear-out isolations, even when non-shooters were beyond the arc.


If I didn't "realize" it then, I don't "realize" it now. Because paint camping is not legal, and never was, so my position is unchanged (and it will stay that way).

As long as you have any form of restrictions on the paint, it will never be allowed. The only reason there would be bunches of players in the paint-on offense and defense-is because there weren't tons of shooters on the floor, and coaches did not take advantage of illegal defense immediately. Again, this is why the clear-out isolation era was born, when guys would stand beyond the arc even if they weren't shooters, and the men guarding them had to follow them to an adjacent zone, unless they doubled on ball.

Rule 2b only tells you that a man could stay within 3 feet (from the block to the paint). For some reason, you believe this to be paint-camping enabled by the rules. It isn't. It's only what you perceive to be paint-camping, enabled by poor offensive strategy. If offensive players vacate the paint (to take advantage of illegal defense, or because they are legitimate 3pt shooters), defenders can't stay there either. You keep claiming defensive three seconds is something more restrictive than it was before, as if defensive three seconds didn't exist before. This is nonsense. The old rule 2d was replaced by the defensive three seconds, but without the complicated restrictions (fans, coaches, commentators, and players alike felt illegal defense was overly complicated; aside from the league being tired of teams taking advantage of putting non-shooters beyond the arc to force defenders to follow, the new guidelines were designed to be easier to understand). The only purpose the defensive three second rule change from 01 served was to prevent full-fledged zone, which was never legal.


If you want to say I was clueless then, then I'm clueless now, because my position is unchanged. In actuality, I disagree with you, and don't think you have a legitimate argument, because you keep insisting that the RULES permitted paint camping, as opposed to POOR OFFENSIVE STRATEGY.

Oh, before you bring up Stu Jackson saying it "opened up the game" (who you will), don't forget this, before the 81-82 rule change:

http://i.imgur.com/tWjGF3z.jpg
Im Still Ballin could have used this when he was going to war with 3ball.

RIP 2ball.

[ArbitraryWater]

that blog....


:biggums: :biggums:

[GIF REACTION]

Basically in the illegal defense era superstars could get easy stats because of the rule-based spacing clear outs. Teams could get away with poor offensive strategies.

Today superstars can't get away with easy stats because the spacing is teammate shooting dependent. You need a good team and good offensive strategy to put up great stats and even so the defense has more freedom and can still take you out of a game. Those stats will come up as assists and solely dependent on teammates. Ergo - 90's star stats are inflated. Today that is the opposite.

[3ball]

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


This was the year the 3-point line was introduced... They didn't have a clue what an "open lane" was like we know it today.

Again, you're either really dumb to think this is a legitimate argument, or you're being intellectually dishonest and taking us for 3rd graders.

[3ball]

Basically in the illegal defense era superstars could get easy stats because of the rule-based spacing clear outs.


Again, WHERE ARE THEY - YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP

This myth that guys got crazy clearouts in the 80's is complete BS created by young fans who wnat to think it happened.

Clearouts where one guy is going 1-on-1 while the other 8 guys are on the other side of the floor NEVER HAPPENED.... It's a dumb lie perpetrated by stupid young Lebron fans were 8 when they first watched in 1993.
.

[3ball]

Yes (before teams started putting non-shooters above the arc where their defenders had to follow them), and no (after teams started doing that).
Teams never did this bolded above^^^^^^

This is a flat-out lie by you and Dr. J4ever - like, if you can't show me one instance where a coach did that, then don't claim it happens... It makes you disingenuous.

Not only was it never done, but it wouldn't work anyway, because the threat of a 3-pointer wasn't there - if you put non-shooters behind the 3-point line, defenders know they won't have to ACTUALLY defend a 3-point shot, so they can hop off their man that much quicker.

That's a stark contrast from today's game, where defenders must hesitate and contemplate whether they should stay at home on their man... Previous era defenders WOULD KNOW they didn't have to stay at home

(I say "would", because again, coaches never did that - you made that up - remember, I know you didn't watch before 1993... and you were 8 then, so that doesn't count - i don't count high school perceptions, so in reality, you just started watching around 2000).
.

[GIF REACTION]

Again, WHERE ARE THEY?

These clearouts where one guy is going 1-on-1 while the other 8 guys are on the other side of the floor NEVER HAPPENED.... It's a dumb lie perpetrated by stupid young Lebron fans were 8 when they first watched in 1993.
We already discussed all this shit in that Illegal Defense thread i made bro.

It is common knowledge that towards the tail end of the 90's, Illegal defense started to become less and less called. No calls. That along with poor offensive strategies led to the low scoring til 2004. The first half of the 90's, illegal defense was frequently called.

[3ball]

The first half of the 90's, illegal defense was frequently called.
It wasn't called frequently.. No more than defensive 3 seconds is called today.


And paint camping was legal - Rule 2b says a defender could remain in the paint "with no time restriction" if his man was within 3 feet of either side of the paint:


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


Remember, the paint is 16 feet X 19 feet.. In today's game, a defender must stay within armslength of an offensive player (about 3 feet), or vacate the paint - so if a defender is standing under the rim, their man cannot be 8 feet away on the edge of the paint - the defender would have to vacate the paint in 2.9 seconds.

But in previous eras, a defender could stand under the rim INDEFINITELY if their man was 8 feet away on the edge of the paint, and even 3 feet outside that (as denoted by hash marks).
.

[3ball]

What scenario is harder for Lebron to score in?

A) None of his teammates shoot the 3-pointer or space the weakside

B) His teammates shoot the 3-pointer and space the weakside, but there is an offsetting strongside flood


It's probably equally difficult to score in either scenario OVERALL, after we consider all players in those two situations..

But for a player individually, it could go either way depending on their skill-set.. Under Option B, 3-pointers draw defenders to the perimeter, which opens up the middle of the floor and enables a layups/3-pointer shot allocation - so players who are good at his type of shot allocation will thrive.

Under Option A, the 3-point shot isn't used, so there is no layups/3-pointer shot allocation and defenders aren't drawn to the perimeter - players on offense and defense occupy the middle of the floor/paint area, forcing players to shoot mid-range shots.. Virtually every big scorer in previous eras had a good mid-range shot and repertoire - it was mandatory.

[superteamtheory]

that blog....


:biggums: :biggums:

it's an only slightly less biased / slightly more intelligent inverse version of this:


while 3Ball is sort of an inverse version of:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53dn_D6FWBk
+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlfiMDUTQ4

[3ball]

it's an only slightly less biased / slightly more intelligent inverse version of this:
http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/rank.htm

while 3Ball is sort of an inverse version of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53dn_D6FWBk
+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlfiMDUTQ4
The ONLY point I ever make is that it's just as hard for Lebron to score in this scenario:


A) None of Lebron's teammates shoot the 3-pointer or space the weakside (previous eras)


as it is in this scenario:


B) Lebron's teammates shoot the 3-pointer and space the weakside, but there is an offsetting strongside flood (today's game)


and imo, scenario A is actually much harder, but regardless of whether you agree, scenario B certainly isn't the harder scenario.. Scenario A is at least equally hard.
.

[superteamtheory]

The ONLY point I ever make is that it's just as hard for Lebron to score in this scenario:


A) None of Lebron's teammates shoot the 3-pointer or space the weakside (previous eras)


as it is in this scenario:


B) Lebron's teammates shoot the 3-pointer and space the weakside, but there is an offsetting strongside flood (today's game)


and imo, scenario A is actually much harder, but regardless of whether you agree, scenario B certainly isn't the harder scenario.. Scenario A is at least equally hard.
.

okay, that is the only point you ever made.. sure why not. (even tho I'd disagree in some player-specific scenarios -- like when going up against 3x DPOY Dwight Howard -- but okay, whatever, in most examples close enough to a universal rule..)

I actually thought you made two points tho... your other one being that maybe Bron needs to move without the ball more (like when you say that I just picture Bron with Reggie Miller movement and I see rings) in order to get the important role players (translation for Kobe stans: the worthless scrubs) more involved in decision making... dunno if that completely explains everything wrong with Bron's losing teams but I'd probably agree overall...

Don't be so hard on yourself 3Ball, you got a lot of game and it's kinda sad that you're thought of as a troll.. all because you have a giant stick up your ass about not comparing MJ with anybody and hating most players as if their existence is an insult to MJ because he needs their air...

[Hey Yo]

Sam Smith, Chicago Tribune, 2001:

"The subject was defense in the NBA, and Michael Jordan was speaking, although more about offense, especially his. We know few defenses could do anything about that.

But there was one that might be bothersome, the zone defense. It was the topic du jour at last month's All-Star Game, and Jordan was making an impassioned plea before the competition committee that had gathered to consider rules changes to enliven the NBA game.

Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-04-01/sports/0104010375_1_defense-recommendations-nba

[3ball]

If the increase in 3-point shooting and resulting weakside spacing causes the need to strongside flood, then that means the NON-3-point shooting eras didn't need to strongside flood

Are we agreeing on the above too?




Yes (before teams started putting non-shooters above the arc where their defenders had to follow them), and no (after teams started doing that)


If teams were doing the bolded above (spreading the floor with non-shooters and putting non-shooters behind the arc), that means there WAS spacing in the 80's - except there wasn't.. NO spacing was the norm in the 80's, not the other way around..

Therefore, when I say that today's weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders that players have to face, there's no counter to this - you can't say "well, teams used to put non-shooters behind the 3-point line".. This counterargument to weakside spacing requires a norm of spacing in the 80's that didn't exist, which is why I called you a liar.. Maybe you didn't realize you were lying.

Also, in addition to erroneously implying that spacing was the norm in the 80's, the bolded part of your post was BANNED in 1987, only 2 years into Jordan's 15-year career:


Sam Smith, Chicago Tribune, 1987:

"Section 32 Paragraph 15... a new rule in the NBA this season that prohibits teams from placing three or more players above the top of the key, away from the ball, thus clearing out for one-on-one or two-on-two play. A violation results in a loss of possession."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-11-15/sports/8703260367_1_bulls-coach-doug-collins-operations-chief-jerry-krause-michael-jordan-rule


Therefore, your initial agreement in bolded red above ("Yes") is your answer - not only did your counterargument to weakside spacing require a norm of spacing in the 80's that didn't exist, but such spacing for the purposes of isolating and clearing out was banned in 1987, just 2 years into MJ's 15 year career.

Btw, now that your lone defense against spacing is gone (that the 80's were spaced), you must accept that today's weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders, as explained in Chapter Y (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606684&postcount=408) and Chapter Z (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606688&postcount=410).

[StephHamann]

http://i.imgur.com/jnIRkOZ.gif

GOD DAMN

3Ball has half the board shook





























keep up the good work 3ball i'm a huge fan

http://media3.giphy.com/media/2WxWfiavndgcM/giphy.gif

[JohnMax]

Nobody Touches Jordan is the guy who uploaded Lebron's overrated defense video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK9wLWF8TXo

[Dbrog]

Why wouldn't I brag about it? As offenses evolve, defenses are forced to as well. Of course it only occurs today, because back in the day the shooters didn't exist. Shooting from distance was not at a premium back then while it is today. Don't say it wasn't necessary, because it wasn't permitted in the illegal defense era. That is why there were so many called clear-out isolations, even when non-shooters were beyond the arc.


If I didn't "realize" it then, I don't "realize" it now. Because paint camping is not legal, and never was, so my position is unchanged (and it will stay that way).

As long as you have any form of restrictions on the paint, it will never be allowed. The only reason there would be bunches of players in the paint-on offense and defense-is because there weren't tons of shooters on the floor, and coaches did not take advantage of illegal defense immediately. Again, this is why the clear-out isolation era was born, when guys would stand beyond the arc even if they weren't shooters, and the men guarding them had to follow them to an adjacent zone, unless they doubled on ball.

Rule 2b only tells you that a man could stay within 3 feet (from the block to the paint). For some reason, you believe this to be paint-camping enabled by the rules. It isn't. It's only what you perceive to be paint-camping, enabled by poor offensive strategy. If offensive players vacate the paint (to take advantage of illegal defense, or because they are legitimate 3pt shooters), defenders can't stay there either. You keep claiming defensive three seconds is something more restrictive than it was before, as if defensive three seconds didn't exist before. This is nonsense. The old rule 2d was replaced by the defensive three seconds, but without the complicated restrictions (fans, coaches, commentators, and players alike felt illegal defense was overly complicated; aside from the league being tired of teams taking advantage of putting non-shooters beyond the arc to force defenders to follow, the new guidelines were designed to be easier to understand). The only purpose the defensive three second rule change from 01 served was to prevent full-fledged zone, which was never legal.


If you want to say I was clueless then, then I'm clueless now, because my position is unchanged. In actuality, I disagree with you, and don't think you have a legitimate argument, because you keep insisting that the RULES permitted paint camping, as opposed to POOR OFFENSIVE STRATEGY.

Oh, before you bring up Stu Jackson saying it "opened up the game" (who you will), don't forget this, before the 81-82 rule change:

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


I was going to come in and post here..but then I saw this! :bowdown: :applause: :rockon: :pimp:

[Hey Yo]

If teams were doing the bolded above (spreading the floor with non-shooters and putting non-shooters behind the arc), that means there WAS spacing in the 80's - except there wasn't.. NO spacing was the norm in the 80's, not the other way around..

Therefore, when I say that today's weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders that players have to face, there's no counter to this - you can't say "well, teams used to put non-shooters behind the 3-point line".. This counterargument to weakside spacing requires a norm of spacing in the 80's that didn't exist, which is why I called you a liar.. Maybe you didn't realize you were lying.

Also, in addition to erroneously implying that spacing was the norm in the 80's, the bolded part of your post was BANNED in 1987, only 2 years into Jordan's 15-year career:


Sam Smith, Chicago Tribune, 1987:

"Section 32 Paragraph 15... a new rule in the NBA this season that prohibits teams from placing three or more players above the top of the key, away from the ball, thus clearing out for one-on-one or two-on-two play. A violation results in a loss of possession."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-11-15/sports/8703260367_1_bulls-coach-doug-collins-operations-chief-jerry-krause-michael-jordan-rule


Therefore, your initial agreement in bolded red above ("Yes") is your answer - not only did your counterargument to weakside spacing require a norm of spacing in the 80's that didn't exist, but such spacing for the purposes of isolating and clearing out was banned in 1987, just 2 years into MJ's 15 year career.

Btw, now that your lone defense against spacing is gone (that the 80's were spaced), you must accept that today's weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders, as explained in Chapter Y (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606684&postcount=408) and Chapter Z (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606688&postcount=410).
Why did you move my post above this ^^ one? It was below it when I logged off last night.